text:
Talk:Description logic

Concrete domains
What is a concrete domain?

To represent and reason values like integers and strings is difficult in Description Logic. eg: Age of a person is 4. Also different functions like comparison of numbers, concatenation of strings is difficult to reason. Concrete feature role connects an object to a value. eg: Shyam is 4 years old. Here "Shyam" is an object, "hasAge" is a datatype property and "4" is an positive integer. So the domain which has concepts and roles involving objects only is known as Abstract Domain. The domain which involves literals and the functions that can be performed on the literals is called Concrete Domain. Geetha nitc (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Basically a way to have datatype properties and predicates on them. For example age<18 See C. Lutz Description Lotics with Concrete Domains-A Survey Advances in Modal Logics v4 King's College 2003 128.253.87.56 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps also domain theory. Not clear to me if "concrete" here is the same "concrete" as in concrete category. linas 15:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DL Dialects
DL seem to be characterized by their features. For example the Web Ontology Language OWL is based on the ALCQHIR+ Description Logics dialect. Maybe this can be incorporated into the article. I am no expert on this. According to http://www.gi-ev.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Informatiktage/almost_owl.pdf the letters have the following meaning

 * basic Description Logic (AL)
 * with negation (C)
 * qualified number restrictions (Q)
 * role hierarchies (H)
 * inverse (I)
 * transitive roles (R+)
 * unqualified number restrictions (N)

Maybe somebody with more background knowledge can elaborate on this.

Hi,

OWL Lite is based on ALCR+HIF(D), OWL-DL is based on SHOIN(D) and OWL 1.1 is based on SHROIQ(D) although I'm not sure for the last one. Hope it helps. 193.251.169.175

Too Technical
Wow, I didn't understand a word of that, and I'm a fairly technical programmer with some knowledge of the Semantic Web. Why is this article (and many in this space) so impenetrable? A little more English and less jargon would be helpful for context or overview's sake. I second this. It's a shame that an article on a such a currently important topic like this couldn't possibly be understood by the majority of wiki users that must be currently accessing it. The Internet of Things is a yuge topic right now and many non technical individuals are seeking concise, digestible explanations of it basis.

Difficult to follow
I agree. The content as it is not very useful for someone who walked in with desire  to know more about Knowledge representation and reasoning. You are stuffing the page with jargons from get go;  quote "terminological knowledge ... structured and formally ..". Phew...take it easy dude.

Breaking the content into syntax, semantics and modeling is not appropriate here. This is not a overview section in a journal whose audience are mildly familiar with description logic and the objective is to put you and the reader in the same framework.

Try to give the reader a sense of what it can do and how to do it. If it is the case that "description logic"  is (or could be) applicable to real problems than it should be possible to write jargon-less introduction.

This paragraph gives a rough idea of how to structure the content: Description logic is one of the many languages for "Knowledge representation and reasoning. It is derived from frame languages (if that is the case) and but differs from them with respect to X,Y,Z. Developed at the peak of A.I., interest in this field is again gaining momentum in P,Q,R domain.''

At this point introduce "Concepts", "instances" and "Hierarchy" Next bring roles/properties into the picture.

And then go on step by to talk about various other non-trivial aspect of DL and describe constructs related to it. For more sophisticated stuff point out to relevant text.

-Thanks Wkpdia san (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for clarification
I tend to agree with these comments --- the terms used in the discussion here sometimes make the page almost circular --- concepts are defined in terms of other concepts the reader is unlikely to know. Some suggestions:

 * the topic sentence defines description logics as "represent the terminological knowledge of an application domain...." "Terminological knowledge" is not a sufficiently common phrase that it should go without definition.  Ideally you should give an intuitive equivalent to this in the topic sentence and, after that, introduce "terminological" with a definition.
 * I'd suggest presenting an example use of a DL in the topic paragraph to make this more concrete. E.g., the (now very tired) wine example.
 * The term "atomic concepts" is used without definition. It's not clear whether these are "atomic" in a sense like axiomatic --- they are not definable in the language --- or whether they are something simpler than that.  Also, if concept names are atomic givens, how does the user of a description logic define new concept names?
 * I think it would be helpful to add an introduction to the syntax section to explain what this means. That is, we can talk about the syntax of the first order predicate calculus because, down to some pretty minor renamings, there is a single first order predicate calculus.  But there seems to be a whole menagerie of DLs.  So does this syntax section represent a kind of consensus syntax that most DLs would admit?  Should the article talk here about variations in syntax?
 * Maybe put a link from the first mention of the top and bottom concepts in the syntax section into their definitions in the semantics section? I'm  concerned that the reader will be lost far before s/he reaches the meat of the article.
 * In the semantics section explain that this is a denotational semantics and link to an article defining denotational semantics? I'm wondering what happens to readers who stumble on this article without background in logic.
 * Give a concrete example of an R-successor in the semantics section. E.g., the father-of George W. Bush is George H.W. Bush, so G.H.W. Bush is a father-of-successor of Dubya.
 * What does "Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two `kinds' of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic..." mean? "same" as what sense?  Should this just be "in the sense that"?
 * For that matter, if the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, then why present it to the reader? I think the answer is that the distinction may not be semantically significant, but it is extremely significant with respect to the implementation of DLs in deductive databases.
 * For that matter again, the discussion of syntax here covers only the syntax of the TBox. You can't say "Bob is an employee" in the language generated by that syntax, because there are no individuals.
 * The article says "When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it." For the reader to follow this, the article should give that translation.  For that matter, I don't know what "a conditional restriction" is in first order logic.  There is no notion of "restriction" in FOP.  There is implication --- I believe the translation would be something like (forall x (implies (employee x) (person x))) [sorry, my wiki fu is not up to writing first order logic in anything more elaborate than prefix].  But I don't believe the author intends to say that this is just an implication.  S/he is trying to say "an implication of a specific form," I believe, but the specific form in question needs to be defined.
 * "Modeling in description logics" is all about the TBox/ABox distinction and, unfortunately, says nothing about modeling with DLs. I'd suggest it be retitled as "TBox and ABox," and a modeling section added.
 * The term "Complex concept negation." is not defined.
 * The different forms of DL were created in attempts to trade off expressive power and computability. This article badly needs a brief discussion to say:
 * what are the decision problems of DLs? and
 * what is the complexity of these decision problems in the various dialects.
 * In "Differences with OWL," a brief definition of OWL would be helpful to remind the reader why s/he might care about this relation. The differences I believe, are not confined to the use of jargon.  OWL comes in different flavors, with more or less direct relationships with DLs.

Alas, while I have enough background in logic and AI to make the above suggestions, I do not have any background in DL to speak of, and am certainly not qualified to actually act on these suggestions. Rpgoldman (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I have attempted to address some of your concerns, except for examples.Hahahaha4 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

viz. Ontology languages
I would like to see a clarification w.r.t. ontology languages and frame languages. Descriptive language seem to be frame languages, with extra stuff added. They seem not to support any predicates, and thus are a special case of the more general class of ontology languages. All in agreement on this? linas 14:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On closer review, this article is usually rather unclear about the relationship between DL and predicate logic. It implies that DL is "expressible as predicate logic" -- true, but misleading? Then it says that DL's logical operations are those of predicate logic-- again, true, but misleading. It never seems to say that DL doesn't actually support predicates, which seems to me to be a glaring ommission, although there may be support for unary predicates only??? Huh?

The relationship of some of the DL concepts to the more traditional "extension and intension in lattices" (is an instance of, is generalized by) is unclear (see article formal concept analysis and lattice (order)).

And, while I'm nit-picking, the first section of the article, titled "syntax", seems to describe nothing other than the basic operations of naive set theory, without actually saying the words "set theory". One might argue that "top" and "bottom" are from lattice (order) but again, that article is not linked. No mention of either domain theory or Galois connection. I suppose I could try to fix this myself ... linas 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DL Expressivity - expressivity link
The expressivity link currently links to expressivity in genetics. I guess we need a disambiguation (as well as writing something for expressivity in the DL sense).

I'm not sure how to do that... Drevicko (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AL vs. ALC
In the section Syntax an DL called AL (Attributive Language) is described. Wouldn't it be better if it's called ALC (Attributive Language with Complements)? --Xylometazolin (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 * AL is distinct from ALC (though it is not hard to miss why). AL has atomic negation (defined particularly for that name AL). ALC has full negation where it can be applied to any concept in a T-Box. Negation normal form on an ALC T-Box will push all the occurences in a T-Box down to the leaves (to atomic concepts) but will still allow negation on the left-hand side. Hahahaha4 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * ...and so I added something about ALC to help explain. Hahahaha4 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up
I have started to produce a useful overview description logics. It is just a crude start, but certainly needs more work.

I have also deleted the sections below, because they are unintelligible to anyone that does not already understand DLs. Wikipedia should be educational, not just a forum for displaying how intelligent we are. The sections could go back, but only after more explanitory text and examples.

For example, only a DL expert would know what "if C is an AL-concept and R is a role name, then $$\forall R.C$$ (value restriction) is also an AL-concept;" actually means.

Tuntable (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with this general approach to "clean-up". Description logics are a branch of mathematics, not programming, and trying to dumb down this entry to avoid any material requiring an understanding of mathematical logic is tantamount to a declaring that mathematics has no place on Wikipedia.

The Overview draft which has been included mischaracterizes DLs. The ability to create a hierarchy of classes is a nice and useful feature, but at its heart a DL is a way of writing down axioms whose semantics are defined in terms of satisfiability.

An entry on Java should be accessible, and the entry on Web Ontology Language should be accessible. The Java entry may link to type theory, but it would be aburd to try to make that entry non-mathematical. Similarly, OWL may link to this page on DLs, but that is not an excuse to treat DLs in a non-technical way.

Rvcx (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Syntax
Syntax of description logics consists of In general, a concept denotes the set of individuals that belongs to it, and a role denotes a relationship between concepts.
 * A set of unary predicate symbols that are used to denote concept names;
 * A set of binary relations that are used to denote role names;
 * A recursive definition for defining concept terms from concept names and role names using constructors.

The syntax of a member of the description logic family is characterized by its recursive definition, in which the constructors that can be used to form concept terms are stated. Some common constructors include logical constructors in first-order logic such as intersection or conjunction of concepts, union or disjunction of concepts, negation or complement of concepts, value restriction (universal restriction), existential restriction, etc. Other constructors may also include restrictions on roles which are usual for binary relations, for example, inverse, transitivity, functionality, etc. Especially for intersection and union, description logics use the symbols $$\sqcap$$ and $$\sqcup$$ to distinguish them from the first-order logic $$and$$ and $$or$$.

The following is an example of definition of the syntax of the description logic AL (Attributive Language).
 * an atomic concept is an AL-concept;
 * the top concept ($$\top$$) is an AL-concept;
 * the bottom concept ($$\bot$$) is an AL-concept;
 * the complement of an AL-concept C is also an AL-concept (denoted by ¬C); C must be an atomic concept;
 * the intersection (conjunction) of two AL-concepts C and D is also an AL-concept (denoted by $$C\sqcap D$$);
 * if C is an AL-concept and R is a role name, then $$\forall R.C$$ (value restriction) is also an AL-concept;
 * if R is a role name, then $$\exists R.\top$$ (limited existential restriction) is also an AL-concept.

For example, $$A \sqcap B$$ is an AL-concept, but $$A \sqcup B$$ is not. Also, $$\exists S.\top$$ is an AL-concept, but $$\exists S.A$$ is not.

Semantics
The semantics of description logics is defined by interpreting concepts as sets of individuals and roles as sets of pairs of individuals. Those individuals are typically assumed from a given domain. The semantics of non atomic concepts and roles is then defined in terms of atomic concepts and roles. This is done by using a recursive definition similar to the syntax.

For example, given a set as the domain, an interpretation of AL-concepts is defined first over atomic concepts and roles as follows: Next, this interpretation is extended to non atomic concept and role according to the constructors. This is done in the following.
 * An atomic concept is interpreted as a set of individuals that is a subset of the domain.
 * An atomic role is interpreted as a set of pairs of individuals from the domain, i.e., a binary relation over the domain. In this case, if an individual x is related to y via a role R, then y is called an R-successor of x.
 * The top concept is interpreted as the whole domain.
 * The bottom concept is interpreted as the empty set.
 * The interpretation of ¬C is the set of all individuals in the domain which does not belong to the interpretation of C.
 * Intersection of two concepts C and D is interpreted as set-intersection, i.e., the set of all individuals in the domain that belongs to both the interpretation of C and the interpretation of D.
 * The value restriction ∀R.C is interpreted as the set of all individuals in the domain whose R-successors (if any) all belong to the interpretation of C.
 * The limited existential restriction $$\exists R.\top$$ is interpreted as the set of all individuals in the domain that have at least one R-successor.

Example. If P is interpreted as the set of all persons in our domain and F is interpreted as the set of all females, then the set of all persons that are not female can be expressed by the concept
 * $$P\sqcap\neg F$$

I should...?

 * What people should also think about for intelligent systems is multiple viewpoints of the data. This will lead to subjective (as opposed to objective) intelligent systems.

What the bleeping bleep bleep is that all about? This is Wikipedia, not a homework assignment or futurist screed. Exorcise, please, 'pedians! --Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

µOR
Are there any better references available for µOR, which was recently added to the list of reasoners? The paper cited isn't available through the LNCS portal yet so I'm unable to confirm any information at all about the reasoner. I'm tempted to remove the entry entirely until the reasoner's existence and basic functionality can be verified. (This is standard Wikipedia policy.) Rvcx (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The cited paper is finally available online, and there's no evidence that µOR is actually a reasoner for description logics; it simply does some kind of processing on files written in a restricted subset of the OWL syntax. There is no analysis of whether or not the reasoner respects DL semantics. (My expectation is that it probably doesn't.) The µOR reasoner is thus relevant to OWL, but not to description logics, and has been removed from this article. Rvcx (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes Section
This section needs a rewrite. Each entry is "Name et. al. pg#" without a link or adequate information to find the referred source. 76.20.7.139 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Switched article to longer citation style. Hopefully this improvement should tackle this issue. 130.88.170.110 (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Expressive logic reasoners
The list is a bit odd to include KAON2 and not Pellet or HermiT and to include CEL (which is only for a polytime fragment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.198.12 (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

only the concepts?
"Optimising Ontology Classification", Glimm et al. have shown that through a reduction of properties to classes, one can reason about them as well. 77.11.150.2 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted sentences from Fuzzy description logic
I deleted "What people should also think about for intelligent systems is multiple viewpoints of the data. This will lead to subjective (as opposed to objective) intelligent systems.". If someone wants to expand on that, great, but on their own, the sentences are pretty much meaningless and seem like OR. Silver hr (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

DL and OWL
The article is mixing OWL/RDFS notation with DL notation, which I think is incorrect. DL does not define such things as owl:Thing, rdfs:Subclass, etc. In my opinion, such references should be deleted. If clariffication is needed, I would add a new Section - e.g. relation between DL and OWL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.46.227.222 (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Page is unclear for non logicians
The page contains definitions for description logic in logical / mathematical language. This is great but it remains unclear for those of us not well versed in that language. I suggest that someone who understands the topic add a serious number of examples (for ALC?) somewhere in the page.

In addition, it might be nice if the symbols were rendered using the very wide Unicode character set rather than images. This way, there is at least some hope of searching for symbols in the page using your web browser. I assume Unicode actually contains all the logic symbols! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsonsmithson1974 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Description logic. 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/20070627202215/http://pellet.owldl.com/papers/sirin05pellet.pdf to http://pellet.owldl.com/papers/sirin05pellet.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925082014/http://pellet.owldl.com/ to http://pellet.owldl.com/

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) 09:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

AL - why limited?
The article states that AL allows Limited existential quantification. Why limited? AL allows $$\exists R.C$$ also if $$C \not\equiv T$$. See Franz Baader, Ian Horrocks, Carsten Lutz and Uli Sattler: An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. (Cambridge University Press) --Dadaistic Artwork (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 * By looking at table A.3 in the appendix of the book you mentioned, I understand that AL does not allow full existential quantification - this appears in EL, ALE or languages encompassing these two.
 * Could you please point out which part of the book claims that AL allows for full existential restrictions? Verderame33 (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Description logic


text:
Chen Yun

Chen Yun (, pronounced ; 13 June 1905 – 10 April 1995) was a Chinese revolutionary leader who was one of the most influential leaders of the People's Republic of China during the 1980s and 1990s and one of the major architects and important policy makers for the reform and opening up period, alongside Deng Xiaoping. He was also known as Liao Chenyun (廖陈云), as he took his uncle's (Liao Wenguang; 廖文光) family name when he was adopted by him after his parents died.

A major Chinese Communist Party (CCP) political figure before the establishment of the PRC, Chen first joined the CCP Central Committee in 1931, and the Politburo in 1934. He became the head of the CCP's Organization Department in 1937, and became one of CCP leader Mao Zedong's close advisors. He played an important role in the Yan'an Rectification Movement of 1942, and started becoming responsible for economic affairs that year, ultimately heading the Central Finance and Economic Commission from 1949.

After the establishment of the PRC, Chen was a key figure in moderating many of Mao's radical economic ideas. Chen was instrumental in China's economic reconstruction following the disastrous Great Leap Forward (1958–1960) along with Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai, advocating for a "bird cage" economy in which the market economy should be allowed to play a role but kept contained like a "bird in a cage". Chen was demoted during the Cultural Revolution though he returned to power after Mao's death in 1976.

After Deng Xiaoping's rehabilitation, Chen voiced his criticism of Maoist policies, decrying China's lack of economic policies, and later became one of the architects of Deng's reform and opening up policy. During the 1980s and the 1990s, Chen was regarded as the second-most powerful person in China after Deng and was later recognized as one of the Eight Elders of the Chinese Communist Party. Initially a strong advocate for economic reforms, Chen increasingly became conservative towards the reforms as they progressed, becoming a key figure in slowing many reforms and becoming the leader of CCP's conservative factions. Chen resigned from the Central Committee in 1987 though kept his influence as the chairman of the Central Advisory Committee until 1992, when he fully retired from politics.

Early life
Chen was born in Qingpu, Jiangsu (now part of Shanghai) in 1905. Chen was typesetter for the famous Commercial Press of Shanghai, which printed revolutionary books and even Protestant Bibles. He played a prominent role as a younger organizer in the labor movement during the early and mid-1920s, joining the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1924. Following the May Thirtieth Movement of 1925, Chen was an important organizer under Zhou Enlai and Liu Shaoqi. For a time, Zhou and Yun resided at a Church of Christ in Changting which was the site of a revolutionary committee. After Chiang Kai-shek turned against the CCP in 1927, Chen fled to his hometown, but soon returned to Shanghai and secretly continued his work as a labor unionist.

Chen was one of the few Communist Party organizers from an urban working-class background; he worked underground as a union organizer in the late 1920s, participated in the Long March, and served on the Central Committee from 1931 to 1987. He was active throughout his career in the field of economics, despite receiving no formal education after elementary school.

Early Communist Party career
He served on the Central Committee in the Third Plenary Session of 6th Central Committee of CCP in 1930 and became a member of the Politburo in 1934. In 1933 he evacuated to Ruijin, in Jiangxi province, the headquarters of the CCP's main "soviet" area. He was in overall charge of the Party's "white areas" work, that is, underground activities in places not under Party control. On the Long March he was one of the four Standing Committee members of the Political Bureau who attended the January 1935 Zunyi Conference. He left the Long March sometime in the spring of 1935, returning to Shanghai, and in September 1935 he went to Moscow, serving as one of the CCP's representatives to the Comintern sent by the Fifth Plenum Politburo, although he did not take part in the work of the delegation because he was sent to the Stalingrad Tractor Factory as a punishment for his participation in the Luo Zhanglong faction.

In 1937 Chen returned to China as an adviser to the Xinjiang leader Sheng Shicai. Chen later joined Mao in Yan'an, probably before the end of 1937. In November 1937 he became director of the Party's Organization Department, serving in that capacity until 1944, and by the early 1940s was in the inner circle of Mao's advisers. His writings on organization, ideology, and cadre training were included in the important study materials for the Yan'an Rectification Movement of 1942, a campaign of political persecutions which consolidated Mao's power within the Party. During this time, it is known that he protected some comrades accused of being Trotskyites, and criticized the exaggerations of the campaign in the Shandong base area.

Chen's economic career began in 1942, when he was replaced by Ren Bishi as head of the CCP Organization Department. In his new position, Chen was assigned responsibility for the financial management of Northwest China. Two years later, he was identified as responsible for finance in the Shaan-Gan-Ning Border Region as well. He added Northeast China to his portfolio in 1946 (then under the overall leadership of General Lin Biao and Political Commissar Peng Zhen).

During the middle of the 1940s, Chen was a major contributor to the party's strategy of "economic warfare." Under this concept, reviving the economy in liberated areas was a major contribution to the revolutionary struggle. Chen argued that economic development and production were critical, explaining that "[o]nly if we can solve the problem of food and clothing for the masses can we become leaders of the masses. Thus, a revolutionary businessman is an outright revolutionary."

A main challenge for the Communists during this period was driving out the Nationalist's competing currency and replacing it with the currencies used in the revolutionary base areas. Chen argued that the approach should rely on both economic and political mechanisms (as opposed to prohibition), including regulating the value of competing currencies and controlling trade in key commodities. Another Chen Yun's contribution to the early development of the Chinese economy was his stabilization of prices in Shanghai after the Nationalist government failed to curb the financial crisis caused by speculations of corporate monopolies.

Political career under Mao
In May 1949, Chen Yun was named head of the new national Central Finance and Economic Commission. In early 1952, Zhou Enlai led a team to draft the first Five-Year Plan which included Chen, Bo Yibo, Li Fuchun and General Nie Rongzhen. Zhou, Chen and Li presented the draft to Soviet experts in Moscow, who rejected it. In early 1953, Gao Gang and the State Planning Commission began work on what would eventually become the final version. After Gao's fall, Chen Yun, Bo Yibo, Li Fuchuan and (later) Li Xiannian would manage the Chinese economy for more than 30 years.

Economic management
During the 1950s and 1960s, Chen was a proponent of more market-oriented economic measures. Looking back, Chen would later believe that it was the Mao's errors that most kept China from achieving its Five-Year Plans. In 1956, when the 8th National Congress of Chinese Communist Party was held, Chen was elected a vice chairman of the Central Committee. Around that time, both Mao and Chen had come to believe that the economic system, modeled on that of the Soviet Union, was overly centralized, but had different ideas about what to do about it. Chen's proposal was to make wider use of the market, allowing for the operation of supply and demand rather than simple government fiat in determining the allocation of resources. He argued that decisions concerning prices and production should be made by individual firms, in conformity with business logic. At the same time, he favored giving the central government ministries stronger control over these firms, to assure that their decisions did not transgress the boundaries of the plan.

Mao's idea, rather, was to devolve powers to provincial and local authorities, which were in practice Party committees rather than state technocrats, and to use mass mobilization rather than either a detailed central plan or the market to promote economic growth. Mao's program prevailed, and these policies converged with the rest of the ultimately disastrous Great Leap Forward. By early 1959, the economy was already showing signs of strain. In January of that year, Chen Yun published an article calling for increased Soviet aid. In March, he published a subdued but general critique of the Leap, especially its reliance on the mass movement. Economic growth, he asserted, was not simply a matter of speed. It required attention to safe working conditions and quality engineering. It depended on technical skill, not just political awareness.

Cultural Revolution
Chen fell out of favor with Mao. In the summer of 1959 the Party convened a meeting at the resort town of Lushan to review the policies of the Leap. The Minister of Defense, Marshal Peng Dehuai, attacked the radicalism of the Leap, and Mao took this, or affected to take it, as an attack on himself and his authority. Mao responded with a vicious personal attack on Peng. Peng lost his military positions and the Party undertook a general purge of what Mao termed right opportunism. Further reform of the Leap policies was now out of the question. China continued on its set course for another year or more, and by the end of 1960 had fallen deep into famine.

Chen Yun was certainly in sympathy with Peng Dehuai's criticism of the Leap and joined forces with Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping to manage the economy in the post-Great Leap Forward period, which required deft handling of Chairman Mao's sensitivity to criticism.

Chen retained his positions as Party vice chairman and member of the Politburo and continued to express his opinions behind the scenes. In 1961 he conducted investigations of the rural areas around Shanghai. According to a Cultural Revolution attack on him by the radical group within the finance system, he reported the peasants as saying: "In the days of Chiang Kai-shek we had rice to eat. In the glorious era of Chairman Mao, we have only gruel." According to his obituary, Chen was one of the main designers of the economic policies of the 1961-1962 "capitalist road" era, when China's economic policy stressed material incentives and sought to encourage economic growth in preference to pursuing ideological goals. This approach is often referred to as Chen's "bird-cage" theory of post-Great Leap economic recovery, where the bird represents the free market and the cage represents a central plan. Chen proposed that a balance should be found between "setting the bird free" and choking the bird with a central plan that was too restrictive; this theory would later become a focal point of criticism against Chen during the Cultural Revolution. His only public appearance during this time was a photograph of him published on the front page of the People's Daily and other major newspapers on May 1, 1962, showing Chen shaking hands with Chairman Mao, while Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, and Deng Xiaoping (the entire inner core of leadership of that time, with the exception of Lin Biao) look on. There was no caption or any other explanation.

During the Cultural Revolution, Chen Yun was denounced in Red Guard publications but not in the official press. He was re-elected to the Central Committee in the Ninth Party Congress in April 1969 but not to the Politburo. He no longer held any functional positions. Later that year he was "evacuated" from Beijing, as were many other inactive or disgraced first-generation leaders, as part of a supposed plan preparing against the eventuality of an invasion by the Soviet Union with whom China had a serious split. Chen was put to work in a factory in Nanchang in Jiangxi province, where he stayed for three years. In January 1975, he was elected to the Standing Committee of China's legislature, the National People's Congress.

Career during the reform period
Following the death of Mao in September 1976 and the coup d'état against the radical Gang of Four a month later, Chen became increasingly active in the country's political life. He and General Wang Zhen petitioned Party chairman Hua Guofeng to rehabilitate Deng Xiaoping at the March 1977 CCP CC Work Conference, but were turned down. After Deng was rehabilitated later that year, Chen led the attack on the Maoist era at the November–December 1978 CCP CC Work Conference, raising the sensitive "six issues": the purges of Bo Yibo, Tao Zhu, Wang Heshou and Peng Dehuai; the 1976 Tiananmen Incident; and, Kang Sheng's errors. Chen raised the six issues in order to undermine Hua and his leftist supporters. Chen's intervention tipped the balance in favor of movement toward an open repudiation of the Cultural Revolution and Deng Xiaoping's promotion, in December 1978, to de facto head of the regime. Chen laid the basis for Deng's "reform and opening" program.

In July 1979, Chen Yun was named head (and Li Xiannian deputy head) of the new national Economic and Financial Commission staffed with his own allies and conservative economic planners. In April and July of that year he made further provocative statements in internal Party meetings, although their authenticity was denied (in an equivocal manner) by official spokesmen. In these Chen deplored China's lack of economic progress and the people's loss of confidence in the Party. In April he criticized the luxurious life of Party leaders (including himself), and said if he had known in the period before the liberation what the past ten-some years would be like (that is, the Cultural Revolution period), he would have defected to Chiang Kai-shek. He deplored Mao's dictatorial ways and implied, although not very strongly, that the Party should take a milder line against dissidents. If "Lin Biao and the Gang of Four; that is, the radical leftists" had been able to assure the people food and clothing, he said, they would not have been so easy to overthrow.

In July, Chen developed these themes in another exposition (which also included some sarcastic observations on the late Chairman's taste in literature). Chen said: "We say the old dynasties and the KMT 'ruled' the country, but talk instead of the 'leadership' of the Communist Party. But the Party is in fact a ruling party, and if it wishes to keep its position it must also keep the support of the people. It should not float above the masses but should live among them as their servants. Both the welfare of the people and the Party's ruling position require that the Party shrink the distance between itself and the people."

The old dynasties, Chen said, knew the value of a policy of yielding or retreating from untenable positions. The Party has to be able to step back from its past practices: in economy, culture, education, science, and ideology. Without compromising the basic principle of socialism, Chen believed that the Party must accommodate, for the time being, co-existence with aspects of capitalism. But all of this, Chen added, must be done carefully: otherwise China would be in danger of abandoning socialism and restoring capitalism. These pronouncements presaged the major reorientation of Chinese communism in the reform movement.

Role in promoting economic reform
Though Deng Xiaoping is credited as the architect of modern China's economic reforms, Chen Yun contributed much to the strategy adopted by Deng, and Chen was more directly involved in the details of its planning and construction. A key feature of the reform was to use the market to allocate resources, within the scope of an overall plan. The reforms of the early 1980s were, in effect, the implementation, finally, of the program Chen had outlined in the mid-1950s. Chen called this the "birdcage economy". According to Chen, "the cage is the plan, and it may be large or small. But within the cage the bird [the economy] is free to fly as he wishes."

In 1981 a rival "Financial and Economic Leading Group" was established under Zhao Ziyang and staffed by a balanced mix of economic planners. In 1982 Chen Yun, who was 77 years old, stepped down from the Politburo and Central Committee and served as Chairman of the new Central Advisory Commission, an institution set up to provide a place for leadership of the founding generation to remain involved in public affairs.

During the 1980s, Chen was very much involved in policy discussions. In the beginning and as one of the major architects for the reform and opening up, he supported Deng and the liberal market reforms that had been so successful in agriculture to urban areas and the industrial sector. Moreover, he still posited for the state to retain an active role in market development and planning, a policy that would influence future generations of leadership, including Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping. He played an active role in the "Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign" organised in late 1983, to help safeguard China's political status quo and domestic stability.

Chen Yun was widely admired and respected for striking a balance between excessive laissez faire capitalism and retaining state leadership in guiding China's market economy. Deng and Chen's reforms and foresight helped make generations of Chinese become richer since the days of Mao's Cultural Revolution, as well as propel China into becoming one of the top economies in the world (number one by PPP and number two by nominal GDP).

Late opponent of reform
Chen was not, in principle, opposed to the scope of Deng's reforms; China's economic policy had effectively frozen consumer prices for decades, to the point that prices in China no longer had much relationship to the relative value of resources, goods, or services. Chen objected to the way in which the urban reforms were carried out. The immediate consequence of Deng's price reform was a sudden and massive inflation, unprecedented in the experience of the younger generation and particularly frightening to older folks who could still remember the rampant inflation in the last years of the Nationalist regime. The increasing circulation of money in the economy, together with a hybrid system in which those in official position or with official connections were particularly well-placed to take advantage of the new opportunities to make a profit, encouraged official corruption. Chen Yun also fought against corruption and harshly cracked down corrupt officials.

The government's first response to inflation was to issue bonuses to workers in state-owned enterprises, to help make up for the price increases. Chen Yun argued that, if there were to be such bonuses, they should be gauged to increased productivity. In practice, the bonuses were universal throughout the state sector and had the same economic effect as if the government had simply printed more money. Because Chinese farmers were not eligible for bonuses since they were not technically state employees, China's agricultural sector, which had prospered in the first stage of the reform, was especially damaged by inflation.

Chen's theory had been that the market should supplement the plan. In the context of radical Maoism this made him seem like a social democratic proponent of market socialism. It turned out, however, that Chen meant exactly what he had said. He was much less enthusiastic about the market than Deng Xiaoping and Deng's younger colleagues. Although in his "secret" pronouncements of 1979 Chen had shown an unusual personal disdain for Mao, he also indicated he shared the late Chairman's worries that China would abandon socialism and revert to capitalism. Chen was skeptical regarding the special economic zones (SEZ), viewing them as a non-socialist experiment.

During the 1980s Chen emerged as the main figure among the more hard-line opponents of reform. He supported the vigorous campaign in the early 1980s against the "three kinds of people", a general purge of all those who had been identified with radical factions during the Cultural Revolution. He made common cause with conservatives among other Party elders. During the reform era Chen refused to meet with foreigners. Chen never visited the new SEZs. In a memorial tribute to Li Xiannian, an old colleague from the economic system (and, like Chen, one of the few real proletarians among the first generation of Party leaders), Chen stated that he was not necessarily opposed to everything about the SEZs. While Chen became the moral leader of the conservative opposition to Deng Xiaoping, he did not challenge Deng's personal primacy as head of regime.

Although Zhao Ziyang's promotion of political and economic reform made Zhao one of Chen's main political rivals, Chen was one of the Party elders active in the 1980s who Zhao respected most. In Zhao's autobiography, Chen was one of the few elders who Zhao referred to regularly as a "comrade". Before implementing new policies, Zhao made a habit of visiting Chen, in order to solicit Chen's advice and attempt to gain Chen's approval. In the event that Zhao failed to gain Chen's approval, Zhao would then normally attempt to fall back on the favor of Deng Xiaoping in order to promote reforms.

Tiananmen Square protests
In 1989, Chen, alongside Deng Xiaoping, Li Peng, and others, was among the Party elders responsible for making the key decisions concerning the student-led Tiananmen Square protests. There is no evidence that Chen indulged in diatribes against the students or actively advocated their violent repression. While Chen was opposed to the violent suppression of the students, he gave his support to the military once the action had begun. Chen agreed that Zhao Ziyang should be replaced as the formal head of the Party, and he endorsed Li Xiannian's nomination of Jiang Zemin as the new Party General Secretary.

Retirement and death
After the 13th Party Congress in November 1987, Chen ended his 56 year–long political career as a member of the CCP Central Committee, also leaving the Politburo Standing Committee, along with both Deng Xiaoping and Li Xiannian. However, Chen succeeded Deng as the Chairman of the Central Advisory Committee. During Chen's term, the Central Advisory Committee has become a leading force of the conservative faction within the Chinese Communist Party.

After the Tiananmen Square incident in June 1989, Chen Yun's influence grew within the party due to the removal of reformists Zhao Ziyang and Hu Qili from the Politburo Standing Committee. However, after Deng Xiaoping's southern tour in early 1992, Chen Yun and the conservative faction's influence within the party waned significantly.

In October 1992 at the age of 87, Chen retired from politics along with other party elders at the 14th Party Congress when the Central Advisory Committee was also abolished.

Chen died in 12 April 1995, at the age of 89.

Legacy
Chen Yun was known for his foundational role in spearheading the reform and opening up alongside Deng Xiaoping. During Deng's term, Chen Yun was the second most powerful person in China. Chen was praised for implementing many of the reforms that made the new generation of Chinese richer, but was also admired for striking a balance between too much laissez-faire economics and retaining state control over key areas of the market. He was liberal in the beginning, but later more cautious and conservative, especially in his last years. He was widely admired by the Chinese populace, known for his wide-sweeping economic strategic planning, morality and incorruptibility.

Chen's political perspective is generally viewed as reformist until about 1980, but conservative after about 1984. Chen Yun remains one of China's most powerful and influential leaders, especially in the PRC's first 50 years, as he was a central decision-maker for the CCP, serving on the Central Committee and Politburo for over 40 years.

In the beginning, Chen supported Deng, carried out and implemented many of the influential reforms that made a generation of Chinese richer. But later, Chen realized that the state still needed an active iron hand involvement in the market to prevent the private sector from becoming untamable. Chen's criticism of Deng's later economic reforms was widely influential within the Communist Party and was reflected in the policies of China's leaders after Deng. Chen's theories supported the efforts of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao to use state power to provide boundaries for the operation of the market, and to mediate the damage that capitalism can do to those who find it difficult to benefit from the free market. Chen's notion of the CCP as a "ruling party" is central to the redefinition of the role of the Party in Jiang Zemin's Three Represents. In 2005, on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of Chen's birth, the Party press published, over the course of several weeks, the proceedings of a symposium discussing Chen's contributions to CCP history, theory and practice.

Although Chen opposed the Mao regime and opposed some of Deng's later policies, Chen was still widely respected as one of the leading elders of the Chinese Communist Party. During the Cultural Revolution, Chen was able to escape political persecution, especially in Mao's time, as he carefully avoided challenging the top leadership too much. Whatever the wisdom of his substantive positions, Chen consistently appeared to act on principle rather than for personal advantage, and retained his influence in the party throughout the Mao and Deng eras.

His eldest son, Chen Yuan, is the founding Governor of the China Development Bank and the former Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

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

title: Chen Yun


text:
Operation Latchkey

Operation Latchkey was a series of 38 nuclear tests conducted by the United States in 1966–1967 at the Nevada Test Site. These tests followed the Operation Flintlock series and preceded the Operation Crosstie series.

Persimmon
Persimmon included a vertical line-of-sight pipe fitted with a fast-acting closure. At the time of detonation, this vacuum pipe provided a pathway for neutrons from the nuclear device to travel to instruments in a tower located above the shot hole. A few seconds after detonation, these instruments and their samples were dragged out of the tower on a sled, before the subsidence crater formed and destroyed the tower.

title: Operation Latchkey


text:
Paramount leader

Paramount leader is an informal term for the most important political figure in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The paramount leader typically controls the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People's Liberation Army (PLA), often holding the titles of CCP General Secretary and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC). The state representative, head of state (president) or head of government (premier) are not necessarily paramount leader—under China's party-state system, CCP roles are politically more important than state titles.

The paramount leader is not a formal position nor an office unto itself. The term gained prominence during the era of Deng Xiaoping (1978–1989), when he was able to wield political power without holding any official or formally significant party or government positions at any given time (state representative, head of government or CCP General Secretary). As the leader of the world's largest economy by GDP purchasing power parity (PPP), the second largest economy by nominal GDP, and a potential superpower, the paramount leader is considered to be one of the world's most powerful political figures.

There has been significant overlap between paramount leader status and leadership core status, with a majority but not all of paramount leaders being also leadership cores, though they are separate concepts. The term has been used less frequently to describe Deng's successors, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping, who have all formally held the offices of General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (party leader), President of the People's Republic of China (state representative) and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (commander-in-chief). Jiang, Hu and Xi are therefore usually referred to as president in the international scene, the title used by most other republican heads of state. However, Deng's successors derive their real power from the post of general secretary, which is the primary position in the Chinese power structure and generally regarded by scholars as the post whose holder can be considered paramount leader. The presidency is a largely ceremonial office according to the Constitution, and the most powerful position in the Chinese political system is the CCP general secretary.

Xi Jinping is the current paramount leader. He is considered to have taken on the role in November 2012, when he became CCP general secretary, rather than in March 2013 when he succeeded Hu Jintao as president.

History
Chairman Mao Zedong was the undisputed ruler of Communist China from its beginning in 1949 and held three chairman offices at once: Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman of the Central Military Commission and Chairman of the People's Republic of China (1954–59), making him the leader of the party, military and state, respectively. Following the Cultural Revolution, a rough consensus emerged within the party, that the worst excesses were caused by lack of checks and balances in the exercise of political power and the resulting "rule of personality" by Mao.

Beginning in the 1980s, the leadership experimented with a quasi-separation of powers, whereby the offices of general secretary, president and premier were held by different people. In 1985, for example, the CCP General Secretary was Hu Yaobang, the Chinese President was Li Xiannian and the Chinese Premier was Zhao Ziyang. However, Deng Xiaoping was still recognized as the core of the leadership. Both Hu and Zhao fell out of favour in the late 1980s, but Deng was able to retain ultimate political control.

In a discussion with Central Committee members in the lead-up 4th Plenum of the Thirteenth Central Committee (Jun. 23-24 1989), Deng Xiaoping introduced the concept of the "Core Leader". In his analysis, despite the existence of figures like Chen Duxiu, Qu Qiubai, Xiang Zhongfa, Li Lisan, and Wang Ming, the Party did not have a proper "Core Leader" until the ascent of Mao Zedong at the Zunyi Conference of 1935. Mao's election ushered in the "First Generation" of CCP leadership. As for the second generation, Deng conceded that in retrospect, he had himself been the "Core", but that he had been constantly planning for the transition to a third generation. For this purpose, he encouraged his audience to rally around Jiang Zemin as the core of the "Third Generation". Despite Deng formally relinquishing the position of Chairman of the Central Military Commission until the 5th Plenum (Nov. 6-9 1989), official histories published by the CCP regard this endorsement, at the 4th Plenum, as the transition from the Deng administration to the Jiang administration.

The paramount leader label has been applied to Deng's successors, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, though it is generally recognized that they did not wield as much power as Deng despite their having held more offices of leadership. There has been a greater emphasis on collective leadership, whereby the top leader is a first among equals style figure, exercising power with the consensus of the CCP Politburo Standing Committee. This was particularly apparent during the tenure of Hu Jintao. Beginning in 1993, Jiang formally held the three offices that made him the head of the party, state, and military:
 * General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party: the party leader and the primary position of the state.
 * Chairman of the Central Military Commission: Supreme Military Command of the People's Liberation Army.
 * President of the People's Republic of China: the largely ceremonial state representative under the 1982 Constitution.

When Jiang left the offices of General Secretary and President in 2002 and 2003, respectively, he held onto the position of Chairman of the Central Military Commission. Military power had always been an important facet in the exercise of political power in Communist-ruled China and as such holding the top military post meant Jiang retained some formal power. When Jiang stepped down from his formal posts between 2002 and 2004, it was ambiguous who the paramount leader was. Hu Jintao held the same trio of positions during his years in power. Hu transferred all three positions onto his successor Xi Jinping between November 2012, when Xi became CCP General Secretary and Chairman of the Central Military Commission; and March 2013, when Xi became president. Since Xi's ascendance to power, two new bodies, the National Security Commission and Central Comprehensively Deepening Reforms Commission, have been established, ostensibly concentrating political power in the paramount leader to a greater degree than anyone since Deng. These bodies were tasked with establishing the general policy direction for national security, as well as economic reform. Both groups are headed by the General Secretary.

List of paramount leaders

 * Bold offices refer to the highest position in the Chinese Communist Party.

Spouse of the Paramount leader
All six leaders have had a spouse during their terms of office. The current is Peng Liyuan, wife of General Secretary Xi Jinping.

title: Paramount leader


text:
The Tango Lesson

The Tango Lesson (La lección de tango) is a 1997 drama film written and directed by Sally Potter. It is a semi-autobiographical film starring Potter and Pablo Verón, about Argentinian Tango.

The film, a co-production of Argentina, France, Germany, Netherlands and the United Kingdom, was produced by Christopher Sheppard in Britain and Oscar Kramer in Argentina, and was shot mostly in black and white in Paris and Buenos Aires. The soundtrack includes original recordings of Carlos Gardel's Mi Buenos Aires querido and Ástor Piazzolla's Libertango, two of the most iconic tangos in the history of the genre. It also includes an original song written and sung by Potter.

Synopsis
Sally, a filmmaker and screenwriter suffering from writer's block, is dissatisfied with her film project, a murder mystery called Rage, which features the fashion industry. Taking a break, she travels to Paris, where she sees the dancer Pablo (Pablo Verón) performing tango. She becomes obsessed with the dance and offers Pablo a part in her film in exchange for dance lessons. The two become deeply involved as dancers and as lovers. Their emotional intimacy threatens the success of their dancing together. The film explores the conflict between the woman dancer accepting the man's lead in the dance, while the man must accept the woman's lead in the film. It is a love story and a showcase for Verón's dancing.

Cast

 * Sally Potter as Sally
 * Pablo Verón as Pablo
 * Morgane Maugran as Red Model
 * Géraldine Maillet as Yellow Model
 * Katerina Mechera as Blue Model
 * David Toole as Fashion Designer
 * George Yiasoumi as Photographer
 * Michele Parent as Seamstress
 * Claudine Mavros as Seamstress
 * Monique Couturier as Seamstress
 * Matthew Hawkins as Bodyguard
 * Simon Worgan as Bodyguard
 * Carolina Iotti as Pablo's partner
 * Zobeida as Pablo's Friend
 * Orazio Massaro as Pablo's Friend
 * Gustavo Naveira as Gustavo
 * Fabián Salas as Fabian
 * Carlos Copello as Carlos
 * María Noel as Film Executive
 * Gregory Dayton as Film Executive

Distribution
The film was first presented at the Venice Film Festival in Italy on 29 August 1997. It was screened at the Toronto International Film Festival in Canada on 8 September. The picture screened at various film festivals, including the Mar del Plata Film Festival in Argentina, the Reykjavik Film Festival in Iceland, the Istanbul Film Festival in Turkey, and others.

Film soundtrack

 * Milonga Triste composed by Sebastián Piana and Homero Manzi, performed by Hugo Díaz y su Conjunto, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1972.
 * Now composed by Sally Potter & Fred Frith, sung by Sally Potter, recorded in Paris 1996.
 * Quejas de bandoneón composed by Juan de Dios Filiberto, performed by Aníbal Troilo y su Orquesta típica, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1958.
 * Red, yellow, blue composed by Sally Potter & Fred Frith, recorded in Paris in 1996.
 * Mi Buenos Aires querido composed by Carlos Gardel and Alfredo Le Pera, sung by Carlos Gardel, recorded in New York in 1934.
 * El flete composed by Gerónimo Gradito and Vicente Greco, performed by Juan D'Arienzo y su Orquesta Típica, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1936.
 * Rage composed by Sally Potter & Fred Frith, sung by Sally Potter, recorded in Paris in 1996.
 * Zum composed by Astor Piazzolla, performed by Osvaldo Pugliese y su Orquesta, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1973.
 * Amor y celos composed by Miguel Padula & Alfredo F. Roldán, performed by Juan D'Arienzo y su Orquesta Típica, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1936.
 * Doyna composed by Frank London, David Licht & David Krakauer, performed by The Klezmatics, recorded in New York in 1994.
 * Danse de cuisine composed by Sally Potter & Fred Frith, sung by Sally Potter, recorded in Paris in 1996.
 * Pensalo bien composed by Juan Jose Visiglio, Nola Lopez & Julio Alberto, sung by Alberto Echague with the Juan D'Arienzo y su Orquesta Típica, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1938.
 * La yumba composed by Osvaldo Pugliese, performed by Osvaldo Pugliese y su Orquesta, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1946.
 * Jacob and the angel composed by Sally Potter & Fred Frith, sung by Sally Potter, recorded in Paris in 1996.
 * Milonga de mis amores composed by Pedro B. Laurenz & José Maria Contursi, performed by Juan D'Arienzo y su Orquesta Típica, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1970.
 * Gallo ciego, composed by Agustín Bardi, performed by Osvaldo Pugliese y su Orquesta, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1959.
 * Libertango composed by Astor Piazzolla, performed by Astor Piazzolla & orchestra, recorded in Milan in 1974.
 * Bahia Blanca composed by Carlos di Sarli, performed by Carlos Di Sarli y su Orquesta Típica, recorded in Buenos Aires in 1958.
 * I am you, composed by Sebastian Piana & Homero Manzi with English lyrics by Sally Potter, sung by Sally Potter with Yo-Yo Ma (cello), Nestor E. Marconi (bandoneon), Antonio Agri (violin), Leonardo D. Marconi (piano) & Horacio Malvicino (guitar), recorded in Buenos Aires in 1997.
 * Libertango (reprise) composed by Astor Piazzolla, performed by Yo-Yo Ma (cello), Antonio Agri (violin), Nestor E. Marconi (bandoneon), Horacio Malvicino (guitar).

Exhibition dates

 * Argentina: 20 November 1997
 * France: 8 April 1998
 * Germany: 9 October 1997
 * Netherlands: 15 January 1998
 * United Kingdom: 28 November 1997
 * United States: 14 November 1997

Critical reception
New York Times film critic, Janet Maslin, thought the film was rather simple, and wrote, "'Stiffly playing a filmmaker with a growing passion for the tango, [Sally Potter] makes this a handsome, dryly meticulous film with no real fire anywhere beyond its supple dance scenes. The lessons are numbered and cataloged with an obsessive care like that of Peter Greenaway, but this material has little of his corresponding complexity.'"

Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert discussed in his review the film's major goal, writing, "Most dances are for people who are falling in love. The tango is a dance for those who have survived it, and are still a little angry about having their hearts so mishandled. The Tango Lesson is a movie for people who understand that difference."

Edward Guthmann, San Francisco Chronicle staff critic, lauded the film and the courage of director Potter, and wrote, "'British director Sally Potter stuck her neck out when she made The Tango Lesson, a fictionalized account of her relationship with Argentine tango master Pablo Veron...Potter takes what seemed like a recipe for embarrassment and excess and delivers a film that's sweet and understated and devoid of diva posturing...[the film is] smoothly directed, nicely written and falters only in the performance that Potter was able to squeeze out of herself while performing her multiple tasks.'"Yet, Guthmann says Potter should have cast another actor in her role. He adds, "'It's too bad, then, that Potter couldn't have figured out a way to use another actress to play herself. She often looks worn out, which makes sense given her offscreen responsibilities but works against her tale of courtship, infatuation and the emotional sparks that fly between two gifted, bullheaded artists.'"

Awards

 * Wins
 * Mar del Plata Film Festival: Best Film, Sally Potter; 1997.
 * National Board of Review: Special Recognition, for excellence in filmmaking; 1997.
 * American Choreography Awards: American Choreography Award Outstanding Achievement in Feature Film, Pablo Verón; 1998.
 * Nominations
 * British Academy of Film and Television Arts: BAFTA Film Award; Best Film not in the English Language; 1998.

title: The Tango Lesson


text:
Talk:Republic of Rose Island

NPOV
This page needs a whole lot of NPOV-ifying. -- Kwekubo at 16:16, 7 July 2003

 * Done. -- Mpt 04:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Telegram
I modified this:
 * The platform's Council of Government sent a telegram(to whom?) to protest the "violation of its sovereignty and the injury inflicted on local tourism by the military occupation", but this was ignored.

removing the "to whom?". It's a good question though. Who got the telegram? I would assume the Italian government. --cprompt 14:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Lemma
According the article, the name of this "micronation is, in Italian, "Isole delle Rose", which means Islands of the Roses and not Rose Island. --SeekingOne 13:29, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * The Italian name is not familiar to me - its presence here predates my editing of the article - however the name that appears on Rose Island's stamps is "Insulo de la Rozoj", which as near as I can tell is expressed in the singular form - but I'm no Esperanto expert. --Gene_poole 22:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Micronazione has Isola. -- Error 05:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "Insulo" is indeed the singular form in Esperanto (the plural would be "insuloj"), so "Island of the Roses" is certainly correct. --PeterHansen 23:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I found a website talking of "Isola delle Rose" (this is the right translation, I speak both Italian and Esperanto)

 * How would you translate Rose Island to Italian, then? —Tamfang 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * As several users have pointed out many years ago, "Isola delle Rose" and "Insulo de la Rozoj" both mean "Island of the Roses" or "Roses Island" (or "Roses' Island"). Unless someone comes up with good arguments why the lemma should use "Rose Island" I will move the article accordingly, the next time I come across it. (probably sometime in 2024...)
 * @ Tamfang: "Isola della Rosa". And Esperanto is very precise in such things, it would be "Insulo de la Rozo".
 * --BjKa (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 * A literal translation of the Esperanta name would be Island of the Roses; presumably we're not using that because it's alien to English naming custom – as is Roses Island. In New World English, at least, a place known for its pebbles, turtles or oaks is typically Pebble Beach, Turtle Creek or Oak Hill.  (I'm sure I've heard of places named with a plural noun in Spanish or French, ... de las ... &c, and the corresponding singular noun in English, though none come to mind.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Doubt / Good Article
I very much doubt whether the micronation known as "Rose Island" has ever even existed beyond imagination. I mean, how could one engineer construct a platform on nine pylons, in deep water eleven kilometres off the coast? -- 84.222.69.182, 18:25, 4 June 2005

Good Article Tag added by Stan2525, 00:29, 24 December 2005

At first reading my feeling was "what a shame they destroyed it". Now I'm wondering if the entire thing is an elaborate hoax. I don't know enough about it to decide, but since people have been questioning the veracity of this on this page since 2003 I think it's reasonable to tag the article. I don't know if it's a hoax or not and that's the purpose of the tag - to encourage a process of discovery. --kingboyk 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Tag removed by Kingboyk, 23:08, 3 February 2006

 * It's certainly no hoax. It's a well-known historical fact. I assume you overlooked the references, photographs and this. Might be best to take some more care before jumping to conclusions in future.
 * I've also restored the Good Article tag - which for the record, I was not responsible for adding in the first place. I'm not sure why you removed it, as the article complies with all the necessary requirements, namely: well written, factually accurate, neutral point, stable referenced, and contain images. --Centauri 23:57, 3 February 2006

 * I didn't jump to any conclusions. I simply stated that I don't know if it's a hoax or not. The article didn't convince me, therefore it's hardly "good" I would say. More to the point, it is very lacking in hard sources.
 * is in Italian. Sadly I speak only English.
 * Finally, you say I missed "this" but where exactly is that link in the article?! I still can't find it.
 * --kingboyk 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Being "convincing" is not one of the criteria for determining if an article is good or not, so I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. On top of which there are by my count 3 different references given between the article and this talk page - one of which is in Italian, as you might reasonably expect given that the events discussed occurred in the vicinity of Italy. Finally the link I referred you to was discovered by doing a Google search that took me all of 3 minutes. I will certainly add it to the references. --Centauri 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Tag exchanged for Delisted GA Tag by TheGrappler 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This article achieves all the GA requirements bar one - any images used need to be appropriately tagged. (I try to remember the features of GA using the awful mnemonic BRAWWSTIN - Broad, Referenced, Accurate, Well-Written, Stable, Tagged Images, NPOV; "broad" is not necessarily comprehensive, but no major omissions. This certainly seems to hit BRAWWS- and -IN but not, at the moment, the "T"!) The photo uses an obsolete template and is unsourced, making any verification of PD status impossible. PD seems unlikely; on photographs the usual reasons are: work of U.S. government (most other governments retain copyright - including, I believe, Italy), age (this is a relatively modern photo), or that it has been released by the copyright holder (this seems rather unlikely for such an aerial photograph, whilst it is plausible, something that details the release is necessary). The other picture is apparently released under GFDL by the creator, which is an appropriate tag. Once the photograph is either accurately sourced and appropriately tagged, or alternatively is removed, GA should be reinstated.TheGrappler 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've reviewed the article and the previous complaint in regards to it, and it seems that the image of the island still needs to be tagged in order to qualify for GA. ErleGrey 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It appears that no one is around to shepherd this nomination; I'm going to delist it, since the image is still not properly tagged. Chubbles 07:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

unconstructive comment
This is the funniest article ive ever read --Zeno of Elea 06:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Arms / Flag
Did the Republic have arms (are they those shown on the flag)? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

 Fair use rationale for Image:Flag Rose Island.gif Image:Flag Rose Island.gif 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) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lonely Planet Micronations guide shows a flag different to the one shown in the article. Does anybody know why this is? -- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes. Because the flag in Lonely Planet was created by me a number of years ago based on a written description, without the benefit of photographic evidence. The latter only came to light after the publication of the LP guide. The Rose Island flag is more acurately described as a pennant. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks. That means that the flag caption will have to be changed to pennant. -- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The flag currently shown in this article is incorrect. It was created by me based on a written description. I have subsequently sighted a photograph of the actual flag in an article on this subject published in the journal of the Cinderella Stamp Club (UK), which shows it to be a triangular pennant, not a rectangular flag. I previously uploaded an updated image of the correct design, but it seems to have vanished. Does anyone know why? --Gene_poole (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates of occupation and destruction?
The article only mentioned that the Italian reaction was heavy-handed and swift, are there any dates available to show when the Italians take over the island, and when they destroyed it? -- deadkid_dk 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Heavy-handed? Four cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.22.252 (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Similiar occurances
Sealand and other micronations were established during the same period. Shouldn't the article mention that, as context? Fsotrain09 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This has obviously been ✅ in the meantime. --BjKa (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Currency unit
Quote: Purported currency: Mill (Esperanto: "milo" ...) Esperanto milo is a group of a thousand. A mill (currency) is 0.001 of a basic unit; in Esperanto that would be milono. Most likely milo here refers to spesmilo, and I'll change it accordingly. —Tamfang (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 * And it has been changed back. Even if President Rosa ever called it mill in English, it shares only that name with other units called mill. —Tamfang (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

which province?
Some phrases now removed seemed to say that the nearest coastline belonged in 1968 to Forlì province but now belongs to Rimini province. Is that what was intended? —Tamfang (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Republic of Rose Island. 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/20131115021433/http://www.cifr.it/forum43.html to http://www.cifr.it/forum43.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419011948/http://opinioni-di-una-mamma.blogspot.com/2007/01/linsulo-de-rozojstoria-di-una-fiaba-di.html to http://opinioni-di-una-mamma.blogspot.com/2007/01/linsulo-de-rozojstoria-di-una-fiaba-di.html

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) 09:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

More here
BBC article about the island and film: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55092341. - Onanoff (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Journalistic style
I added "the" in this phrase: "built by the Italian engineer Giorgio Rosa" with the edit summary false title. That article describes the history of omitting "the" in constructions like this and characterizes it as typical of journalistic, especially tabloid style. Revirvlkodlaku reverted. I don't think encyclopedias should sound like Time magazine or the New York Post. --Macrakis (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for pointing this out. I will review the construction soon. I've always thought it was correct, but perhaps I have been mistaken. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Macrakis, I cordially concur with your view. False titles are established in AmE (despite the wise advice against them of the New York Times style guide) and have been encroaching into the Queen's English for some time. It's probably a losing battle, but still worth fighting, to keep false titles out of formal BrE prose.  Tim riley  talk   16:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Italian cruiser Andrea Doria
The film mentions that the Navy ship in the climactic scene is Andrea Doria. I tried to google whether that was in real life or was the ship that was used in the filming. The ship in the scene looks like it might be. It would be nifty fact if we could confirm it. I had little luck in finding it though. Americasroof (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

although …

 * Although Rose Island had its own government, currency, post office, and commercial establishments, and the official language was Esperanto, it was never formally recognized

Would one expect the adoption of Esperanto to make recognition more likely? I would put its mention elsewhere. (This sentence was welded from parts of two paragraphs.) —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Republic of Rose Island


text:
Autoerotic fatality

Autoerotic fatalities are accidental deaths that occur during sexual self-stimulation when an apparatus, device or prop that is being employed to enhance pleasure causes the death. Researchers only apply the term to unintentional deaths resulting from solitary sexual activity, not suicide or acts with a partner. The incidence of autoerotic fatalities in Western countries is around 0.5 per million inhabitants each year.

Autoerotic asphyxia is the leading cause. 70 to 80% of autoerotic deaths are caused by hanging, while 10 to 30% are attributed to plastic bags or chemical use. Both of these lead to autoerotic asphyxia. 5 to 10% are related to electrocution, foreign body insertion, overdressing/body wrapping, or another atypical method. Specific causes include the use of chemicals such as amyl nitrite, GHB, or nitrous oxide, and props and tools such as knives, oversized dildos, ligatures or bags for asphyxiation, duct tape, electrical apparatus for shocks, water for self-immersion, fire-making equipment for self-immolation, or sharp, unhygienic or large fetishized objects.

The subject has been treated in two books, Autoerotic Fatalities by Hazelwood et al. (1983) and Autoerotic Asphyxiation: Forensic, Medical, and Social Aspects by Sheleg et al. (2006).

Famous cases

 * Peter Anthony Motteux, English author, playwright, translator, publisher and editor of The Gentleman's Journal, "the first English magazine", from 1692 to 1694, died from apparent autoerotic asphyxiation in 1718, which is probably the first recorded case.
 * Frantisek Kotzwara, composer, died from erotic asphyxiation in 1791.
 * Albert Dekker, stage and screen actor, was found dead in his bathroom in 1968 with his body graffitied and a noose around his neck.
 * Nigel Tetley (c. 1924 – 2 February 1972) was a British sailor who was the first person to circumnavigate the world solo in a trimaran. His body was found hanging from a tree in woods near Dover, England. At the coroner's inquest, it was revealed that the body had been discovered clothed in lingerie and the hands were bound behind the back. The opinion offered by a pathologist suggested masochistic sexual activity.
 * Vaughn Bodē, artist, died from autoerotic asphyxiation in 1975.
 * Diane Herceg sued Hustler magazine in 1983, accusing it of causing the death of her 14-year-old son, Troy D., who had experimented with autoerotic asphyxia after reading about it in that publication.
 * Stephen Milligan, a British politician and Conservative MP for Eastleigh, died from autoerotic asphyxiation combined with self-bondage in 1994.
 * Kevin Gilbert, a musician and songwriter, died of apparent autoerotic asphyxiation in 1996.
 * David Carradine was found dead on 4 June 2009 from accidental asphyxiation, according to the medical examiner who performed a private autopsy on the actor. His body was found near naked and hanging by a rope in a closet in his hotel room in Thailand,  and there was evidence of a recent orgasm; two autopsies were conducted and concluded that his death was not suicide, and the Thai forensic pathologist who examined the body stated that his death may have been due to autoerotic asphyxiation.  Two of Carradine's ex-wives, Gail Jensen  and Marina Anderson,  stated publicly that his sexual interests included the practice of self-bondage.

Although Paula Yates contradicted earlier statements she had made by saying during a 1999 interview that Michael Hutchence's 1997 death might have been caused by autoerotic asphyxiation, the coronial inquest found it to be suicide due to a combination of depression and intoxication with alcohol and other drugs.

title: Autoerotic fatality


text:
Shahab-3

The Shahab-3 (meaning "Meteor-3") is a family of liquid-fueled ballistic missiles developed by Iran and based on the North Korean Nodong-1. The Shahab-3 family has a range of 800-1,000 km. It was tested from 1998 to 2003 and added to the military arsenal on 7 July 2003, with an official unveiling by Ayatollah Khamenei on July 20. It has an estimated accuracy of about 2,500m CEP. According to the IAEA, Iran in the early 2000s may have explored various fuzing, arming and firing systems to make the Shahab-3 more capable of reliably delivering a nuclear warhead.

The forerunners to this missile include the Shahab-1 and Shahab-2. Iran's Defense Ministry has alternately denied plans to develop a Shahab-4 and admitted that a Shahab-4 program is in development, having claimed it both to be a MRBM and an SLV. Some successors to the Shahab have longer range and are also more maneuverable.

Operating under the Sanam Industrial Group (Department 140), which is part of the Defense Industries Organization of Iran, the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG), led the development of the Shahab missile.

In 2019, the US Defense Intelligence Agency described the Shahab 3 as "the mainstay of Iran’s MRBM force". US Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center estimates that as of June 2017 fewer than 50 launchers were operationally deployed.

Shahab-3 missiles are considered obsolete and are being progressively changed for their more recent upgrades of Shahab family missiles such as the Ghadr-110H and Emad missile. The US government says that the Shahab-3 is "generally" less accurate than the Fateh-110.

Shahab-3A
The range of the Shahab-3A is about 1,500 kilometers. According to the New York Times, the Shahab-3A was no longer in production as of 2008.

Shahab-3B
The Shahab-3B differs from the basic production variant. It has improvements to its guidance system and warhead with a greater range, a few small changes on the missile body, and a new re-entry vehicle whose terminal guidance system and rocket-nozzle steering method are completely different from the Shahab-3A's spin-stabilized re-entry vehicle.

The new re-entry vehicle uses a triconic aeroshell geometry (or "baby bottle" design) which improves the overall lift to drag ratio for the re-entry vehicle. This allows greater range maneuverability which can result in better precision. The triconic design also reduces the overall size of the warhead from an estimated 1 metric ton to 700 kg.

Shahab-3C and D
Little is known about Shahab-3C and Shahab-3D. From what can be gathered, the missiles have an improved precision, navigation system, and a longer range. The missiles were indigenously developed, and are being mass-produced. Iran had in 2008 a production capacity of 70 units per year.

History and tests
Iran has conducted at least six test flights of the Shahab-3. During the first one, in July 1998, the missile reportedly exploded in mid-air during the latter portion of its flight; U.S. officials wondered whether the test was a failure or the explosion was intentional. A second, successful test took place in July 2000. In September 2000, Iran conducted a third test, in which the missile reportedly exploded shortly after launch. In May 2002, Iran conducted another successful test, leading then-Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani to say the test improved the Shahab-3's "power and accuracy". Another successful test reportedly occurred in July 2002. On 7 July 2003, the foreign ministry spokesman said that Iran had completed a final test of the Shahab 3 "a few weeks ago" that was "the final test before delivering the missile to the armed forces", according to a New York Times report.

On 9 November 2004, Shamkhani said Iran could mass-produce the missile.

On 2 November 2006, Iran fired unarmed missiles to begin 10 days of military war games. Iranian state television reported "dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km to up to 2000 km...Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs". These launches come after some United States-led military exercises in the Persian Gulf on 30 October 2006, meant to train for blocking the transport of weapons of mass destruction.

2008 Great Prophet III test
On 8 July 2008, Iran test fired a non-upgraded version of the Shahab-3 as one of 9 medium- and long-range missiles launched as part of the Great Prophet III exercise, within a few weeks of a recently concluded military exercise by Israel.

Other missiles fired include the surface-to-surface Fateh-110 and Zelzal missiles. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps air and naval units conducted these tests in a desert location. Air Force commander Hossein Salami advised that Iran was ready to retaliate to military threats, saying "We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch".

One day later, on 9 July 2008, Iran allegedly tested a version of the Shahab-3 in the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to shut down traffic into if it is attacked. Arms control analyst Jeffrey Lewis analyzed Iranian launch footage and concluded that Iranian claims of testing an upgraded Shahab missile were unfounded. A senior Republican Guard commander said Iran would maintain security in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the French news agency Agence France-Presse, which published pictures from the missile test, "Iran had apparently doctored photographs of missile test-firings and exaggerated the capabilities of the weapons" and an additional missile was added afterwards to cover up a failed launch.

Current operators

 * 🇮🇷 Iran
 * Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

title: Shahab-3


text:
Hwasong-7

The Hwasong-7 (spelled Hwaseong-7 in South Korea, lit. Mars Type 7), also known as Nodong-1 (Hangul: 로동(North),노동(South) 1호; Hanja: 蘆洞 1號), is a single-stage, mobile liquid propellant medium-range ballistic missile developed by North Korea. Developed in the mid-1980s, it is a scaled-up adaptation of the Soviet R-17 Elbrus missiles, more commonly known by its NATO reporting name "Scud". The inventory is estimated to be around 200–300 missiles. US Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center estimates that as of June 2017 fewer than 100 launchers were operationally deployed.

One variant Rodong-1M is called Hwasong-9.

It influenced the design of Pakistan's Ghauri-1 missile, as well as the Iranian Shahab-3.

Overview
It is believed North Korea obtained R-17 designs from Egypt, and possibly modified designs from China, allowing them to reverse-engineer them into a larger and longer-distance weapon. United States reconnaissance satellites first detected this type in May 1990 at the Musudan-ri test launch facility, in northeastern North Korea.

The precise capabilities and specifications of the missile are unknown; even the fact of its production and deployment are controversial. It is a larger variant of the R-17, scaled up so its cross-sectional area is about doubled, with a diameter of 1250 mm and a length of 15600 mm.

Its aerodynamic design is stable, reducing the need for modern active stabilization systems while the missile is flying in the denser lower atmosphere. It can only be fueled when vertical, therefore it cannot be fueled before transport as is normal for modern missiles. Its range is estimated as 900 km (960 mi) with a 1,000 kg payload to a range of between 1,000 km to 1,500 km. North Korea test-fired three Hwasong-7 missiles consecutively on 5 September 2016 and they all flew for about 1000 km, landing in the Japan air defense identification zone.

It has an estimated circular error probable (CEP) of one or two kilometers. North Korea is believed to possess some 300 Hwasong-7 missiles and fewer than 50 mobile launchers.

The Hwasong-7's technology has been exported to foreign nations (such as Iran and Pakistan) in secrecy on the basis of mutual exchange of technologies, with Iran being one of the largest beneficiaries of such technology. Successful variants were tested and deployed by Iran after developing the Shahab-3 which is roughly based on Hwasong-7.

Pakistan, however, suffered with repeated failure initially due to flawed design given in exchange but succeeded in reevaluating the missile's conceptual design and its electronic system in 1998 through reverse engineering. The Ghauri (missile) was later (independently) developed by Kahuta Research Labs and eventually entered in to active military service in 2003.It is believed that it is redesigned/ reverse engineered model of Rodong-1.

A few Hwasong-7 missiles were launched in the 2006 North Korean missile test, and a further two in a 2014 test over a range of 650 km.

Although it has an estimated range of 1,000 - 1,500 km, launches in March 2014 flew only 650 km. Their range was shortened by firing at a higher launch angle. The missiles flew to an altitude of 160 km (100 mi) at Mach 7. U.S. and South Korean Patriot PAC-2/3 interceptors are more specialized to hit ballistic missiles up to 40 km high.

On 5 September 2016, North Korea fired three consecutive Rodong-1 missiles into the Sea of Japan and at a range of about 1,000 km. This marked the Rodong-1 as a credible and matured missile suitable for operational deployment since its first successful launch in 1993. The United Nations Security Council condemned North Korea's missile launches.

To enable interception at higher altitudes, South Korea is indigenously developing the long-range surface-to-air missile (L-SAM), and on 8 July 2016 the U.S. agreed to deploy one Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile defense system in Seongju County, in the south of South Korea, by the end of 2017.

title: Hwasong-7


text:
Ali Shamkhani

Ali Shamkhani (, born 29 September 1955) is an Iranian rear admiral upper half (two-star general). He served as the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran from 2013 to 2023. He is currently member of the Expediency Discernment Council and political advisor of Supreme Leader of Iran since May 2023.

Early life and education
Shamkhani was born on 29 September 1955 in Ahvaz, Khuzestan. His family is of Iranian Arab origin. Before the Iranian Revolution, Shamkhani was member of a clandestine Islamist guerilla group named Mansouroun (lit. 'The Victors'), engaging in armed struggle against the Pahlavi dynasty. After the revolution, he joined the Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization. He studied engineering at Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

Career
Shamkhani served as the commander of the IRGC navy with the rank of rear admiral. Later he also commanded the Artesh navy in addition to the IRGC navy. He was appointed the Minister of Revolutionary Guards in 1988.

He held the post of the minister of defense from August 1997 until August 2005 in the government of Mohammad Khatami. Shamkani was replaced by Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar in the post. Shamkhani also ran for office in the 2001 presidential elections.

He was the director of the Iranian Armed Forces' Center for Strategic Studies from 2005 to 2013. He is also military advisor to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

On 10 September 2013, Shamkhani was appointed to secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) by president Hassan Rouhani.

After the US airstrike that was responsible for killing on 3 January 2020 the head of IRGC's Quds force Qasem Soleimani as he travelled in Baghdad Iraq, Shamkhani said on 6 January of the response that it would be a "historic nightmare" for the US: "Even if the weakest of these scenarios gains a consensus, the implementation of it can be a historic nightmare for the Americans... The entirety of the resistance forces will retaliate," he said to the Fars News Agency. The SNSC was assessing 13 revenge scenarios.

On 10 January 2020, the US State Department extended its sanctions under Executive Order 13876 to Shamkhani and seven other individuals, and "twenty-two entities and three vessels pursuant to Executive Order 13871" as well as a Chinese steel trading organization under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act.

On 20 February 2020, the US Treasury Department extended its sanctions again under Executive Order 13876 to Shamkhani amongst other individuals, following "the disqualification of several thousand electoral candidates by Iran's Guardian Council".

At a Baghdad news conference after meeting with Iraqi politicians on 7 March 2020, Shamkhani said "Zionists are against regional security."

Awards and honors
In 2003, Shamkhani received the Shoja'at Medal, the highest military medal from President Mohammad Khatami. He was also honored for his eight years service as minister of defense in 2005. In 2004, Shamkhani received the Order of Abdulaziz Al Saud, the highest award in Saudi Arabia from King Fahd for his prominent role in the design and implementation in developing relations with Arabic countries in the Persian Gulf. He is the first Iranian minister to receive the medal. and received medals from the presidents of Syria and Lebanon in February 2004.

title: Ali Shamkhani