Miscellaneous desk
< April 9	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 10[edit]

Word for concealed control[edit]

Is there a word or term to denote a situation where a person hands over something relatively valuable purported to be the top-tier controlling element, but secretly retains the real controlling tool (which may also disable the lower-tier control that was handed over). Something like master key or decoy, but maybe there's a more specific term for such situations? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the German propensity for compound words, maybe. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way: As a German, I don't see how you could construct a word for that. You can make a "Hintertürsituation" (backdoor situation) but that is not really a good description. --mfb (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a concept called "shadow president" or "puppet monarch", which involves a real figure maintaining absolute controlling power behind a figurehead official whom is believed to have absolute power. But to my knowledge, apart from the terms you listed, there is no term at least in the English language which covers the concepts you mentioned.--WaltCip (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of a word for the specific situation, but it reminds me of backdoor (computing) and hardware backdoor. If either of these are included on a device in secret, the user is given the illusion that he controls the device, but the creator can monitor the user, subvert his activities, or seize control, as and when desired. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Obligatory xkcd comic of the concept here). Another phrase that suits is Power behind the throne. According to that article, a possible word for the concept is "proconsul", though that article is a little unclear on how perfectly it would be a match; there's obviously shadings of meaning along the spectrum. Matt Deres (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a French term which has entered into English called Éminence grise which means roughly the same thing. --Jayron 32 15:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The normal term for "the real figure maintaining absolute controlling power behind a figurehead official whom [sic] is believed to have absolute power" is "puppetmaster". 92.19.175.225 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See puppet state. Alansplodge (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Covert power rests with so-and-so while overt power rests with so-and-so. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also: deep state. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:3 (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced plutonium[edit]

"Public suspicions led to a federal investigation into plant security and safety. National Public Radio reported that this investigation had found that 20 to 30 kilograms (44–66 lb) of plutonium had been misplaced at the plant." from Karen Silkwood

But where on earth did that misplaced plutonium end up? Muzzleflash (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this 1977 article,[1] one theory is that it was smuggled out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Jayron 32 00:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, while the official company response has always been that the reported missing plutonium was accounted for (in an unspecified way), other employees and managers from the Kerr-McGee have contradicted the official reports, noting that as much as "fifty pounds" were never accounted for, and had not been some 4 years after the Silkwood case, per [2]. Most reliable sources much later than that are hard to find any more information on the missing plutonium, most focus on the death of Silkwood herself as the main controversy, for example this NYTimes article mentions the missing plutonium (quoting up to 90 lbs), but never comes back to it, focusing on the death of Silkwood instead. Near as can be told, the missing plutonium has probably never been sufficiently accounted for. Hence ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. There is no consistent, well-accepted explanation. The bookkeeping of the stuff was so sloppy, the missing material so poorly accounted for, and the stories so inconsistent, there is no clear evidence what happened to it (if anything). It's entirely possible that it was never missing in the first place, or that it went missing and was found, or that it went missing and was never found, the accounting of the material, and the conflicting anecdotal reports of it, are completely inconsistent. We just don't know what happened. --Jayron 32 16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dimly recall a broadly similar discovery of an apparent shortfall of plutonium (according to calculations of material inputs, presumed processes and subsequent yields) in a UK plant some years ago: one suggestion was that the "missing" material was actually still somewhere in the plant, deposited in pipework or other parts of the system where it couldn't directly be seen (by remote cameras) and which couldn't be examined directly because of the radiation hazards. I can't remember further details, or the eventual outcome, but I'll dig and come back if I can find anything, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was it possibly about Sellafield in early 2005, as googling for 'missing plutonium UK plant' suggests...? --CiaPan (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Just got back home] Yes, that'd be it, CiaPan. There's a short section on it in our Sellafield article, which could perhaps use more detail: I'll see if I can dig out my New Scientist magazines from the relevant era.

Regarding the original query, I notice that the sentence reads "National Public Radio reported . . . ." The sentence is not cited to a Reliable Source, and media reports are not always accurate: I'd like to see more authoritative corroboration for the sentence, though I have no particular reason to think the report was false. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]