text:
John Lee Mahin

John Lee Mahin (August 23, 1902, Evanston, Illinois – April 18, 1984, Los Angeles) was an American screenwriter and producer of films who was active in Hollywood from the 1930s to the 1960s. He was known as the favorite writer of Clark Gable and Victor Fleming. In the words of one profile, he had "a flair for rousing adventure material, and at the same time he wrote some of the raciest and most sophisticated sexual comedies of that period."

Biography
Mahin was born in Winnetka, Illinois in 1902, the son of John Lee Mahin, Sr. (1869–1930), a Chicago newspaper and advertising man, and Julia Graham Snitzler.

Mahin attended Harvard University; while there he reviewed movies and plays for the Boston American at $30 a week. Mahin worked as a journalist for two years in New York, at the Sun, the Post and the City News. He then tried to make a living as an actor, starting as a chorus boy in a production of Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience at the Province Playhouse. He eventually moved into advertising in New York but wrote fiction on the side.

Mahin became friendly with Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, who he would meet on the ferry while commuting to work in New York. Hecht read Mahin's stories and encouraged him to move to Hollywood.

Early screenwriting
Hecht and MacArthur were working on The Unholy Garden (1931) for Sam Goldwyn and brought in Mahin to help at $200 a week. They liked his work and when Hecht went on to the gangster movie Scarface (1932), he took Mahin with him. Mahin wrote the script in collaboration with Hecht, Seton I. Miller and the director Howard Hawks (W. R. Burnett had done an earlier draft).

World War II
Mahin served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Air Forces with Clark Gable.

MGM
It took a while for Scarface to be released but advance word was strong and MGM offered Mahin a long-term contract at $200 a week. They assigned him to a gangster film, Beast of the City (1932) which starred Jean Harlow. While working on Howard Hawks asked him to do some uncredited work on Tiger Shark (1932) at Warner Bros; Mahin did it in the evenings.

Mahin wrote The Wet Parade (1932) his first movie with director Victor Fleming. The two men had a huge hit with Red Dust (1932), which helped make a star out of Clark Gable.

Mahin did some work on Rasputin and the Empress (1933), then Hell Below (1933) (in which he also appeared as an actor), Bombshell (1933) for Fleming, The Prizefighter and the Lady (1933) and Eskimo (1933); Mahin claims to have done some directing on the latter.

Other credits included Laughing Boy (1934), Treasure Island (1934) for Fleming, and Chained (1934). He adapted the operetta Naughty Marietta (1935) and did uncredited work on China Seas (1935).

Mahin then wrote Riffraff (1936), Wife vs. Secretary (1936), Small Town Girl (1936), The Devil Is a Sissy (1936), and Love on the Run (1936).

He was Oscar nominated for his work on Captains Courageous (1937) for Fleming. Mahin wrote The Last Gangster (1937), then did two Gable films, Test Pilot (1938), and Too Hot to Handle (1938). In 1937 MGM paid him $56,000.

With Fleming, Mahin did uncredited work on The Wizard of Oz (1939) and worked for about a week on Gone with the Wind (1939).

Mahin did another for Gable, Boom Town (1940) and was reunited with Fleming on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941). In July 1940 it was reported MGM had paid him $80,833 for the previous year.

He did a gangster film for Mervyn LeRoy, Johnny Eager (1941) and some uncredited work on the ending of Woman of the Year (1942).

Mahin adapted Tortilla Flat (1943) and worked on the British film The Adventures of Tartu (1943).

While serving during World War II, Mahin wrote Combat America (1943), narrated by Gable.

After the war, Mahin did uncredited work on Adventure (1945) for Gable and Fleming, The Yearling (1946) and The Beginning or the End (1947). He wrote The Risen Soldier, a biopic of Cardinal Spellman to star Van Johnson that was not used.

20th Century Fox
Over at 20th Century Fox he did That Wonderful Urge (1948), Down to the Sea in Ships (1949), Love That Brute (1950) and Panic in the Streets (1950).

Louis B Mayer
When Louis B. Mayer left MGM, Mahin went with him. Mayer put Mahin under personal contract, and would loan him out to studios, including MGM.

Mahin wrote the screenplay for Show Boat (1951), the Technicolor remake of the noted 1927 stage musical, which had previously been filmed in 1936. According to musical theatre historian Miles Kreuger in his book, Show Boat: The History of a Classic American Musical, Mahin retained most of the basic structure of the storyline, but little of Oscar Hammerstein II's stage dialogue, preferring to create his own. According to Kreuger, Mahin and producer Arthur Freed introduced the plot device of keeping the lovers Magnolia Hawks and Gaylord Ravenal young to the end, rather than having a passage that showed them forty years older, as in the original stage musical.

He wrote Quo Vadis (1951) for MGM and My Son John (1952) for Leo McCarey. He redid his Red Dust script as Mogambo (1953) for Gable and John Ford, and worked on another melodrama in the tropics, Elephant Walk (1954).

In 1955 a play he wrote with Patsy Ruth Miller, Don Ella, played at UCLA.

Mahin wrote Lucy Gallant (1955), The Bad Seed (1956) for LeRoy, Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957) for John Huston, and No Time for Sergeants (1958) for LeRoy. Heaven Knows, Mr Allison earned him another Oscar nomination.

Mahin adapted Paint Your Wagon for Mayer but plans to film it were dropped when Mayer died. (It would be filmed in 1969 with a fresh script.) Mahin did do some uncredited work on the Cinerama film, South Seas Adventure (1958).

Producer
Mahin got to know Martin Rackin when they worked on a script of Pearl Buck's Letter from Peking, that was never filmed. They decided to form a production company. Together they wrote and produced The Horse Soldiers (1959), Revak the Rebel (1959) and North to Alaska (1960). The association ended when Rackin was appointed head of Paramount.

Later career
Mahin's later credits included The Spiral Road (1962) and Moment to Moment (1966) for LeRoy. He also wrote episodes of The Jimmy Stewart Show (1971–72).

Politics
Mahin was a founder of the Screen Writers Guild in 1933. In the late 1930s, he became president of a rival organization, the Screen Playwrights Guild. He rejoined the Guild in 1948 and became its president.

Accolades
He won the Laurel Award for Screenwriting Achievement in 1958.

Personal life
His second marriage was to silent film actress Patsy Ruth Miller from 1937 until their divorce in 1946. They had one child, Timothy Miller Mahin.

Writer

 * The Unholy Garden (1931) – uncredited
 * The Beast of the City (1932; dialogue continuity, as John L. Mahin)
 * The Wet Parade (1932; adaptation, as John L. Mahin)
 * Scarface (1932; dialogue continuity)
 * Tiger Shark (1932) – uncredited
 * Red Dust (1932; screenplay, as John Mahin)
 * Rasputin and the Empress (1932) – uncredited
 * Hell Below (1933; dialogue)
 * Bombshell (1933; screenplay)
 * The Prizefighter and the Lady (1933)
 * Eskimo aka Mala the Magnificent (1933)
 * Laughing Boy (1934)
 * Treasure Island (1934; screenplay)
 * Chained (1934)
 * Naughty Marietta (1935)
 * China Seas (1935) – uncredited
 * Riffraff (1936) – uncredited
 * Wife vs. Secretary (1936; screenplay)
 * Small Town Girl (1936)
 * The Devil is a Sissy (1936)
 * Love on the Run (1936)
 * Captains Courageous (1937)
 * A Star Is Born (1937)
 * The Last Gangster (1937)
 * Test Pilot (1938) – uncredited
 * Too Hot to Handle (1938; screenplay)
 * The Wizard of Oz (1939) – uncredited
 * Boom Town (1940)
 * Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
 * Johnny Eager (1942; screenplay)
 * Woman of the Year (1942) – uncredited
 * Tortilla Flat (1942; screenplay)
 * The Adventures of Tartu (1943)
 * Combat America (1943) (documentary)
 * Adventure (1945) – uncredited
 * The Yearling (1946) – uncredited
 * That Wonderful Urge (1948) – uncredited
 * Down to the Sea in Ships (1949)
 * Love That Brute (1950)
 * Panic in the Streets (1950) – uncredited
 * Show Boat (1951)
 * Quo Vadis (1951)
 * My Sơn John (1952; adaptation)
 * Mogambo (1953)
 * Elephant Walk (1954)
 * Lucy Gallant (1955)
 * The Bad Seed (1956; screenplay)
 * Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957)
 * No Time for Sergeants (1958)
 * The Horse Soldiers (1959) – also uncredited producer
 * The Barbarians (1960) – also producer
 * North to Alaska (1960; screenplay) – also uncredited producer
 * The Spiral Road (1962)
 * Moment to Moment (1966)
 * The Jimmy Stewart Show (1971–1972) (TV series) (episodes "Identity Crisis" and "Old School Ties")

Actor

 * Scarface (1932) – MacArthur from the Journal (uncredited)
 * Hell Below (1933) – Lieut. (JG) 'Speed' Nelson (final film role)

title: John Lee Mahin


text:
Ruth Dyson

Ruth Suzanne Dyson (born 11 August 1957) is a former New Zealand politician. She was a Labour Party Member of Parliament from 1993 to 2020. She represented the electorate from the  election to 2020. She also held a number of senior offices in the Labour Party, including president.

Early life and career
Dyson was born in Lower Hutt in 1957. Her father served in the New Zealand Army, and so Dyson's family frequently moved around the country. Dyson joined the Labour Party in Westport in 1979, and worked as a campaign organiser for West Coast Labour MP Kerry Burke in the 1981 and 1984 election campaigns. In 1985, she moved to Wellington, where she worked with Labour MP Fran Wilde on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill before taking up a position as an advisor to Burke in the office of the Minister of Employment in 1986. She worked as an organiser for Wilde's re-election campaign in Wellington Central for the 1987 election. Dyson was then employed as an executive officer at Wellington Regional Employment and ACCESS Control.

She held several senior positions in the Labour Party hierarchy. In 1984 she was elected the women's representative on Labour's New Zealand Council before becoming a member of the party executive in 1986. She was the elected vice president of the party at the 1987 Labour conference. At the 1988 conference in Dunedin Dyson won a highly contested campaign to win the party president from former president and maverick MP Jim Anderton by 99 votes (575 to 473). After the defeat of the controversial Fourth Labour Government Dyson was self-employed as a training and employment consultant from 1990 to 1993.

In the lead up to the Dyson stood for the Labour nomination in the Christchurch seat of Lyttelton. She beat 5 other local aspirants for the nomination and pledged to move from Wellington into the electorate before the election.

Member of Parliament
Dyson first entered Parliament in the, winning the electorate against National's David Carter. In the, the Lyttelton electorate was abolished, and Dyson stood in , losing to Carter, who had in the meantime become an MP through winning the 1994 Selwyn by-election. She became a list MP owing to her position on the Labour Party's list. After the 1996 election Dyson was appointed Labour's spokesperson for ACC and Disability Services by leader Helen Clark. In the she in turn defeated Carter to win Banks Peninsula. She has remained the MP for the area (later renamed Port Hills) since that time, holding the seat until her retirement in 2020.

Dyson was a senior member of the Labour Party during the Helen Clark-led Fifth Labour Government, serving in a range of health and employment-related portfolios including Minister for Disability Issues (1999–2000; 2001–2008), Minister for ACC (2002–2007), Minister of Labour (2005–2007) and Minister for Social Development and Employment (2007–2008).

Fifth Labour Government, 1999–2008
When the Labour Party won power in the 1999 general election, Dyson was appointed to a number of minor ministerial roles, including Disability Issues and Associate Health and Associate Social Development. However, she resigned them on 31 October 2000 after being caught drink driving. She regained most of her ministerial responsibilities on 4 June 2001. She acknowledged after her resignation that she had been convicted and fined for possession of cannabis when she was a teenager stating "I find it sickening that some 25 years later someone has anonymously passed this information to journalists."

As Minister for Disability Issues, she led the development of what would become the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006, which gave New Zealand Sign Language the status of an official language of New Zealand. In her valedictory statement in 2020, Dyson reflected on the Act: "I regret that it wasn't more prescriptive in its implementation, because its roll-out has been slower than it could have been. That should be fixed."

In a reshuffle on 31 October 2007, Dyson was promoted to Minister for Social Development, which she held until the Clark government lost power at the 2008 general election. Despite the swing against Labour at that election, Dyson won the new Port Hills electorate with an increased margin.

Opposition, 2008–2017
The National Party won the 2008 election, putting Labour in Opposition where it would remain for the next nine years. During this time Dyson held a range of portfolios, including health (2008–2011), internal affairs (2011–2013), conservation and disability issues (2013–2015), Canterbury Earthquake Recovery (2013–2014) and senior citizens (2013–2017). She was also deputy chair of the Health select committee (2008–2011) and chair of the Government Administration select committee (2011–2017).

In December 2009 Dyson's Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill, which would amend the Resource Management Act 1991 to reintroduce a public interest test for projects seeking requiring authority, was drawn from the member's ballot. The bill was defeated at its first reading.

Dyson was criticised in December 2015 for describing National's Speaker David Carter as "incompetent, biased... lazy [and] sexist" on Twitter.

Sixth Labour Government 2017–2020 and retirement
Dyson had been positioned to be Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives (to Trevor Mallard) if Labour won the 2017 general election. While Labour was able to form a Government (in coalition with New Zealand First), the National Party's Anne Tolley was appointed as Deputy Speaker instead. Dyson was put in the role of Labour's Senior Whip. However, when the Assistant Speaker Poto Williams was appointed as a Minister outside Cabinet in July 2019, Dyson was named as her replacement.

Dyson was also chair of the Abortion Legislation Committee (a special select committee that examined the Abortion Legislation Bill) and a member of the Epidemic Response Committee (which considered the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic).

In March 2019, Dyson indicated that she would not seek re-election at the 2020 general election. While the Port Hills electorate was disestablished for that election, Labour's candidate for the replacement electorate of Banks Peninsula was Tracey McLellan.

In the 2021 Queen's Birthday Honours, Dyson was appointed a Companion of the Queen's Service Order, for services as a member of Parliament and to people with disabilities.

In March 2023, Dyson was accused of not being politically impartial in her roles as deputy chair of the Earthquake Commission and Fire and Emergency New Zealand as is the expectation of public servants and government-appointed board members. She admitted to not having read the code of conduct governing her position as a Crown entity board member. She said "I'm prepared to review all my social media engagement and reflect on whether it meets the standard. I haven't done that yet," She had written on Twitter "Oh no. It sounds like some cruel junior staffer gave Mr Luxon the wrong speech! #Waitangi2023,"    Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said "I would certainly expect her to be reading it [Code of Conduct] ... my understanding is she has subsequently been in touch with the relevant minister's office to indicate she will read the code of conduct and she will follow it".

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

title: Ruth Dyson


text:
Talk:Ontological commitment

.
This thought was incomplete in the article, as is. If someone can complete it, it should be put back, but its sloppy to have such things in the article space. — siro χ  o  10:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Other examples are negative existential statements, such as "there is no such thing as Pegasus".  This sentence appears to deny the existence of a certain object – Pegasus – but on closer analysis

What does the “[sic]” refer to?
Does anyone understand what the “[sic]” comment in the Quine quote refers to?

 * Formally it is precisely in allowing quantification over class variables α, β, &c., that we assume a range of values for these variables to refer [sic] to.

— Daniel Brockman 19:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem?
The article says “Napoleon is one of my ancestors” can be rewritten as “any group of people that includes me and the parents of each person in the group must also include Napoleon.” However, what if the person saying this is Napoleon, himself? Clearly, Napoleon is not one of his own ancestors. 65.183.135.231 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not expressible in First Order Logic?
I'm no expert of ontological commitment, but the statement "sentences of this kind cannot be interpreted in first-order logic" seems to me to be false. One may simply embed the desired representation in a first-order set theory. What would be wrong with this solution? (Marco Colombetti) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.121.192 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect definition
The article Ontological commitment begins with the remark:
 * " the ontological commitments of a theory (or sentence) are those things which must exist for the theory or sentence to be true."

It may be noted that this definition is not only wrong but unsourced.

I have tried to replace this incorrect statement with the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:
 * In the philosophy of language and metaphysics, the ontological commitments of a theory are those things which occur in all the ontologies of that theory. In more detail, the ontology of a theory consists of the objects the theory makes use of. This dependence of the theory upon an object is indicated if the theory fails when the object is omitted. However, the ontology of a theory is not necessarily unique. A theory is ontologically committed to an object only if that object occurs in all the ontologies of that theory. A theory also can be ontologically committed to a class of objects if that class is populated (not necessarily by the same objects) in all its ontologies. [1]

 * [1]

It appears obvious to me that the present statement confuses the ontology of a theory with the commitment to that ontology which is the meaning of ontological commitment.

However, Snowded has refuse to see the point and has reverted back to the incorrect formulation twice now. Brews ohare (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 * The lede is mean to summarise the article not just to take one definition Personally I don't think its incorrect, its a simple english summary of the second sentence of your quotation.  Maybe elaborate in the main body, but lets keep the lede something that people can understand.  Snowded  TALK 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: I don't think your unsupported opinion takes precedence over an authoritative source. In addition, your view is contrary to ordinary English construction: an ontological commitment by normal rules of English is a commitment to an ontology. What is more, the ontology of a theory is confused with commitment to it in this incorrect statement of the present lead. Brews ohare (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Check out wikipedia policy, we don't just quote in the lede. I'm open to changing this but not to a single quote from a single source which is obscurantist at best. You might want to find some more, list them and then we can see how to best express it is readable form  Snowded  TALK 14:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: It is an advance that you are now 'open' to a correct definition. I'll oblige. Brews ohare (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to improving any article, but not to you simply inserting the latest result of your google search. Discuss it here first please  Snowded  TALK 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Now here is another - from Stanford and it shows we have to be careful here as there are both uses in different contexts: "We use common ontologies to describe ontological commitments for a set of agents so that they can communicate about a domain of discourse without necessarily operating on a globally shared theory. We say that an agent commits to an ontology if its observable actions are consistent with the definitions in the ontology. The idea of ontological commitments is based on the Knowledge-Level perspective (Newell, 1982) . So lets sort this out properly shall we and please try and listen to others. I am very clear that I am not open to you edit warring to insert your chosen quotation  Snowded  TALK 14:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Italics certainly helps us out, eh? Snowded, you are full of advice - let me offer you some in return: rather than making changes without justification, and when called simply reasserting them, try to do as you did (eventually) here, and provide some actual substance for your actions.
 * The changes you have made do provide a different viewpoint on ontological commitment, one at variance with that of Quine and a lot of philosophy. But if your goal is to be more comprehensive here, you have failed. As you may be aware there is a very wide usage of ontological commitment extending beyond your context and beyond philosophy,  to computer science ( an agent commits to an ontology if its observable actions are consistent with the definitions in the ontology Ontological commitment for participative simulation), and other areas. Perhaps a more general article is a good idea, but then its organization has to broaden to reflect that change. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to revert to the previous stable version and discuss, but not happy with your original change which was (I felt) obscure and difficult for most readers to understand. A general article might be useful as the term is more used in my experience in IT than philosophy and we should at least disambiguate it.  Oh and by the way I note that when you make a change and ignore WP:BRD its not "making changes without justification".  I suggest you take a read of the Bible, in particular Matthew 7:3  Snowded  TALK 15:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your determination of what is difficult to understand is your personal view, of course. The Cambridge dictionary provides the definition consistent with Quine and many other philosophers. The main issue here, which you have avoided, is the broadening of the scope you have introduced without the necessary follow-up. Probably a more computer-science orientation would be useful to more readers. Brews ohare (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All editors have personal views Brews, and in the case of the lede making the subject intelligible to readers without a Philosophy degree is important. As I say extending this article to IT which does dominate could well be more useful.   Snowded  TALK 23:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, you have introduced a new definition that you think is easier to understand. Unfortunately, the source you quote in its support here is a verbatim quote from an old version of this article on Wikipedia. Can you find a less circular way to support your definition? Brews ohare (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well its not verbatum its a summary. The lede is meant to do that not just take a quote from one definition.  I'll remove the reference and happy to restore the full older version pending agreement on a replacement.   Snowded  TALK 23:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So now we are back to an unsupported assertion about what the topic is. Not satisfactory, especially when it is not suitable for a philosophical discussion based around what 'ontology' is, and not when Quine is widely attributed as the originator of the term and used a different definition. of his own. Brews ohare (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets try and work on this together shall we? I'm in Singapore at the moment so I don;t get access to my books until the weekend when I get home.   If we between us research the various definitions exist and post them here, then we can agree a summary text?   We also need to wider discussion on IT use as well as philosophical use.   I'd much prefer a co-operative approach on this if we can  Snowded  TALK 01:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of "ontological commitment"
The idea of cooperation is novel, but a good one. So far, for sourced definitions, we have the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:
 * In the philosophy of language and metaphysics, the ontological commitments of a theory are those things which occur in all the ontologies of that theory. In more detail, the ontology of a theory consists of the objects the theory makes use of. This dependence of the theory upon an object is indicated if the theory fails when the object is omitted. However, the ontology of a theory is not necessarily unique. A theory is ontologically committed to an object only if that object occurs in all the ontologies of that theory. A theory also can be ontologically committed to a class of objects if that class is populated (not necessarily by the same objects) in all its ontologies. [1]

 * [1]

As you have noted (i) this definition is complicated, and (ii) it is not broad enough to cover all the usages. Brews ohare (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Blackwell Reference Online
 * The famous criterion put forward by Quine concerns the ontological commitments of a theory: a theory is committed to those objects that must exist if it is true and is committed to the existence of entities of a certain kind if and only if they must be counted among the values of its bound variables of quantification in order for the theory to be true. This criterion is a development of Russell 's theory of descriptions, which shows that the occurrence of a singular term in a true statement does not automatically warrant an assertion that the term refers to something real or existent, but that the analysis of the statement into its correct logical form reveals the objects that must exist if the statement is true. “If what we want is a standard for our own guidance in appraising the ontological commitments of one or another of ...

Jamin Assay
 * According to the familiar Quinean understanding of ontological commitment, (1) one undertakes ontological commitments only via theoretical regimentations, and (2) ontological commitments are to be identified with the domain of a theory’s quantifiers.

Chihara
 * Quine holds that saying certain things can commit one to affirming or accepting certain ontological assertions, and that accepting a theory can also commit one to accepting a whole ontology - hardly a surprising thesis.

Brews ohare (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oliver

 * It should be noted at once that the criterion [of ontological commitment] is to be distinguished from others of Quine’s views related to ontology and language. The criterion is one thing; advocacy of paraphrasing as a method for eliminating commitment to unwanted entities is another; specific proposals for paraphrasing are a third; the advocacy of minimal ontologies is a fourth, and a pluralistic view of acceptable ontologies is still another. But the criterion may be discussed apart from these other issues.” (James Willard Oliver. “Ontic Content and Commitment”. Ontological Commitment. Ed. Richard H. Severens. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1974. 91.) Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Chateaubriand
 * There are three main themes (and several sub-themes) that Quine developed in his work.The first is ontological commitment: What are the existential com-mitments of a theory? The second is ontological reduction: How can an on-tology be reduced to (or substituted by) another? And what is the most eco-nomical ontology that can be obtained for certain given purposes? The third is criteria of identity: When are entities of some kind (sets,properties, mate-rial objects, propositions, meanings, etc.) the same or different?”(Oswaldo Chateaubriand. “Quine and Ontology”, Principia 7.1-2 (2003): 41-42)

Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

William P. Alston
 * This article considers the task of translating linguistic expressions, such as sentences of the form ‘there are p’s’, to sentences of some other form. The author is especially concerned with the view that such translations enable us to avoid “ontological commitments.” He takes an example from Morton White, which allegedly provides a case of a translation which avoids ontological commitments, and argues that if the translation is adequate, then it is used to make the same assertion as the original and so makes the same commitments. He concludes that those who take avoidance of ontological commitment as the point of linguistic translations are obstructing our view of the real point of such translations. “Ontological commitments” Philosophical Studies (1958) 9, 8-16 Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Quine on 'ontological commitment' MP Hodges

Leslie Stevenson
 * Quine offers his famous criterion for the ontological commitment of a theory - paraphrase it into the first-order predicate calculus, and look to the range of values of the bound variables.

Brews ohare (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ontological Engineering: with examples from the areas of Knowledge Management, e-Commerce and the Semantic Web p. 36
 * Ontological commitments were defined by Gruber and Olsen (1994) as the agreements to use the shared vocabulary in a coherent and consistent manner. Guarino (1998) formalized the ontological commitment definition based on the connection between the ontology vocabulary and the meaning of the terms of such vocabulary. Thus, according to Guarino, an ontological commitment is a function that links terms of the ontology vocabulary with a conceptualization. Ontological commitments guarantee consistency, but not the completeness of an ontology...giving the parties committed freedom to specialize and instantiate the ontology as required.

Brews ohare (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology p. 89
 * Spyns et al. [86] used ontologies as an alternative to traditional data modeling for database design, in which conceptual relations are separated from domain rules: but in this case, through an ontological approach, by means of an "ontology base", which contains multiple intuitive conceptualizations of a domain, and "ontological commitments", where each commitment contains a set of domain rules.

Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

On using conceptual data modeling Jarrar, Demey Meersman
 * We decompose an ontology into an ontology base and a layer of ontological commitments. The ontology base hods conceptual relations...The commitment layer consists of ontological commitments, where each commitment holds ontology rules, which formally and explicitly provide an interpretation of an application or task in terms of domain knowledge, (see fig. 7)....Hence a conceptual schema can be seen as an ontological commitment defined in terms of the domain knowledge.

Brews ohare (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of occurrences of 'ontological commitment' in Only one such occurrence is linked here.
 * An ontology is a logical theory accounting for the intended meaning of a formal vocabulary, i.e. its ontological commitment to a particular conceptualization of the world. The intended models of a logical language using such a vocabulary are constrained by its logical commitment. (p. 7)

Brews ohare (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks, will do some research over the weekend when I am home Snowded  TALK 21:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of philosophical meaning of ontological commitment needs work
There are a number of technical terms used like "existential quantifiers" and "first-order" and "second-order" and on and on that need a lot better introduction and sourcing. I moved the paragraph with these unidentified terms into their own sub-section where they sit as so much gobbledygook. Brews ohare (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ontological parsimony deleted by Snowded
The following section was deleted by Snowded as "original research". This discussion closely parallels Baker's article as cited and uses his reference to Quine for the definition of ontological commitment. As Baker's article is an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I am taken aback at this chutzpah claiming (in essence) WP's standards are superior to theirs. Here is a Google books search showing 1470 discussions using this term in published books. Here is a Google scholar search showing 772 technical journal articles referring to ontological parsimony. Here are 56 articles referring to Baker's article in the Stanford Encyclopedia. Snowded: What is your problem here? Brews ohare (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ontological parsimony
Ontological parsimony can be defined in terms of Quine's concept of ontological commitment. A theory, T, is ontologically committed to items F if and only if T entails that F′s exist. If two theories, T1 and T2, have the same ontological commitments except that T2 is ontologically committed to F′s while T1 is not, then T1 is more parsimonious than T2. More generally, a sufficient condition for T1 being more parsimonious than T2 is for the ontological commitments of T1 to be a proper subset of those of T2. These ideas lead to a formulation of Occam's razor:
 * Other things being equal, if T1 is more ontologically parsimonious than T2 then it is rational to prefer T1 to T2.

While a common formulation stipulates only that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, this version by contrast, states that entities should not be multiplied other things being equal, and this is compatible with parsimony being a comparatively weak theoretical virtue.

Comments

 * Deletion of this sub-section on the basis that it is "original research" is nonsense. If Baker's Stanford Encyclopedia article is thought to be incorrect or parochial in its treatment of this term, the correct approach it so introduce another reputable source and present both views. Brews ohare (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded having taken time to comment to the thread below, but having no comment here, I have reinstated this section. Brews ohare (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded's disagreement with Brews revised introduction
Why have I reverted Snowded's replacement of the introduction to Ontological commitment? Because it has several flaws that are fixed in the newer version. Here are the sentences of the older version and the problems with them.

 * 1. "An ontological commitment refers to a relation between a language and certain objects postulated to be extant by that language."
 * The problem with this statement is simple: it appears to define ontological commitment as a relation between a language and the objects it implies exist. Unfortunately, that restricted definition only applies to 'languages' and not more generally. The replacement avoids this problem:
 * "In the philosophy of language, an ontological commitment refers to a relation between a language and certain objects postulated to be extant by that language."

 * 2. "In philosophy it indicates a dependency on an object where the "the theory fails when the object is omitted"[3]
 * The problem with this statement is that it confuses the definition of ontology with that of ontological commitment. The replacement avoids this problem:
 * " In philosophy, an ontology of a philosophical domain basically is a taxonomy of entities – objects, attributes, processes and relations – complete with formal rules that govern that taxonomy. There may be more than one ontology possible for a domain, so a general statement of an ontological commitment is then a commitment to entities that appear in all possible ontologies of that domain. "

Snowded has objected to the word 'taxonomy' in this description. (It is employed by ) Perhaps there is a better word: Snowded has not offered one.

Unless Snowded actively engages with these problems on this Talk page, and changes his version to meet the objections, the newer version should stand. Brews ohare (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Once again we see the problems associated with an editor dependent on out of context google searches for their content.  I'll look at it later to see if I can come up with an alternative but will otherwise revert.  You never seem to understand the need to make proposals and reach agreement on the talk page.   It was one of the behaviours that earns you a topic ban elsewhere and you seem not to have learnt from that Snowded  TALK 04:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * OK your first problem - have you got a source to back that up or is it your opinion? On the second it comes straight from the source and matches other material so again that looks like your opinion.   I have issues with Taxonomy if you make it generic to ontology as it only really applies in Biology and a degree information science.  Your source is in that camp so it can't be used to make a general statement.  Otherwise you need to start engaging in the talk page before making edits based on original research, selective often out of context references and your own opinion.  Winging here that you have been reverted when you fail to use the talk page is not good enough.   Snowded  TALK 08:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: As for item 1 about this introduction, the sentence using the definition in itself refers to language for its meaning, while 'ontological commitment' is well understood to be a much wider concept. So this definition has to be identified as a limited and restricted version of the term. If you don't like the restriction being to the 'philosophy of language', then some circumlocution is necessary to establish that there is a restriction involved here.
 * As for item 2, you have only to read the footnote from the Cambridge Dictionary to see the new statement is accurate and is correctly stated by the new intro.
 * Also as for item 2, the idea of a 'taxonomy' is that we have not just an 'inventory' but some kind of structure, which I'd hazard is usually the case with the ontology of a philosophical domain, one striking example being Spinoza. However, if 'inventory' suits you better, just say so.
 * Your claims of original research and so forth are simply unsubstantiated rant, and your council to use the Talk page should be adopted by yourself as well. Brews ohare (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if in your reply you stuck to particular objections using specific language directly addressed at points raised, aimed toward being helpful in revising content rather than chastisement. Brews ohare (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * You need to get a grip on the language you are using in headings and edit summaries as my patience is running out. I have changed the title of this section to give you an example of how to behave properly in this respect.   As to 1, no restriction of circumlocution is given in the referenced definition so that is your option only.  In respect of item 2 I think the selection I made from the definition is clearer that your more convoluted one but I am happy to revert to an earlier version if you will not accept that.  Inventory has the same problems as taxonomy and again is not in your directly philosophical references   Snowded  TALK 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Change in header is appropriate, thanks. Let us take up your two main points in detail.
 * Item 1. "no restriction of circumlocution is given in the referenced definition so that is your opinion only."
 * The source is here It is a technical paper presented at a conference. It explicitly restricts itself to the legal domain, which is not, of course, a broad context. The source has no need to explicitly state that its definition is peculiar to its subject area, as that restriction is a given in view of the paper's explicit statement of a legal context. Moreover, let's look at an everyday parsing of the WP article sentence:
 * "An ontological commitment refers to a relation between a language and certain objects postulated to be extant by that language."
 * and focus upon the words: a relation between a language and... These words, to me at least, indicate a restriction to the domain of language, call that 'legal discourse' as does the author of the cited source, or call it the 'philosophy of language' as a somewhat broader context. I understand your desire to keep matters simple, but 'not too simple' as Einstein is said to say. As a general idea of philosophy, 'ontological commitment' is not restricted in this way.
 * Item 2. "I think the selection I made from the definition is clearer"
 * It is clear, but it also is mistaken. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy says "The ontology of a theory consists of the objects the theory makes use of. A dependence of a theory upon an object is indicated if the theory fails when the object is omitted." If I compare that with your 'selection' In philosophy it indicates a dependency on an object where the "the theory fails when the object is omitted" it is clear that your 'selection' from the Cambridge Dictionary is the selection of its definition of ontology, and is not its definition of 'ontological commitment'. In short, the citing of the dictionary as the source for the quoted phrase is an error, leaving unfounded any contention that this WP assertion is supported by this source. It's simply an error in interpreting this source, but it should be fixed. Brews ohare (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded  has so far no comment on these obvious shortcomings of the present introduction. Brews ohare (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded  continues to have no comment on these obvious shortcomings of the present introduction. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded : Is your continued silence about these problems with the introduction an indication of your acceptance that change is necessary? Brews ohare (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Some of us have real work to do and you never ever stop repeating the same arguments and I have other articles to dealwith as well. I'll look at it in the morning UK time  Snowded  TALK 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 * OK ITEM ONE - by your own admission a highly restricted source from which  you cannot make a general conclusion.  You go onto to impute a conclision from that.  So its not in the source and its too specific to use.  ITEM TWO, I think my selection form the source is closer to the philosophical nature of the term.  Yours I think is over complex.  The solution here maybe to look for another source then form a conclusion.  Snowded  TALK 08:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Snowded : Item 1: This paper is indeed a "highly restricted" source, as I have pointed out, and that is exactly why its use for a general definition of 'ontological commitment' is not acceptable without adding explicit qualifications, as I have suggested. I have no understanding of your remark "So its not in the source and its too specific to use." It's not too specific to use - it just has to be clarified that it is not general.
 * Item 2: Your 'selection' from the definition by the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy is their choice for definition of ontology that they consider to be appropriate to understanding the term 'ontological commitment'. But it is not a definition of 'ontological commitment' itself.
 * Your goal to find a more transparent definition is fine. However, until that is accomplished, it is time to change the errors in the introduction. A correct alternative has been provided. Brews ohare (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ontological Parsimony
The only reference in this section has ontological commitment as used by one author as an illustration of one issue with parsimony as a subject. That is simply not enough to justify inclusion of this material, and a lot of it uses primary sources as well. I'll give it a day or so to see if there is a source, if not it gets reverted again Snowded  TALK 17:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently Snowded is unaware of an extensive presentation for this section that already appears on this Talk page here. The characterization of Baker's treatment of Ontological parsimony as "an illustration of one issue" is nonsense. Apparently Snowded has the view that he is a better authority than published authors in distinguished sources and refuses to consider the extensive sourcing presented in the original discussion on this talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * You previously provided evidence that Ontological Parsimony is a valid term - no dispute on that but you miss the point. The source given in the section does not establish it is a part of Ontological Commitment.  You continue to edit wikipedia as if you were writing under-graduate essays which would I am sure gain high marks.  However here we are writing an encyclopaedia, so you need a third party source which shows the term deserves a section on THIS article.  Snowded  TALK 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Snowded: The section Ontological_commitment follows Baker's treatment in showing that 'ontological parsimony' is defined in terms of 'ontological commitment'. So the two are very tightly connected. You now shift gears from your first opposition that this section is WP:OR, to take up a new position that ontological parsimony is not 'a part' of 'ontological commitment. I'd say to your new opposition that 'ontological parsimony' is a particular application of 'ontological commitment' so, as with many WP articles, a subsection is warranted, as where hearing might have a subsection on hearing aids. Brews ohare (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * not shifting at all just trying to explain OR to you.  Sorry you need a clear reference not a conclusion you have chosen to make.    It's like meta ontology where you just wanted to seize on any connection to allow you to write another essay.   Snowded  TALK 21:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Well, no thanks for your commentary on my editing. As for your own editing, you have yet to explain how you arrive at the conclusion that Baker's treatment of 'ontological parsimony' is WP:OR. It isn't, of course, being in a published reliable source, as a review article by a professional philosopher. You say I am writing an essay: I am not - I closely paraphrased Baker's article and added nothing of my own. You say that 'ontological parsimony' is not part of 'ontological commitment' and refuse to back up that assertion when challenged, but switch back to your already discredited arguments that you cannot and do not try to support.

You have no sustainable objections to adding Baker's treatment of 'ontological parsimony' to this article. You simply don't like it. Brews ohare (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I've been very clear, in the Baker reference ontological commitment in Quinne is used as an illustration of a problem in ontological parsimony. You are just choosing to add some material based on a loose association of words on a (I suspect) a google search. Something which is a consistent pattern.   If there is a valid reason for inclusion you should have been able to find a direct source that makes the link as more than an aside (which is the case for Baker).  Well done on reverting your personal attack by the way  Snowded  TALK 06:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: I simply do not understand these remarks of yours at all. "choosing to add some material based on a loose association of words" - how do these remarks at all apply to Baker's inclusion of of a subsection titled Ontological parsimony in his review? I've already listed a host of other references to 'Ontological parsimony'; I'll repeat them below:
 * Here is a Google books search showing 1470 discussions using this term in published books. Here is a Google scholar search showing 772 technical journal articles referring to ontological parsimony. Here are 56 articles referring to Baker's article in the Stanford Encyclopedia.
 * What do you mean by finding a "direct source" that links 'ontological parsimony' to 'ontological commitment'? Baker's article explicitly defines ontological parsimony in terms of ontological commitment. I can't figure out what you are saying. Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On thinking about this further, I wonder if this is what you mean: 'ontological parsimony' can be defined in words instead of using Quine's formal formulation based upon 'ontological commitment'. Hence, the description of Baker is an example of how 'ontological commitment' can be used to define a version of the term 'ontological parsimony'. I'd agree with such a remark, but I do not agree that the existence of other formulations is a reason to omit mention of the use of 'ontological commitment' to provide a particular definition of 'ontological parsimony'. Rather, the wording might be changed to indicate that there are other formulations as well as this one.
 * Accordingly, I have reworded this section, made it a sub-subsection, added a source, and reinserted it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The new reference provides some credibility that the subject should be in this article (which has been the point). I'm still not convinced but have reformulated it to something I can live with  Snowded  TALK 17:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ontological commitment


text:
Category:Ribbon symbolism

__NOGALLERY__

title: Category:Ribbon symbolism


text:
Talk:Prepared piano

Endnote for website reference
Whatever bot just substituted an endnote for a website reference, it is unnecessary and unnecessarily cumbersome. Badagnani 21:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These bot changes were performed by a presumed sockpuppet bot of User:SEWilcoBot, named - this bot did a few edits on 23/24 December 2005, after which it was permanently blocked.
 * The bot became operational a few hours after SEWilco(Bot) was forbidden to do such conversion of references, see Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, which was concluded 18:06, 23 December 2005.
 * This was a kind of circumvention of an ArbCom decision. Contact an admin if you think this should have any influence on SEWilco's probation (see Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 for some names of admins that applied various blocks on SEWilco since the ArbCom decision) --Francis Schonken 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Tack piano

 * Oppose merge. These are two distinct ways of altering the sound of a piano.  Prepared piano is used primarily for avant-garde effect, and tack piano is used to create a honky-tonk or barroom sound (and sometimes by composers such as Lou Harrison for clarity of tone/timbre).  The tack piano elements, except for the mention of it, should be moved out of prepared piano and into tack piano.  Badagnani 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Tack piano is a stub. It is a way to prepare a piano. Thus, it should be merged into a section of Prepared piano until it is expanded enough to gain its own article. Hyacinth 10:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This expansion can be accomplished by moving tack piano elements out of prepared piano. Tack piano is not considered a form of piano preparation, as the term was construed by John Cage.  Badagnani 15:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any sensible definition of piano preparation could exclude putting tacks on the hammers. —Keenan Pepper 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide John Cage's original construal of the term. The wikipedia article currently disagrees with you: "A prepared piano is a piano that has had its sound altered by placing objects (preparations) between or on the strings or on the hammers or dampers." Hyacinth 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look that up. I should have said that tack piano is not a form of preparation used by Cage, who was the first to use the term "prepared piano."  Badagnani 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My comment above states that tack piano should be mentioned in prepared piano. That is why I wrote "except for the mention of it."  After the mention would be a wikilink to tack piano.  Badagnani 16:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Personally, I wouldn't merge, so: oppose to put it formally. Both articles should refer to one another though (if not in the article text, at least in a "see also" section). Compare: I hope Luthéal would be a separate article soon (I made it a redirect to Tzigane (Ravel) - but that's only temporary measure, awaiting a real description of the instrument). Any help appreciated! --Francis Schonken 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've made a topic about the luthéal, but I don't know very much about it yet.Houtlijm 16:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose merge. Inserting tacks is an alteration of the instrument, not easily reversed without replacing the damaged hammers, and is not a temporary preparation.  In fact I know of no work which combines the two techniques, tho in principle one could prepare a tack piano. Sparafucil 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cage may or may not have been /the/ inventor of the prepared piano, but he was certainly /an/ inventor of the concept. "Registrations" for harpsichord and piano are only "precedents" for prepared piano in the broadest sense. A registration implies something which was designed into the instrument as an integral part of the instrument; preparation involves adding material which would normally be considered extraneous to the instrument, material not specifically intended by the builder/manufacturer to be there. This is a significant difference. For example, pipe organs have hundreds of registrations, but are not normally considered "prepared" instruments; but a pipe organ in which the flue pipes in a particular rank had been temporarily filled with ping pong balls _would_ certainly be considered "prepared".

Precedent?
I question calling harpsichord and piano registrations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.240.105 (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Satie
At one point this article mentioned Le piège de Méduse, whose article asserts Satie played the piano version with a piece of paper on the strings. Anyone able to find a reference? Sparafucil (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Alfred Schnittke
Alfred Schnittke used prepared piano in the first and sixth sections of his Concerto Grosso No. 1 but I don't have an adequate reference for this outside of the article for the concerto itself and my own ears. 50.47.115.222 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Friedrich Wilhelm Rust
It seems that Friedrich Wilhelm Rust prepared a piano in 1792. 2A01:CB11:6CF:BE00:1D10:D49:5133:D193 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prepared piano


text:
USS Ramsay

USS Ramsay (DD-124) was a Wickes-class destroyer in the United States Navy during World War I, reclassified as DM-16 during World War II and again reclassified as AG-98. She was the first ship named for Rear Admiral Francis Ramsay.

Construction and commissioning
Ramsay was laid down on 21 December 1917 by the Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company, Newport News, Virginia. The ship was launched on 8 June 1918, sponsored by Miss Mary Virginia Ramsay, granddaughter of Rear Admiral Ramsay. The destroyer was commissioned on 15 February 1919.

Service history
Assigned to Division 12, Destroyer Force, Atlantic Fleet, Ramsay completed shakedown training off Cuba in March, participated in fleet maneuvers in early April, and then sailed for New York City. She got underway in May for the Azores to act as a guide and weather observer for the NC transatlantic flights. Steaming between the Azores and Portugal from 16 May to 25 May, she returned to the United States on 6 June. For the next month she conducted tactical exercises along the East Coast and, on 6 July, put into Norfolk to prepare for transfer to the Pacific.

Ramsay arrived at San Diego on 7 August and, after overhaul at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, commenced two years of operations with Destroyer Force, Pacific. On 17 July 1920 she was designated DD-124. In early 1922, she prepared for inactivation and, on 30 June 1922, she was decommissioned and berthed at San Diego as a unit of the Reserve Fleet. Recommissioned eight years later, on 2 June 1930, she was reclassified as a light minelayer, redesignated DM-16 on 13 June, and homeported at Pearl Harbor. Converted at the Navy Yard there, she operated with Minecraft, Battle Force, primarily in the Hawaiian area until 1937 when she returned to San Diego for her second inactivation and was decommissioned on 14 December 1937. Recommissioned on 25 September 1939, she joined MinDiv 5, Minecraft, Battle Force, and for the next year conducted patrols engaged in gunnery drills and landing exercises, and trained naval reservists along the Pacific coast.

World War II
On 10 December 1940, Ramsay returned to Pearl Harbor and, throughout the next year, operated with Mine Divisions 5 and 2. Moored at Pearl Harbor on the morning of 7 December 1941, she fired her guns in combat for the first time at carrier-based planes delivering Japan's declaration of war on the United States.

Underway from the harbor before 0900, for offshore patrol, Ramsay made sound contact with a submarine at 1120. She released ten depth charges, and then watched an oil slick spread over the attack area. She had damaged, and possibly had sunk one of the midget submarines used by the Japanese in the attack. Eight days later, while escorting a merchant ship off Kauai, she made her second contact. During two runs over the enemy, she dropped her depth charges and again was rewarded by the appearance of an oil slick on the surface indicating damage to her quarry.

Into February 1942, Ramsay continued patrol escort services in the Hawaiian area. On 22 February, she got underway with TF 19 for Samoa. Arriving Pago Pago on 4 March, she planted defensive minefields off Tutuila and Apia, then shifted to Suva for mining activities among the Fiji Islands. On 3 May she steamed out of Suva for the New Hebrides and by 11 June had completed, with USS Montgomery (DM-17), the Efate defensive minefields. The next day, she cleared Vila harbor, and returned to Pearl Harbor on 3 July.

For the next two months, she again performed escort and patrol assignments in the Hawaiian Islands. Then, on 14 September, she sailed for the Aleutians. Still with Montgomery, she arrived at Adak on 22 September and three days later resumed mineplanting activities. In November she returned to California; underwent overhaul at Hunters Point; and on 13 January 1943 arrived back in the Aleutians for nine months of escort and patrol duty from Unalaska in the east to Attu in the west.

On 17 September, Ramsay sailed south. Steaming via Pearl Harbor, she put into San Francisco on 4 October for another overhaul. Out of the shipyard by 20 December, she sailed west on 24 December. She joined ServRon 6 at Pearl Harbor on 2 January 1944, and on 21 January headed for the Gilberts. After a brief stop at Tarawa, she rendezvoused with TG 50.15 on 30 January and screened the cruiser USS Pensacola (CA-24) during the bombardment of Wotje that afternoon. The next day, she guarded the cruiser USS Chester (CA-27) during shelling, and, on 2 February, she arrived at Majuro, where she conducted antisubmarine patrols until 14 March. An escort run to the Gilberts followed, and on 19 February she got underway to return to Pearl Harbor. Arriving on 27 February, she was assigned convoy escort duty. Between then and mid-September, she shepherded ships to Majuro, San Francisco and Eniwetok. In October, she served with the Submarine Training Force and, in November, returned to the Marshalls for escort and training duty off Majuro.

With the new year, 1945, Ramsay headed east and during February again worked with the Submarine Training Force. At the end of the month, she sailed for San Pedro, where, after overhaul, she was designated a miscellaneous auxiliary and was reclassified AG-98, effective 5 June. On 15 June, she once more got underway for Pearl Harbor, and for the next three months, she served as plane guard for aircraft carriers training in Hawaiian waters. On 24 September, she arrived back at San Pedro to await her third, and final, inactivation. She was decommissioned on 19 October 1945, struck from the Navy list on 13 November 1945; and sold for scrapping on 21 November 1946.

Awards
Ramsay earned three battle stars during World War II.

title: USS Ramsay


text:
Template talk:US culture

"American" culture
The template is called "US" culture, but the box is labelled "American". I think this may be ressented a bit overwhelming by the non-US American citizens ! I relabelled it "US". I also put the real link for comics. That way the template mecanisme works better. Now on the the page American comic book, the "Comics" word in the template is bolded without link as it sould be.Lvr 10:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image?
What is the Warhol-Basquiat image meant to represent? jengod 06:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's awfully big too. Tuf-Kat 03:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

title: Template talk:US culture


text:
User:Chuckschneider

My name is Charles Schneider. I collect political badges as a hobby. I live with my mom.

title: User:Chuckschneider


text: Category:801 births

title: Category:801 births


text: Category:873 deaths

title: Category:873 deaths