text:
Talk:Statistical inference

Merge?
Please merge the pages 'statistical inference' and 'Inferential statistics', but be aware that the page on statistical inference has more concice information than the other page.

Thanks for making this article. I've been wanting it for a long time. It has a bearing on environmental issues, because the case for a global warming catastrophe or ozone depletion is entirely based on statistics. User:Ed Poor

 * (William M. Connolley 21:49, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)) Actually thats not true. In the case of ozone, the obs and theory are suffiently good that statistics aren't needed. GW has theory, modelling and obs too, but stats are important too.

Thanks for the information on this page. I'm not in favor of merging this page with Inferential statistics or statistical induction. I can see how the statistical inference page compliments the inferential statistics page, but for myself... I needed the information on this page (statistical inference) alone and do not at this time need the depth of information on the other page (inferential statistics). [User: C. Lawson]

 * Why is that an objection to the proposed merger? No one's proposing getting rid of this information---just incorporating some of it into that other article, and maybe putting some of it somewhere else. Michael Hardy 22:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Types/Schools
There are actually three schools of statistical inference: Bayesian, Fisherian and frequentist

Source: Essentials of Statistical Inference (Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics) by G. A. Young (Author), R. L. Smith (Author) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.193.219 (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 * These authors state a falsehood. Look at JASA 2000 for e.g. information theoretic statistics, which has featured contributions by Kolmogorov, Turing, etc., and explain into which of these pigeon-holes information-complexity statistics falls, please!

 * What is Fisherian statistics? Is that "fiducial statistics" which collapses outside of exponential families (Lindley, JRSS around 1955 or so) or the subjective probability-model "theory" which was ridiculed by Frank Ramsey and Rudolf Carnap? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

needs revision
The distinction between Bayes/frequentist and objective/subjective seem largely unhelpful; see e.g. Christian Robert's book for a strongly argued statement that there's no such thing as objective analysis - ultimately, someone has to choose what to do.

It might be more useful to discuss distinction between non- semi- and fully-parametric inference, the distinction of which is orthogonal to the Bayes/frequentist choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McPastry (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Dear Brother McPastry, I am delighted to find another statistician that wants to reduce the schismatics between Bayesian, not necessarily Bayesian, or anti-Bayesian statistics, as presented on WP.
 * However, the "anti-objectivity" statement of Robert cannot be viewed as mainstream statistics. It contradicts the ISI Code of Ethics, and the curriculular guidelines of the ASA, at least, and the statements of leading textbooks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Mcpastry first removed the recomendations favoring objective randomization (the leading textbooks and on the professional guidelines of statisticians, in the USA and the world) because of his objection to "objectivity", etc.. Now McPastry has again removed those references, without responding to the points---especially regarding the need to cite reliable sources.
 * McPastry, please seek consensus on the TALK page before doing such unilateral editing.

 * I hadn't noticed this, what obviously must be a joke, before. I say "joke" because of the unilateral way that KW destroyed the pre-existing article without seeking consensus. Melcombe (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * This is pretty hilarious, Melcombe, given your destruction of the "fiducial inference" article, which was written after reading about and apparently being able to verbalize some of the fallacies of fiducial probability and inference. You inserted the same nonsense in this article and then defended it, despite (in some sense) knowing better. Again, your tolerance for cognitive dissonance exceeds mine. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * But it wasn't me who destroyed an article without consulting on the talk page and then demanded that everyone else should do so. I see that your inability to cite without requiring telepathy of the reader and future editors has now infected "fiducial probability" as well as the other articles you have touched.Melcombe (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * IMHO, this editing is improper unless I have mis-represented the ASA and ISI guideliens or the textbooks. If you want, you can cite Robert or Lindley that "objectivity" is misleading, etc., but please label that view as contrary to the professional guidelines and the mainstream literature.
 * I would consider if a courtesy if you would restore the mainstream recommendations in the introduction. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I ain't no 'Brother', brother. 'Objective' is unhelpful to the lay reader, it suggests that anything else is unfair, or somehow tainted by vested interests. As someone, somewhere, has to choose what analysis to do - subjectively - then use of the term is unhelpful and confusing. I have formatted some of the rest of the text to incorporate different types of models, and different modes of inference - all combinations of which are possible. McPastry (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Randomized data versus playing with data sets
A randomization test uses the randomization described in the experimental protocol and implemented, and is not assumed. Similarly, in sampling, the random sampling scheme defines a distribution of the sample statistic.

In contrast, in nonparametric statistics, a permutation test plays with the data regardless of its origins. If a supposed distribution is nice but otherwise nonparametric, then permutation tests characterize best tests (Lehmann's TSH; c.f. Paul Rosenbaum's book on observational studies). Unfortunately, observational data are not i.i.d. but d.d.d., dependent and differently distributed (Freedman, Statistical models), so the relevance of permutation tests on observational data depends on implausible assumptions.

McPastry repeatedly has removed the description of randomization procedures for randomized data (data from randomized experiments or random samples) and substituted permutation tests for "data sets". I have asked McPastry repeatedly to stop such editing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral tone versus pejorative language
I have repeatedly edited KW's comments, which imply that randomization is the only defensible approach to inference - see comment on "playing with data sets" above. There are several approaches to inference, all of which merit impartial and neutral-toned discussion. McPastry (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Basic considerations are at WP:NPOV. Melcombe (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 * No statement written by me implies that "randomizaton is the only defensible approach". Please quote one offending text, McPastry or Melcombe (or both)!
 * On the contrary, I clarified the "nonparametric" use of permutation tests, citing Lehman (and Rosenbaum), so McPastry's claim is obviously false.
 * Rather than claim that randomization is the only defensible approach, I have consistently written that
 * (1) randomized procedures are preferred, citing reputable sources (ASA guidelines, Moore & McCabe, etc.).
 * (2) permutation tests are most relevant when the data come from randomized procedures (in which case, they are termed "randomization tests"), citing Lehmann. The relevance of permutation tests to non-randomized data is questionable (Hinkelmann & Kempthorne. Basu's paper on the Fisher randomization test could be cited, along with the discussion).
 * McPastry has failed to cite one reliable source opposing propositions (1) and (2).
 * There are several approaches to arithmetic, including statements like 1+1=3. However, it is hard to find reliable sources supporting 1+1=3, and easy to find reliable sources supporting alternatives, especially the alternative that 1+1=2.

 * Regarding "perjorative" phrasing:
 * The scare-quotes on "statistician" were in the cited text. See Hinkelmann and Kempthorne, Exercise 6.3 (page 193 in first edition).
 * "Playing with data" occurs in Basu's paper on the Fisher randomization test.
 * It may be useful to consult a dictionary on "foolhardy" (which is gentler than a reliable source, John Tukey, "damned fool", whose exact citation I couldn't find via Google.)
 * Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Progress
I thank the other editors for recent improvements, which try to preserve the truth of others' (particularly my) statements (while trying to correct errors).Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

more edits
KW continues to insert warnings into neutral-toned descriptions of what assumptions are. Validity of assumptions is a good topic, but it can't help the reader (who's reading e.g. a description of three levels of assumption) to distract them at the first bullet point with concerns over SRS-veracity. So I moved them.

Much of the rest of this article (e.g. all the randomization stuff) heavily accentuates discussion/criticism of methods, rather than elucidation of what the methods actually are, and how they are justified. McPastry (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * McPastry and Melcombe have again asserted that statisticians can assume that data arose from simple random sampling --- Where is the quote from David Cox (whom McPastry cites for authority) that allows an iid assumption to be made (without subject matter knowledge or randomization) for inductive inference (as opposed to abductive hypothesis generation)? McPastry and Melcombe have altered the text so that it read that the population's normality is a consequence of the central limit theorem (rather than the normality of the sample mean). This is incompetent statistics, which violates the ISI code of ethics, especially since one or both of you label yourselves statisticians.
 * McPastry has deleted referenced statements to the contrary, made by leading statisticians, with precise citations, and has failed to strive for consensus. This editing violates Wikipedia policy.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It would be good if KW would do a number of things: (1) learn what Wikipedia is supposed to be ... it is specifically not a "statement of best practice" and not a place to impose particular viewpoints, as was done in the deletion of (nearly) all mention of fiducial inference simply because KW doesn't like it's being mentioned ... start from WP:POV as previously suggested; (2) remember what this article is about ... its title and subject is "Statistical inference" ... there are separate articles on statistics, statistical models and statistical assumptions where things that are not directly relevant to "statistical inference" can be placed if they are worth saying at all; (3) find out how and when to include citations, in particular as accessible sources that can be sought out to confirm that someone else has made the point or other confirmation of formulae etc. ... it need not be to the first person who made the point; (4) resist the urge to include references by Peirce in every article he edits ... it can't always be necessary to include 5 or 6 of such references.
 * So now KW, tell us exactly where you think Cox is being cited as a justification for advice to take any particular approach. Melcombe (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Melcombe raises many points. (1) In particular, Melcombe exagerates my editing about fiducial inference. Indeed, I provided the Lindley reference (whose citation he improved greatly) and described the limitations of fiducial inference. Indeed, I also provided all the references to serious statistical work that had been inspired by Fisher's writings on "fiducial inference".

 * So let's discuss these references to Peirce. The text says "Objective randomization allows properly inductive procedures", and then lists 6 publications by Peirce to back-up this statement. Is KW saying that all 6 of these are needed for this purpose? And that the same 6 are needed in all the other articles he has inserted this set of publications? Melcombe (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It's a waste of space to discuss the original, since Fisher's "theory" collapses --- an hour's reading should establish that this statement is consensus. It's unfortunate that Melcombe still has failed to correct the damage he inflicted on the Fiducial inference article's lead sentence, even though he's apparently read about the failings of Fisher's fiducial system. (I have less tolerance for cognitive dissonance.)
 * (2) Elementary logic suggests the problems with false hypotheses: In many systems, one can prove anything via a false hypothesis. Unless this article presents itself as an article in pure mathematics, then some discussion of premises is important, especially since leading authorities suggest that the use of incredible assumptions distinguishes statistical incompetence.
 * (3-4) Statisticians Rao, Stigler and Kempthorne and logicians von Wright and Hintikka and philosopher Hacking have argued that Peirce is a central figure in statistics, especially in statistical inference. Unlike Fisher, these sources can use "sufficient" and "necessary" correctly in the fourth editions of their books! Unless Melcombe cites a reliable source contradicting these (reliable) sources, his personal feelings about citing Peirce are irrelevant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you have forgotten your edit summary 'remove "fidual inference" with belongs with "flat earth" etc. theories'. It is obvious that any encyclopedia article on statistical inference must say at least a modest amount about it. The fact that there is consensus that it can't be made to work can be mentioned, but is itself irrelevant to the question of whether it should appear. Recall what Wikipedia is. Melcombe (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Melcombe's understanding of English puzzles me---especially Melcombe's misuse of "always" and "every" and "must" and "necessary" --- the last word gave Fisher trouble, also, as I noted before (in a remark I gently hid before Melcombe's latest contribution, but which is now shown).
 * Like the flat-earth theory, "fiducial inference" made claims that were false. There are many such failed systems of "inference", which are not mentioned. Where is the discussion of "fiducial inference" (or "flat-earth theories") in JASA 2000? That review of statistics had discussions on information complexity, which Melcombe neglected to discuss while he inserted "fiducial inference" in yet another article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The new intro is a nice improvement. I agree with Melcombe about scope (and much else). Some issues I think could be cleared up
 * Saying non-parametric means "very few" assumptions seems too vague; one could say that assuming a classical linear model is just one assumption. I appreciate that it looks very abstract, but the finite-dimensional restriction is in van der Vaart and an Cox [Principles book] - and probably lots of other places too. Perhaps a little more in the way of examples would help the reader?
 * Simple random sampling is an assumption that can be made in fully- semi- and non-parametric models. So it's perhaps not best to state it as the sole example in the non-parametric bullet.
 * The randomization-based models section should start with something to orient the reader. For example, "An important experimental situation where strong assumptions are well-motivated is the randomized study". Then say how inference proceeds. Then compare randomization-based inference to other approaches.
 * "warrants" is nowhere near the right word.
 * False models and pi=22/7 is a bizarre comparison. Anyone can see 22/7 is not Pi. It would be an overstatement to ridicule the assumption of classical linear models because they're not true. (n.b. I would rather not include the Box mantra on models and usefulness, it's hackneyed and quoted as support by people with very different stances)
 * Information and computational complexity - doesn't mention inference anywhere, so not obviously relevant
 * Fiducial/Lindley - Lindley (1958) didn't show fiducial inference "fails", he showed that it didn't correspond to a Bayesian procedure - this isn't quite the same. Don Fraser has written about this (well). McPastry (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I can respond to only the most important comments, which I have numbered for convenient reference. Your tone & comments are constructive.
 * I agree with comments 1-4: However, regarding (1), it is a bad idea to introduce nonparametrics with "infinite dimensions" in Wikipedia, because you will scare most of the audience.
 * "very few" doesn't capture the right idea. Copying whatever Cox uses seems pragmatic. One could also re-order the non- and fully- sections. McPastry (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Using 3 and 22/7 seem good examples, that show a false-hood can be a good approximation and useful for making decisions, although it can be improved with the scientific method, leading to the truth as the limit of so reasoned belief: this example is simpler than Peirce's example of iterative methods (e.g. Newton). ;) It's certainly doomed as original research, since I don't know of a reference. This example was another example of my striving for a neutral point of view, rather than just signalling skepticism about model-based inference, if I may say so.
 * the discussion in the article says nothing about "good approximation for making decisions"; as currently written it is not a useful analogy. Also, the situation in modeling is complicated by e.g. classical linear models giving valid-if-conservative tests for population parameters, in many real-world circumstances. Using pi=3 or 22/7 doesn't capture this, there isn't a population-parameter interpretation to the area of a circle. McPastry (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard Berk's book is a good accessible reference for bogosity of models. It does, however, largely assume that one really wants to know about a true underlying finite-dimensional parametric model. McPastry (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding (6) Rissannen certainly does discuss "inference" in his little green book. I don't have time to add "inference" now or cite the pages in the articles referenced. I'll try to do it Friday or this weekend. In any event, information-theoretic and Kolmogorov-complexity have shaken up even English "statistical inference", whose obsessions with Neyman and Fisher have long recognized as unhealthy, eg. by Cox.
 * look forward to some inferential content here, then McPastry (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Lindley (7), tonight I cited Lindley's interview in Statistical Science about the non-additivity of so-called "fiducial probability". Previously, I did not specify the exact article in JRSS, but described the exponential-family result and suggested a year: I believe that Melcombe specified the currently cited article --- maybe he chose the wrong one, because I don't recognize that title: I believe that Cox's Principles cites the appropriate Lindley paper. Again, I'll try check in the next few days. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you didn't previously specify a title, perhaps saying that Melcombe "chose the wrong one" lacks diplomacy? McPastry (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like making mistakes and I checked the reference, which was indeed the article I intended. You are correct that a Bayesian posterior is required, which would exclude some generalized Bayesian procedures needed to characterize admissibile procedures, but otherwise includes much of statistics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hid the Lindley JRSS reference in this article, which wasn't so clearly exciting after all---thanks for the discussion. (I never introduced the Lindley JRSS reference in the "fiducial inference" article.) However, I leave the Lindley JRSS article, which may be of interest to Bayesian or fiducial fellow-travelers, because it was cited by Cox's recent Principles, which is notable and reliable enough for me (on this point!). Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * McPastry, I speculated whether Melcombe had "maybe" chosen the wrong article. Wikipedia policy on Talk pages requires that substantial comments be retained, even when an editor (like myself here) would be tempted to hide speculation. WP policy also frowns on inserting comments out of time order.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it would certainly help if you could be bothered to supply a proper reference when you are inserting a citation ... after all, Wikipedia policy (which you are so keen on making up as you go along) is that you should be looking at the reference at the time you are editing, so it should be easy. Melcombe (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fiducial inference and fringe science
I did look at Wikipedia articles on scientific theories, often by scientists with path-breaking work in other areas, that are widely dismissed by other scientists. The term for theories like fiducial probability is fringe science. I apologize for bringing up the example of flat-earth theories, which seems to have provided less stimulation to science than has fiducial inference, whose influences on Barnard etc. were noted on Wikipedia in this article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Said to be fallacious"
Melcombe, can you find a reliable source that states that Fisher's argument in 1955 wasn't fallacious? The fallacy was dissected by Neyman in JRSS 1956. Does the article on ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny state that "this theory is sometimes said to be false"?!Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh? Are you now saying that it is not said to be fallacious? In the end it is just one person's opinion and readers can make up their own mind. Even Zabell said that early version of the Fisher approach were indistiguishable from Neynan's, so it can't be that all versions of a fiducial approach are fallacious, otherwise Neyman's would be as well. Melcombe (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Fisher's last descriptions of fiducial inference involved conceptual confusions and obvious fallacies, in fact, not just in Neyman's reading.
 * Both Neyman and Fisher agreed that their conceptions were different and both viewed the other's as wrong-headed. Your edits now suggest substantial agreement (for early versions of Fisher's "theory", which even he discarded!). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

areas for improvement
Some things I intend to work on (and would appreciate comments on); Hope you are similarly minded. I intend to continue to remove pejorative language, which is inappropriate in an encyclopedia entry. McPastry (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Randomization-based models: this currently doesn't start with a description of what randomization-based inference is. Commentary along the lines of "a good observational study may be better..." seems unnecessary, to me
 * Randomization-based models: discussion of whether or not there is a true model seems of marginal interest (there's not, yet the world doesn't end because of it). Pi and 22/7 seems an unhelpful analogy. Also, more limitations of randomized trials might be acknowledged.
 * Information and computational complexity: looks okay, but the comparison to e.g. Bayes is redundant - it's mentioned elsewhere in the article, as are its strengths and weaknesses
 * Fiducial Inference: this never says what fiducial inference actually is. I don't see why a reader would care that Fisher couldn't settle on a definition of something that hasn't been even vaguely described in this article.

 * Many or most of your recent edits are improvements imho. However, ...
 * A. You did remove the statement that limiting results are irrelevant to finite samples, which is nearly a quotation from Kolmogorov and Le Cam (many times in his book); Pfanzagl's recent textbook says the same thing. Being the world's leading authority on probability and one of the world's leading logicians, Kolmogorov was a better authority on probability and logic than looking at a recent "statistical journal"; Being the architects of approximation-theoretic and limiting statistics, Le Cam and Pfanzagl are better authorities on asymptotics than is "looking at a recent statistical journal".  You used to cite van der Vaart's textbook, which acknowledges the (obvious) priority and authority of Le Cam and Pfanzagl. (I do not object to your removing the "n < infinity" inequality, etc.)
 * It may be nearly a quotation, but it didn't read like that. It read like a bald claim that asymptotic approximations are worthless unless n = infinity, which sounds very like "letting the perfect get in the way of the practical" (to quote Efron) and is unhelpful. Rather than 'nearly quote' fairly advanced texts, it would be better to explain what the authors mean, in the simplest terms possible... all without belittling other approaches, of course. McPastry (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the distinction between limiting results (okay) and approximation results (good).
 * A limiting theorem has the form "for every epsilon, there exists some n such that good things happen"; in statistics, such results often are proved via arguments like "assume that there exists a sequence of consistent score estimators and suppose the conclusion fails --- then a contradiction occurs". Such arguments are wildly nonconstructive and irrelevant to finite samples. Kolmogorov, Le Cam and Pfanzagl are right.
 * In contrast, approximation results hold for some definite (finite) sample size (described in terms of the parameters), and often for all n. (C.f. Kantorovich's "Functional Analysis and Applied Mathematics" where this distinction is stressed.)
 * Nobody denies that many asymptotically nifty procedures perform well for moderately sized samples (even without having an approximation result proved): On the contrary, I added the precise statement by Hoffman-Jörgensen about the role of experience and simulations in evaluating methods. (Pfanzagl's books have lots of simulation studies, as well as very precise asymptotics.) The objection is to the illegitate inference from limiting results to some fixed sample, without referring to simulation studies, experience, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I rewrote a short version of the distinction between approximation results and limiting results. The footnote now quotes Kolmogorov, Le Cam and Pfanzagl on the irrelevance of limiting results to finite samples, and now gives precise page references. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've edited this to remove inflammatory statements about limiting results being "irrelevant". Limiting results - while certainly not providing inference on their own - do provide the basis for approximations that people use in practice, so they 'are' relevant to the inferential process. Moreover, for many applied uses of multivariate regression, in practice the degree of approximation to the true sampling distribution is by far not the biggest problem with inference... calling GMoM or GEE (or their justification) "irrelevant" is not appropriate. McPastry (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask that you respond below. You removed my statement about irrelevance when it was cited with references to Kolmogorov's article and LeCam's book (but not quotations or page number): In fact, your editing dismissed the sentence with the comment "Look at any statistical journal to see why", which seemed risky-behavior given the citation of Kolmogorov and Le Cam (and given my record of editing!). You later removed the statement about "irrelvance" after I had provided precise citations with page numbers and the relevant quotations. On the question of "irrelevance" your editing has been very point-of-view, imho.
 * You are correct that some expansions are useful in practice. I would welcome your adding something about Taylor-series expansions of nice functions (or Padé approximations), etc. and their use in practice: See Pfanzagl's LNMS monograph for nice examples, which also warn against fallacies. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * B. "Fiducial inference" is notoriously only a collection of (one-parameter) examples --- see Neyman. I would welcome your deleting the whole subsection from this article, because even recent neo-Fisherians (Davison, etc.) think that its sun has set. (The "See also" section could list the article on Fiducial inference of course.)
 * No objection to trimming this down a bit, though I feel it merits some discussion, as it's probably the best-known paradigm outside of Bayes and frequentism, whether or not its "sun has set". I think a description of the general idea - even if only for one-parameter problems - would greatly help the reader. McPastry (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This statement about fiducial being the 3rd most popular is false. Compare the number of researchers working on information-theory and those working on "fiducial" inference, which was ignored by JASA 2000, etc. It may be true that fans of David Cox and John Nelder (likelihood "wallahs" in Basu's terms) are arguably more popular: Is that what you mean? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you read, I did say "probably". I don't believe there is hard evidence either way on the numbers of researchers or amount of work, or indeed that any hard-and-fast ordering is available or useful. I mean that lots of (educated, smart, reasonable) people are aware of fiducial inference as a form of statistical inference, and as such it merits some discussion in this encyclopaedia entry. By stating that my statement was "false" you, again, appear to lack a sense of diplomacy, and of proportion. McPastry (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please criticize behavior rather than persons.
 * I was criticizing your commenting that my statement was false. Why do you persist in arguing over this? We agreed that the fiducial inference section could be trimmed. McPastry (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Plenty of educated, smart, reasonable people are aware of Laplacian principle of indifference (giving probability one-half to a proposition in a state of ignorance), monkeys typing at keyboards, etc. as forms of statistical inference, also --- to say nothing of tarot cards and ouija boards. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopedia; entries are there by judgement, not by logical deduction. Also, I find your allusions to monkeys, tarot and ouija insulting, and way out of proportion. McPastry (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel insulted. I had wished rather that you should have recognized the fallacy of your argument from its ability to generate such conclusions, and so that you should have been motivated to formulate a viable argument (or withdraw your position). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recognize any fallacy in what I wrote (which, as you'll recall, was that it seems worthwhile to me that the article mention fiducial inference, briefly). If that isn't your opinion, fine. Why are you trying to make this a bare-knuckle epistemological debate? McPastry (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My statement
 * "Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Plenty of educated, smart, reasonable people are aware of Laplacian principle of indifference (giving probability one-half to a proposition in a state of ignorance), monkeys typing at keyboards, etc. as forms of statistical inference, also --- to say nothing of tarot cards and ouija boards."
 * was intended to clarify the error in your statement:
 * "I mean that lots of (educated, smart, reasonable) people are aware of fiducial inference as a form of statistical inference, and as such it merits some discussion in this encyclopaedia entry."
 * The acceptable conclusion (keep some mention of ficucial inference) may follow from good premises, not one leading to bad conclusions. For example, discussing "fiducial inference" may alert innocent youth that Fisher committed many logical fallacies and mathematical blunders, and that they should think twice before partaking in the initiation rites of the Fisher cult. (C.f. Areopagitica's argument for the benefits of reading fallacious arguments and wrong positions.) ThanksKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you so fussed about the statement of an opinion? "I feel it [fiducial inference] merits some discussion" was where we started. I still feel that way. The fact that other people wrote up fiducial inference for this article suggests I am not alone. Accusing me of falsehoods, fallacies, and making other insulting comments helps no one. Please stop. McPastry (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Irrelevance" of limits for finite samples
Editor McPastry has labeled the word "irrelevant" as inflamatory and inappropriate to this article, and has repeatedly removed the word "irrelevant" despite its being used in citations from Kolmogorov and Le Cam. This is point-of-view editing. I ask that McPastry cite a reliable source explaining why Le Cam and Komogorov are wrong to use "irrelevant", and otherwise stop point-of-view censorship. Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * My concern is that readers confuse the meaning of this term in logical deduction with its lay meaning - where relevance means having "significant and demonstrable bearing upon the matter at hand" (Merriam Webster). So, saying that e.g. asymptotic results are 'irrelevant' to finite samples suggests they have no important place in the analysis of any actual inference based on real data (which must have finite sample size). Such a statement would be far too strong; these results get used all the time, successfully, and demonstrably - look in any applied stats journal.
 * These results are invoked often, agreed. However, a limiting result is irrelevant to the problem at hand, while approximation results and simulations are relevant. I would suggest your reading Philip Wolfe's paper on "A universal algorithm for optimization" (Math. Programming c. 1973) for clarification about the distinction between limiting results and finite computations/observations. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my entry above. You are interpreting 'irrelevant' in its strict mathematical sense (and I'm not disagreeing with what you say). But the quotation of Le Cam in the article states that limit results are relevant in the lay sense. Hence, disambiguation is required. McPastry (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. The resulting text seems much improved over either of our earliest versions. Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have suggested 'formally irrelevant' as a compromise term. 'Logically irrelevant' could also work. Regarding Kolmogorov/Le Cam/any other great probabilist or statistician you admire, please contain the biographical information to references. The presence of a citation denotes that the statement made has support; the flow of the text's description about e.g. what limiting results provide is badly disrupted by the insertion of reasons why these specific authors are being cited. McPastry (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay, the last round of editing retained the word "irrelevant". I dislike the weasel word and redundancy "formally", but I'm tired of arguing and will let it stand. Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 * See above for why. I dislike your description of my text as weasel words. McPastry (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnard's influence
I removed the following unscourced statements:

 * Barnard's work has inspired further work by D. A. Fraser, P. Dawid, Per Martin-Löf and Steffan Lauritsen on sufficient statistics and statistical models. In the case of "structural" influence, there seem to be few applications outside of group-transformation families and one-parameter exponential families. Work by Barnard and Harold Jeffreys has also influenced approaches to "objective" Bayesian inference by George E. P. Box and E. T. Jaynes. Box used "locally" objective priors; Jaynes proposed maximum entropy prior distributions. Many of these approaches are related to harmonic analysis, in particular to the theory of representations of semigroups.

Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Was that the tagged synthesis? If not it should be pointed out, if so the flag removed. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The synthesis tag is dated March 2012, later than 11 June 2010. The synthesis relates (throughout the article) to various opinions being expressed for which there are no sources given (which should be given, otherwise it is OR) in relation to a number of published works, for which citations are given, but this is done in such a way as it looks as if the citations back-up the opinions. What is needed are some published summaries of the whole field (or wide subfields) of statistical inference (and its development) that can be used as sources for statements about importance, development, relevance, etc..  The tag was originally placed because of a more blatant synthesis which has been removed & replaced by something presumably better, but overall the problem seems to remain, possibly at a lower level. Melcombe (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

deduction and induction and prediction
The following may be original research, so (according to wp:nor) I don't include it in the article, but I have found it useful and enlightening.

An unknown number may be estimated by an order of magnitude, which is the mean value of the probability distribution, and an uncertainty, which is the standard deviation of the distribution.

If the uncertainty is zero then the result is certain.

Deduction is estimating a part from the whole.

Induction is estimating the whole from a part.

Prediction is estimating from one part to another.

The following J expressions apply. deduce =: %~`*/"2@(,:(%:@*-.))@(+/@[%~1,,:)      predict=: (deduce~-@>:)~       induce =: (,:0:)+[predict(-+/)~

Example. Based on a test the pupils in a school class are classified into categories. a =: 20 5 0 NB. There are 20 pupils in category A, 5 in category B, and 0 in category C. The first line of the following answers contains the orders of magnitude, and the second line contains the uncertainties. a deduce 0 NB. certain deduction when the sample is empty 0 0 0 0 0 0      a deduce 25 NB. certain deduction when the sample is the whole population 20 5 0 0 0 0       25 0 0 deduce 10 NB. certain deduction when all pupils are in the same category 10 0 0 0 0 0       a deduce 10 NB. uncertain deduction in the general case 8 2 0 1 1 0      a induce 1000 NB. How are the 1000 pupils in the whole school distributed? 751.25 213.929 34.8214 79.516 75.3499 34.0783      a predict 25 NB. How are 25 pupils in another class distributed? 18.75 5.35714 0.892857 2.92691 2.77356 1.25439 Prediction is generally somewhat uncertain. a predict 0 NB. trivially certain prediction 0 0 0 0 0 0      0 0 0 predict 3 NB. uncertain prediction 1 1 1 1 1 1      0 1 predict 3 NB. more information gives better predictions 1 2 1 1       0 0 0 996  predict 4 NB. plenty of information gives good predictions 0.004    0.004     0.004    3.988 0.0633086 0.0633086 0.0633086 0.109544

The deduce program is the well known formula for mean value and standard deviation of the multivariate hypergeometric distribution. The possibly original research is the observation that the prediction formula follows from the deduction formula by increasing by one and changing sign. a 20 5 0 -(1+a) _21 _6 _1      (-(1+a))deduce 25 NB. this is how prediction works. Amazing! 18.75 5.35714 0.892857 2.92691 2.77356 1.25439

Bo Jacoby (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC).

title: Talk:Statistical inference


text:
Talk:Albion, New York

Untitled
This is hopelessly outdated. Last population count 1910? Inlcuding "984 foreign born and 43 negroes"? It all seems kinda silly to me. Danny

 * It's a classic example, Danny, of why importing text from old Britannicas is not useful in most cases. Believe it or not, there have been people who objected to us cutting the 1910 census data, because 'later readers might find it interesting'.  Let them do real research, I say! I also changed the Erie Canal to the past tense - it was renamed in the 1920s or 30s, anyway.  MichaelTinkler

 * I put the text from the old Britannica here - it was previously located at the general Albion article. I did wikify it a little, but I agree much of the data was of little use. jheijmans

Confused
Are there really three places called "Albion, NY"? Can the disambig page tell what the actual difference is between each? Background: I was looking for the town along the Erie Canal that George Pullman and Rufus Bullock came from. Thanks Jolomo 05:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Albion, New York


text:
Grand Union Canal

The Grand Union Canal in England is part of the British canal system. It is the principal navigable waterway between London and the Midlands. Starting in London, one arm runs to Leicester and another ends in Birmingham, with the latter stretching for 137 mi with 166 locks from London. The Birmingham line has a number of short branches to places including Slough, Aylesbury, Wendover, and Northampton. The Leicester line has two short arms of its own, to Market Harborough and Welford.

It has links with other canals and navigable waterways, including the River Thames, the Regent's Canal, the River Nene and River Soar, the Oxford Canal, the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal, the Digbeth Branch Canal and the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal.

The canal south of Braunston to the River Thames at Brentford in London is the original Grand Junction Canal. At Braunston the latter met the Oxford Canal linking back to the Thames to the south and to Coventry to the north via the Coventry Canal. "Grand Union Canal" is also the original name for what is now the Leicester line of the modern Grand Union, running from short east of Braunston to Leicester, and which is now sometimes referred to as the Old Grand Union Canal to avoid ambiguity.

History
The Grand Union Canal in its current form came into being on 1 January 1929 when the Regent's Canal and the Grand Junction Canal agreed that amalgamation and modernisation were the only way to remain competitive against rail and newly developing road transport:

 * Regent's Canal
 * Hertford Union Canal – bought by the Regent's Canal in 1857
 * Main Line
 * Warwick and Napton Canal – bought by the Regent's Canal in 1928
 * Warwick and Birmingham Canal – bought by the Regent's Canal in 1928
 * Birmingham and Warwick Junction Canal – bought by the Regent's Canal in 1928
 * Grand Junction Canal – bought by the Regent's Canal in 1928
 * Leicester Line
 * Old Grand Union Canal – bought by the Grand Junction in 1894
 * Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Union Canal – bought by the Grand Junction in 1894
 * Leicester Navigation – bought by the Grand Union in 1932
 * Loughborough Navigation – bought by the Grand Union in 1932
 * Erewash Canal – bought by the Grand Union in 1932

A five/mile (eight-km) section of the Oxford Canal forms the main line of the Grand Union between Braunston and Napton-on-the-Hill. Although the Grand Union intended to buy the Oxford Canal and Coventry Canal, these purchases did not take place.

The section of the main line between Brentford and Braunston (formerly the Grand Junction Canal) was built as a 'wide' or 'broad' canal – that is, its locks were wide enough to accommodate two narrowboats abreast (side by side) or a single wide barge up to 14 ft in beam.

The onward sections from Braunston to Birmingham had been built as 'narrow' canals, that is, the locks could accommodate only a single narrowboat. An Act of Parliament of 1931 was passed authorising a key part of the modernisation scheme of the Grand Union, supported by government grants. The narrow locks (and several bridges) between Napton and Camp Hill Top Lock in Birmingham were rebuilt to take widebeam boats or barges up to 12 ft in beam, or two narrowboats. The canal was dredged and bank improvements carried out: the depth was increased to 5 ft to allow heavier cargoes, and the minimum width increased to 26 ft to enable two boats of 12 feet 6 inches to pass. Lock works were completed in 1934 when the Duke of Kent opened the new broad locks at Hatton, and other improvements finished by 1937.

These improvements to depth and width were never carried out between Braunston and London. Camp Hill Locks in Birmingham were not widened, as it would have been very expensive and of little point, since they lead only to further flights of locks not in the ownership of the Grand Union. A new basin and warehouse were constructed at Tyseley, above Camp Hill, to deal with this. Although the Grand Union company had a number of broad boats built to take advantage of the improvements, they never really caught on and the canal continued to be operated largely by pairs of narrow boats, whose journeys were facilitated by the newly widened locks in which they could breast up.

The three sections between Norton junction and the River Trent (collectively known as the 'Leicester line') are mixed in size. From Norton to Foxton, the route is a narrow canal. From below Foxton to Leicester it is a wide canal. From Leicester to the Trent, the route is effectively the River Soar and the locks and bridges are wide. Another Act of 1931 authorised the widening of the locks at Watford Locks and Foxton Locks, but with government grants for this section not forthcoming, the work was not carried out.

The Grand Union Canal was nationalised in 1948, control transferring to the British Transport Commission, and in 1962 to the British Waterways Board, later British Waterways. Commercial traffic continued to decline, effectively ceasing in the 1970s, though lime juice was carried from Brentford to Boxmoor until 1981, and aggregates on the River Soar until 1995. However, leisure traffic took over, and the canal is now as busy as it ever was, with leisure boating complemented by fishing, towpath walking and gongoozling. More recently freight traffic returned with the carriage of aggregates from Denham to West Drayton in barges and narrow boats, and the opening of a new wharf for re-cyclables and aggregates at Old Oak Common.

Brentford to Braunston
One end of the Grand Union Canal (Grand Junction Canal – Main Line) is at Brentford on the River Thames in west London, where the canal follows the engineered course of the Brent. The double Thames Lock at Brentford separates the Tideway administered by the Port of London Authority from the River Brent/Grand Union Canal, administered by the Canal & River Trust. The locks on the canal are partially numbered: numbered consecutively south of its turn-off for Leicester, Braunston Junction. Thames Lock is lock number 101.

For more than 3 mi upstream of Thames Lock, the canal and the Brent are one and the same, and the waterway is semi-tidal until the double Gauging Lock (lock 100) at Brentford. Just upstream of the Gauging Lock was a large canal basin, now known as Brentford Lock, from which the canal covers more distance passing through two more locks. The river and canal part at the base of the Hanwell flight of locks (92–97), before two more locks take the canal to Norwood Green. It then heads westward over level ground through Southall, Hayes and Yiewsley until it reaches the gentle valley of the Colne.

Three miles (5 km) from Norwood on this long level is Bulls Bridge Junction, once the site of the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company's main dockyard. At Bulls Bridge, the Paddington Arm branches off to the north and runs 12 mi to join the Regents Canal at Little Venice (see below). Just before Uxbridge is Cowley Peachey Junction, where the Slough Arm branches off westward.

At suburban Cowley, before the 1930s a rural village, the canal begins to climb the valley of the River Colne north north-west into the adjoining town of Uxbridge. After Denham and Harefield villages, it passes to the south of Rickmansworth. Here it merges with the Rivers Chess, Colne and Gade. After Rickmansworth, the canal follows the valley of the Gade, passing the site of Croxley paper mill. The canal skirts Watford through Cassiobury Park, passing under the M25 motorway as it approaches Kings Langley.

Locks become more frequent as the climb into the Chiltern Hills steepens. The original four locks here were replaced in 1819 by five shallower ones to alleviate problems with water supply to the nearby paper mills. This realigned the canal to the south of its former course; the locks here are still referred to – without irony – as "The New 'Uns" by traditional boaters, and the term has been passed on to a new generation of canal users.

After Kings Langley and Apsley – the site of more former paper mills – the canal passes the town Hemel Hempstead and Boxmoor Common. From here the canal follows the course of the River Bulbourne through Bourne End with the well-known swingbridge at Winkwell, and the "Port of Berkhamsted, a small compact town". At Cow Roast Lock the canal reaches the 3-mile (5-km) summit at Tring in the Chiltern hills, having risen through 54 locks since Brentford.

At the north-west end of the summit level is Bulbourne Works, where lock gates were manufactured until 2003 for the southern canal network. Half a mile (800 m) further on, the canal reaches the top of the Marsworth flight of seven locks, which begin the descent to the Vale of Aylesbury. A Wendover Arm branches off westwards from the summit level under a bridge adjacent to Marsworth Top Lock and is currently navigable for just over a mile to moorings and a winding hole; it has restoration project to extend it back to Wendover. This part of the canal in parlance used by natives and canal staff was "the withered arm" and in fact was only really "opened" to allow the pumping station there to pump water into the uppermost level. A few hundred metres beyond the bottom lock of the flight, the Aylesbury Arm branches off to the south west.

The Grand Union descends gradually by interspersed locks, past the villages of Cheddington, Horton and Slapton until it reaches Leighton Buzzard. Traditionally this section of the canal is called "Slapton Fields" or just "The Fields" by boaters. A few miles further on, a flight of three locks near Soulbury marks the descent towards the valley of the River Great Ouse.

A few miles further on it enters Milton Keynes at the outskirts of Bletchley at Fenny Stratford Lock, which is unusual in lowering the level by only 12 in. The next stretch of 11 mi is on the level. There is a modern proposal to dig a new arm from here to the Great Ouse navigation at Bedford. North of the centre, it traverses the modern New Bradwell Aqueduct, the first on the Grand Union in over 100 years. Leaving Milton Keynes at Wolverton, the canal runs on a high embankment before passing over the Great Ouse at Cosgrove aqueduct (the "Iron Trunk aqueduct"), the first cast-iron "trough" aqueduct in England.

After rising through Cosgrove Lock, (and passing the start of the abandoned Buckingham Arm) another long level section brings the canal to the bottom of the Stoke Bruerne flight of seven locks. At the top of this flight is the Stoke Bruerne Canal Museum followed shortly by Blisworth Tunnel, at 3056 yd one of the longest of UK canals.

Once clear of the tunnel, the canal passes Blisworth village and reaches Gayton Junction where the Northampton Arm branches off to the east. This arm has 17 narrow locks as it descends to join the navigable River Nene (see below). The long level stretch continues past several villages including Nether Heyford and Weedon Bec and is very rural in character.

At Whilton, the canal reaches the bottom of the Buckby flight of seven locks which raise it to Braunston summit the village of which parish is 5 mi away. Beyond the top lock is Norton Junction where the Leicester line (not strictly a branch) heads off north. A few miles further on the canal passes through the 2040-yard (1865-m) Braunston Tunnel, which pierces a low range of hills that are part of the Northamptonshire uplands.

The canal then drops down the Braunston flight of six locks until it reaches Braunston Junction having covered just over 93 mi.

The Birmingham "main line"
At Braunston Junction, the Oxford Canal diverges north and south. The north section leads to Rugby and Coventry; the southward fork carries both the Oxford Canal and the Grand Union for 5 mi to Napton Junction. Here, the Grand Union heads north towards Birmingham, while the Oxford Canal veers south towards Banbury and Oxford.

Shortly after Napton Junction, the Grand Union reaches three locks at Calcutt, which begin the descent to the Warwickshire River Avon. After a 3-mile (5-km) level, the canal descends into the valley of the River Leam by the Stockton flight of 10 locks (often known as 'the Itchington Ten'). Above the eighth lock down the flight, a short arm (now used as pleasure craft moorings) used to serve Southam cement works. This was where the last regular cargo of cement was loaded heading for Birmingham in the late 1960s.

From the bottom of the locks, a 3-mile (5-km) level leads to the four Bascote Locks. The top two form a 'riser' or staircase. Six more interspersed locks lead to Radford, after which a 5-mile (8-km) level takes the canal through Leamington Spa to Warwick. Between these two towns, the canal crosses the River Avon and the former Great Western Railway on aqueducts.

At Warwick, the canal rises by two locks to Budbrooke Junction (formerly the junction with the then-independent Warwick and Birmingham Canal). To the left is the restored Saltisford Canal Arm, a short stretch that used to run under the railway to the original canal basin complex and terminus of the Warwick and Birmingham Canal – the basin was filled-in in the 1970s. The canal used to serve one of the oldest gasworks. Two hexagonal buildings that housed the gas holders are part of the world's oldest remaining gasworks buildings. After half a mile the mainline reaches the bottom of the Hatton flight of 21 locks that lift the canal up out of the Avon Valley. The first 10 locks are spaced out but from the middle lock the flight is tightly spaced.

Three miles (5 km) from Hatton Top Lock the canal passes through Shrewley Tunnel, with its separate horse tunnel, and then passes Rowington village to Kingswood Junction where a short spur connects with the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal. Another 3 mi lead to the Knowle flight of five locks. Finally, an 11-mile (18-km) level takes the canal through Elmdon Heath, Solihull, Acocks Green and Tyseley to the heart of Birmingham.

The main line may be considered to terminate at Bordesley Junction. From here, there are two routes, both part of the Grand Union Canal. The original line of the Warwick and Birmingham Canal leads to the Digbeth Branch Canal of the Birmingham Canal Navigations at the Warwick Bar, while the later line of the Birmingham and Warwick Junction Canal leads to the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal (and Tame Valley Canal) at Salford Junction, which in turn has connections to the Coventry Canal and the Trent and Mersey Canal.

The Leicester line

Formed by amalgamations of once-independent canals, the 'Leicester Line' of the Grand Union Canal runs north from Norton Junction for about 35 mi until it reaches Leicester, where it joins the River Soar to provide a link to the River Trent and to the Trent and Mersey Canal. It includes tunnels south of Crick 1528 yd and north of Husbands Bosworth 1166 yd The village of Crick is home to a popular annual boat show.

The stretch of the canal that passes through the centre of Leicester is known as the 'Mile Straight' and is home to Leicester Rowing Club, a rowing and sculling club. The club hosts regattas on a stretch co-running with the Soar, typically held in mid-April by over 100 crews over a 770 yd course.

Also on this section are the Foxton Locks and Watford Locks, both staircase locks. Beside Foxton locks is the site of a long-abandoned inclined plane boat lift. This was constructed as part of a project to create a wide-beam canal route to connect the northern and southern parts of the canal system, something which does not exist to this day. Funding to deal with the narrow locks at Watford was not forthcoming and the scheme was aborted. The canal north of Foxton Junction is wide-beam to Leicester and onwards. It was originally intended to build a canal at this width all the way to the River Nene at Northampton. However, that canal never went further than the basin at Market Harborough.

The Leicester Line continues along the River Soar Navigation, and reaches the River Trent at Soar Mouth, north of Ratcliffe-on-Soar. It is possible to continue to the Trent and Mersey Canal, Coventry Canal and North Oxford Canal, to complete a circuit known as the Leicester Ring.

Arms
The Grand Union Canal has six main branches, usually termed 'arms'. Five miles (eight km) from Brentford, the Paddington Arm runs circuitously on the flat to a junction with the Regent's Canal, the latter running north and east of Central London. The triangular canal basin formed by the junction is called the Little Venice in Maida Vale. The Arm's final 500 m runs south-east to Paddington Basin. From Cowley Peachey, the Slough Arm runs 5 mi to the west. From Marsworth, about 35 mi by canal from Brentford, two arms diverge: one to Wendover (currently in-part navigable as being restored by the Wendover Arm Trust; ) the other descends through 16 narrow locks for 4 mi to Aylesbury. From Gayton Junction, about 60 mi from Brentford, the Northampton Arm links with the River Nene. At Warwick the northernmost branch off of the Grand Union Canal (also known by regular users as the "GU"), the Saltisford Canal Arm begins. The restored arm is close to the centre of Warwick. It was originally the main line of the Warwick and Birmingham Canal, 1799, leading to the terminus and a basin with wharfs for timber. When the Warwick and Napton Canal opened, this bypassed channel remained as the town's wharf. The Saltisford Canal Trust have restored most of the surviving canal, 1990–2015, such as installing long lengths of sheet piling and restoring a warehouse in 2007. Its last 160 yd were lost in the 1970s saving a disused road bridge that stands isolated in a car park. Warwick's narrowboat moorings are on the Arm by a public park partly in view of the Castle. Over 800 visiting narrowboats cruise to Warwick each year and moor on the arm.
 * Paddington Arm:
 * Slough Arm:
 * Wendover and Aylesbury Arms
 * Northampton Arm:
 * Saltisford Canal Arm, Warwick:

The Leicester Line has two modest arms of its own, see Grand Union Canal (old).

Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway
The Bedford and Milton Keynes Waterway Consortium plans to build a 16 mi canal connecting the Grand Union at Milton Keynes to the River Great Ouse at Bedford at an estimated cost of £170 million. The project is supported by British Waterways (and its successor, the Canal & River Trust), the Bedford & Milton Keynes Waterway Trust, other waterways campaign groups, and also local councils. The first element of the canal is an underpass under the A421, completed in 2009 and efforts are continuing to obtain funding to complete the scheme in 'bite-size chunks'. The new waterway would create a new cruising ring connecting through from the Grand Union to the waterways of East Anglia which are beneficial to leisure cruising as tourists are able to follow circular routes, as well as completing a missing link between the north and south of the UK for wide-beam boats - all current inland waterways have restrictive pinch points around the Midlands, only suited to narrowboats, effectively dividing wide-beam cruising grounds into two disconnected halves.

The history of the proposal is considerably older; the route was first discussed in 1810, when its promoters included Samuel Whitbread.

From Milton Keynes, the canal is planned to pass beneath the M1 utilising an existing cattle creep, then cross over Brogborough Hill, and across the Marston Vale through to the River Great Ouse in Kempston.

Buckingham Arm restoration
The Buckingham Arm once ran from Cosgrove, Northamptonshire to Buckingham. It was built as an arm of the Grand Junction Canal, in two separate phases, opening in 1800 and 1801. It was disused from 1932, but was not finally abandoned until 1964. It is now the subject of a restoration project.

Slough-Eton canal
The predecessor to the Canal and River Trust, British Waterways, received mild financial support indications from the two local authorities covering Slough and Eton, Berkshire to extend the Slough Arm to join the Thames, via any course i.e. covering a minimum 2 mi; the 2008-estimated cost was £30 million. The trust confirmed in 2012 this remains a long-term objective, to be actioned when the economic conditions allow.

title: Grand Union Canal


text:
Talk:Hawaiian language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Starsandgalaxies.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Honushelbey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image
why is the flag for the hawaiian language page an israeli flag? mentions hebrew once and israel nonce. 73.238.227.37 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I only see a US flag once & the Hawaiian Flag twice. Where do you see an Israeli flag? Peaceray (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The preview image was changed to the flag of Israel through vandalism to a module. It was reverted quickly but remained in the cache for some pages. I've purged the cache for this page so it should be fixed now. Nardog (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hawaiian language


text:
Talk:Gaiseric

Problems
This arcticle has many problems. As indicated by others, the article should appear under the name Gaiseric/Geiseric. His year of birth and especially the location (Lake Balaton) are completely speculative. There is no source giving us either information. All we know is that he died in old age and that he was born east of the Rhine. The information about the size of his people (80,000) relies on sources that have probably been misinterpreted. The number was most likely significantly smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.187.42 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
This is good, if a little breathlessly enthusiastic about the Vandals. Why is it 'Gaiseric' all the way through if the entry is under 'Geiseric'? Create a new one and redirect. I removed much 'fall of the Western Empire' language - specialists have tossed out that idea. Specifically, the article makes two weird mistakes that I removed - first, it had Geiseric doing well, and then 'only to see' the collapse of the Vandal kingdom after his death. I rewrote that. Second, it had: "and lived to see the fall of the western empire that he had bedeviled for a half-century." Even if one accepted the 'decline and fall' model (which I do not, and I have a Ph.D. in the period), Geiseric died in 477. Romulus Augustus was only deposed in 476, and in 477 no one had any way of knowing that there wouldn't be another widely recognized person holding the title of Emperor in the West until 800. MichaelTinkler

Geiseric is one of three accepted spellings for his name. Gaiseric is the one I most often see, but you also see Genseric a lot, as well as Geiseric. And some people say it doesn't mean "Caesar-king", but "spear-king". There's also some dispute about the year he was born; it was either 389, 390, 400 or 406. I went with Caesar and Gaiseric in the original, and since there are contemporary accounts that he died in his 87th year, that means either 389 or 390 is most likely correct. But who knows? That would make him 65 when he sacked Rome and 78 when he defeated Basilicus, and that seems rather old. He must have had whatever secret to youth that Narses had. John

I believe Geiseric should be pronounced as if it was/is spelled Gaiseric by native English speakers. That is how you'd naturally tend to pronounce Geiseric in German, as well as in Danish, anyhow. So there might be an inherent method to the madness. -A Dane

As a German, I'm not sure what you mean. Geiseric in German is usually spelt "Geiserich" (I don't distinctly remember a different spelling) following the trend in German historiography to write all Germanic rulers that end on -ricus in Latin as -rich. Now the "Gei" syllable in German would intuitively be pronounced like the English word "guy", as would "Gai" - there is no real difference in pronounciation between the two in German. Does anyone happen to know how either "Gaiseric" or "Geiseric" would be pronounced in classical Latin? And talking about that, what do most late Roman sources call him?

Agreed. 'Gei' is pronounced almost exactly as the english word 'guy', in German and in Danish. But when you write 'Gei' a native English speaker would (I believe) be more likely to pronounce it as 'gay', whereas 'Gai' to a native English speaker would tend to suggest 'guy', which seems more correct to both the German and Danish intuitive reading. That's all I was saying. -Same Dane

I've taken out the "Caesar-king" definition, as this is surely a folk etymology based on superficial similarity. I don't think there's any doubt in modern linguistic circles that the name should be interpreted as a native Vandal formation whose first element means "spear". Gerhard Koebler -- whose first name, coincidentally, contains the West Germanic variant of the word -- cites a number of parallels in his Gotisches Woerterbuch (Gothic Dictionary): Gaiswalds, Gesalacus, Gesimund, Gesiulf, Radagaisus, Unigis, ON Gesualdo [ http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/gotischeswoerterbuch/GOT-G.pdf ]. Both elements occur together elsewhere in Germanic, e.g. Old Norse 'Geirrekr' (Reykdæla saga). Similarly, the final element -ric appears independently in the names of other Vandal kings, and is another standard Germanic naming element. I'm not aware of any other Vandal names in which a Latin 'c' has been replaced by 'g', or how this could be explained in terms of known sound changes, or of any parallels among the Vandal royal names that would support the Caesar hypothesis. -- Dependent Variable.

Vandalic was an east-Germanic language, so Gothic spellings are probably more relevant than German ones. No offense. And in Gothic Gai- would sound more-or-less like English Guy- but Gei- would sound more like English Key- but with an initial G. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No Gothic or East Germanic spelling of Gaiseric's name survived. It can, however, be easily reconstructed as "Gaisereiks". However, the Gothic or East Germanic form is entirely irrelevant for the history of the Vandals or of Gaiseric. All we have are the latinized forms of his name, i.e. Gaisericus, Geisericus and Gensericus. Both elements of his name are Germanic. Gais-/Geis- is the East Germanic form of common Germanic Ger- meaning spear. The second part of his name is common in all Germanic dialects, i.e. -ric meaning king.

What is also irrelevant is the translation of his name as "Spearking", even though the elements are translated correctly. The elements should not be read together. Germanic nameing practice treated the elements completely independently, often following family tradiditions.

Since some nationalistic Slavs claim the Vandals to be Slavs, the only relevance of the Gaiseric's name is to add to the mountain of linguistic proof, that the Vandals were Germanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejas552 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Rod of God"?
Is there any real source for this cognomen? The reference given is to an unsourced claim on someone's personal genealogy page, which also includes the false claim that Geiseric married Valentinian's widow. —Abou 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with this article
When Genseric took Carthage, we hear, the reasonable Genseric didn't bother much about the Catholics, he just let them be Catholics and went about the perfectly reasonable business of using the Roman fleet at Carthage to establish himself in the Mediterranean. He required of someone, we hear - his own regime? that they be Arians. The article does not really say who. Well, I dare say, the whole meaning of the word vandal must be a big mistake! With reasonable men like that in power, who would want to contend against them? The only trouble is, the article leaves out a few things, such as murder, torture, rape, exiles, executions, parades of nude, beaten and mutilated women through the streets and a few other minor affairs such as that. What are those bewteen us reasonable Germanics, is that the idea? He wasn't so bad. We wonder why Victor Vitensis ever bothered. What was all the furor? Maybe someone better start checking a few sources. I don't notice any in here. The furor! The furor!Dave (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Vandals did nothing in capturing Carthage that any invading army would not have done in the year 439. There was nothing notable or unusual about it. There was no such thing as a Geneva Convention or international law in the fifth century. In fact, by the standards of that era, the Vandals were not notably cruel in their victories and conquests. Did they persecute Catholics? Yes, but the Romans at that time were persecuting Arians, Manicheans, Monophysites, people who still followed Greco-Roman paganism, and basically anybody else who disagreed with whoever the Emperor was. Gaiseric did require that people in his government's service be Arian. So what? The Romans required they be Catholic, unless it was some mercenary chief with a lot of troops they couldn't do without. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Rome
A book I've read states that Genseric invaded Tome because Petronius Maximus took Valentinian's duaghter Eudocia as his daughter-in-law even though she had been engaged to Genseric's son Huneric since age 5. In addition, though Genseric agree to Pope Leo's request of not burning down Rome and not partaking in massacre, the Vandals took thousands of prisoners and looted all of Rome.

Nardo, Don ed. "The End of Ancient Rome." Turning Points in World History. Green Haven Press, San Diego: 2001. pages 84-85 PakoPenguin (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Genseric"
I thought the form "Genseric" was thought to derive from manuscript corruptions, like "Jornandes" and "Odoacer"? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are Slavicised forms included?
Are they any more relevant than the usual English form (Gaiseric) or whatever the Spanish, Berber, and Arabic forms are? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Godzimirek or Gniewomirek are his slavic names, because we all know vendals and luzian sorbs and alans are slavic tribes. by deleting his names, they, "germans", try to change history. the same way as romans and greeks do.212.13.65.14 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Slavicised forms should be excluded?
In the ancient sources the name is rendered as Gaisericus, Geisericus and Gensericus. These are all Germanic, in fact East Germanic forms. Gais-/Geis- is the East Germanic form of common Germanic Ger- meaning spear. The second part of the name -ric is the well known word for king. Indeed, all Vandalic royal names are Germanic (e.g. Godegisel, Gunderic, Hilderic, Thrasamund, Gunthamaund, etc.) and the few remaining fragments of Vandalic proves that they spoke East Germanic, i.e. a dialect very similar to Gothic.

Removed wartime propaganda/pseudohistory
The "further reading" section listed Bigelow's Genseric: King of the Vandals and the First Prussian Kaisar, but I removed it because Gaiseric had nothing to do with Prussia and Bigelow is just so wrong about so much when making that connection. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Real Name?
Curious what his real name was? Clearly not "Genseric". I am guessing the "ric" is likely "rich", but what about the prefix?119.92.93.84 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * His name in Latin was Gaisericus; maybe Gaisa-reiks.--176.147.199.5 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 * If his name was Gaiseric (as it clearly was), why is this article entitled 'Genseric'? Djwilms (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Because it seems he is known in English as Genseric. LordAtlas (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Scholar actually gets more hits for "Geiseric" (1560 hits) than for "Genseric" (1510); "Gaiseric" also gets 657 hits. So on first approximation, it seems like he is in fact named by most scholarly sources as "Geiseric". Rwenonah (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, they're nearly tied. Someone chose this one for a reason. Maybe times have changed. Who knows? LordAtlas (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Oldest available text is titled "Genseric" and never refers to "Genseric". No sign of a reason.173.66.2.216 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Genseric → Gaiseric – 1. Gaiseric is a generally-accepted form. Geiseric is also. Either would be an improvement. 2. The oldest available text of this article only uses "Genseric" in the title. 3. For Gaiseric: Guy Halsall uses Gaiseric in Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West. On Google scholar, since 1918, excluding patents and citations, "Gaiseric" Vandals -Vandalism gets 521 results. 4. For Geiseric: Peter Heather uses Geiseric in Fall of the Roman Empire. On Google scholar, since 1918, excluding patents and citations, "Geiseric" Vandals -Vandalism gets 442 results. 5. For Genseric: seems to predominate among older 19th and early-20th century sources. On Google scholar, since 1918, excluding patents and citations, "Genseric" Vandals -Vandalism gets 412 results. 173.66.2.216 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Genseric is more common but less current, it seems (its frequency is perhaps because of its age?). Gaiseric and Geiseric are both more current, but Gaiseric is more common (~10K vs ~17K). I would say Gaiseric is now the common name. --Woofboy (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Srnec (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mass Reversions of Wikilinks Here
Since the move, I've tried to correct the name on articles which link here, unless the context (names of paintings, etc.) favors Genseric over Gaiseric or is unclear. I can't do that on semi-protected articles, and I am getting mass-reversed when I do that elsewhere. Is anyone else having similar trouble? 173.66.2.216 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

... And on this article, where it was also reversed. 173.66.2.216 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about use of name in other articles
Please see this discussion which is a proposal to replace Genseric with Gaiseric in other articles about the Vandals. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gaiseric


text:
United States Secretary of Commerce

The United States secretary of commerce (SecCom) is the head of the United States Department of Commerce. The secretary serves as the principal advisor to the president of the United States on all matters relating to commerce. The secretary reports directly to the president and is a statutory member of Cabinet of the United States. The secretary is appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The secretary of commerce is concerned with promoting American businesses and industries; the department states its mission to be "to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce".

Until 1913, there was one secretary of commerce and labor, uniting this department with the United States Department of Labor, which is now headed by a separate United States secretary of labor.

Secretary of Commerce is a Level I position in the Executive Schedule with an annual salary of US$221,400, as of January 2021.

The current secretary of commerce is former Governor of Rhode Island Gina Raimondo, who was sworn in on March 3, 2021.

List of U.S. secretaries of commerce
(1) (20) (18) {{legend|#E6E6AA|Denotes acting commerce secretary|border=black}}
 * Parties
 * Status

Line of succession
The line of succession for the secretary of commerce is as follows:

 * 1) Deputy Secretary of Commerce
 * 2) General Counsel of the Department of Commerce
 * 3) Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade
 * 4) Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs
 * 5) Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology
 * 6) Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 * 7) Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration
 * 8) Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Commerce and Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Administration
 * 9) Boulder Laboratories Site Manager, National Institute of Standards and Technology

title: United States Secretary of Commerce


text:
United States Department of Labor

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) is one of the executive departments of the U.S. federal government. It is responsible for the administration of federal laws governing occupational safety and health, wage and hour standards, unemployment benefits, reemployment services, and occasionally, economic statistics. It is headed by the secretary of labor, who reports directly to the president of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet.

The purpose of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote, and develop the well being of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. In carrying out this mission, the Department of Labor administers and enforces more than 180 federal laws and thousands of federal regulations. These mandates and the regulations that implement them cover many workplace activities for about 10 million employers and 125 million workers. Julie Su is currently serving as acting secretary since March 11, 2023 following the resignation of Marty Walsh.

The department's headquarters is housed in the Frances Perkins Building, named in honor of Frances Perkins, the Secretary of Labor from 1933 to 1945.

History

In 1884, the U.S. Congress first established a Bureau of Labor Statistics with the Bureau of Labor Act, to collect information about labor and employment. This bureau was under the Department of the Interior. The Bureau started collecting economic data in 1884, and published their first report in 1886. Later, in 1888, the Bureau of Labor became an independent Department of Labor, but lacked executive rank.

In February 1903, it became a bureau again when the Department of Commerce and Labor was established.

United States President William Howard Taft signed the March 4, 1913, bill (the last day of his presidency), establishing the Department of Labor as its own Cabinet-level department. William B. Wilson was appointed as the first Secretary of Labor on March 5, 1913, by President Wilson. As part of this action, the United States Conciliation Service was created as an agency within the department; its purpose was to provide mediation for labor disputes. In October 1919, Secretary Wilson chaired the first meeting of the International Labour Organization even though the U.S. was not yet a member.

In September 1916, the Federal Employees' Compensation Act introduced benefits to workers who are injured or contract illnesses in the workplace. The act established an agency responsible for federal workers' compensation, which was transferred to the Labor Department in the 1940s and has become known as the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

Frances Perkins, the first female cabinet member, was appointed to be Secretary of Labor by President Roosevelt on March 4, 1933. Perkins served for 12 years, and became the longest-serving Secretary of Labor.

The passage of the Taft–Hartley Act in 1947 led to the end of the U.S. Conciliation Service, which was reconstituted outside the department as a new independent agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

During the John F. Kennedy Administration, planning was undertaken to consolidate most of the department's offices, then scattered around more than 20 locations. In the mid‑1960s, construction on the "New Labor Building" began and construction was finished in 1975. In 1980, it was named in honor of Frances Perkins.

President Lyndon B. Johnson asked Congress to consider the idea of reuniting Commerce and Labor. He argued that the two departments had similar goals and that they would have more efficient channels of communication in a single department. However, Congress never acted on it.

In the 1970s, following the civil rights movement, the Labor Department under Secretary George P. Shultz made a concerted effort to promote racial diversity in unions.

In 1978, the Department of Labor created the Philip Arnow Award, intended to recognize outstanding career employees such as the eponymous Philip Arnow. In the same year, Carin Clauss became the department's first female solicitor of the department.

In 2010, a local of the American Federation of Government Employees stated their unhappiness that a longstanding flextime program reduced under the George W. Bush administration had not been restored under the Obama administration. Department officials said the program was modern and fair and that it was part of ongoing contract negotiations with the local.

In August 2010, the Partnership for Public Service ranked the Department of Labor 23rd out of 31 large agencies in its annual "Best Places to Work in the Federal Government" list.

In December 2010, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was named the chair of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, of which Labor has been a member since its beginnings in 1987.

In July 2011, Ray Jefferson, Assistant Secretary for VETS resigned due to his involvement in a contracting scandal.

In March 2013, the department began commemorating its centennial.

In July 2013, Tom Perez was confirmed as Secretary of Labor. According to remarks by Perez at his swearing-in ceremony, "Boiled down to its essence, the Department of Labor is the department of opportunity."

In April 2017, Alexander Acosta was confirmed as the new Secretary of Labor. In July 2019, Acosta resigned due to a scandal involving his role in the plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein. He was succeeded on September 30, 2019, by Eugene Scalia. Scalia served until the beginning of the Biden administration on January 20, 2021. Marty Walsh was confirmed as secretary on March 22, 2021. He resigned on March 11, 2023 and was succeeded by deputy secretary Julie Su who is currently serving in an acting position.

Agencies, boards, bureaus, offices, programs, library and corporation of the department

 * Administrative Review Board (ARB)
 * Benefits Review Board (BRB)
 * Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (BAT)
 * Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB)
 * Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
 * Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiative (CFOI)
 * Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
 * Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB)
 * Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOMBD)
 * Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
 * Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
 * Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
 * Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ)
 * Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM)
 * Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO)
 * Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (OASP)
 * Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
 * Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs (OCIA)
 * Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)
 * Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
 * Office of Inspector General (OIG)
 * Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
 * Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
 * Office of Public Liaison (OPL)
 * Office of the Secretary (OSEC)
 * Office of the Deputy Secretary
 * Office of the Solicitor (SOL)
 * Office of Unemployment Insurance Modernization (OUIM)
 * Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)
 * Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
 * PBGC Office of the Inspector General
 * Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)
 * Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
 * Women's Bureau (WB)

Other

 * Wirtz Labor Library
 * Job Corps

Relevant legislation

 * 1926: Railway Labor Act
 * 1947: Taft–Hartley Act PL 80-101
 * 1949: Fair Labor Standards Amendment PL 81-393
 * 1953: Small Business Act PL 83-163
 * 1954: Internal Revenue Code PL 83-591
 * 1955: Fair Labor Standards Amendment PL 84-381
 * 1958: Small Business Administration extension PL 85-536
 * 1961: Fair Labor Standards Amendment PL 87-30
 * 1961: Area Redevelopment Act PL 87-27
 * 1962: Manpower Development and Training Act PL 87-415
 * 1962: Public Welfare Amendments PL 87-543
 * 1963: Amendments to National Defense Education Act PL 88-210
 * 1964: Economic Opportunity Act PL 88-452
 * 1965: Vocational Rehabilitation Act amended PL 89-333
 * 1965: Executive Order 11246
 * 1965: McNamara–O'Hara Service Contract Act
 * 1966: Fair Labor Standards Amendment PL 89-601
 * 1970: Occupational Safety and Health Act
 * 1973: Comprehensive Employment and Training Act PL 93-203
 * 1973: Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act PL 93-112
 * 1974: Fair Labor Standards Amendment PL 93-259
 * 1974: Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act PL 92-540
 * 1974: Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Pub.L. 93-406
 * 1975: Revenue Adjustment Act (Earned Income Tax Credit) PL 94-12, 164
 * 1976: Overhaul of vocational education programs PL 94-482
 * 1976: Social Security Act Amendments (Aid to Day Care Centers) PL 94-401
 * 1977: Fair Labor Standards Amendment PL 95-151
 * 1977: Federal Mine Safety and Health Act
 * 1978: Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act PL 95-523
 * 1981: Budget Reconciliation Act PL 97-35
 * 1982: Job Training Partnership Act PL 97-300
 * 1983: Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act PL 99-603
 * 1988: Family Support Act PL 100-485
 * 1988: Employee Polygraph Protection Act
 * 1989: Fair Labor Standards Amendment PL 101-157
 * 1990: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act PL 101-508
 * 1993: Family and Medical Leave Act PL 103-3
 * 1993: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation and Bankruptcy Act PL 103-66
 * 1996: Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 PL 104-188
 * 1996: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act PL 104-193
 * 1996: Veterans Employment Opportunities Act PL 105-339
 * 1998: Workforce Investment Act of 1998
 * 2014: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

title: United States Department of Labor


text:
United States Secretary of Labor

The United States secretary of labor is a member of the Cabinet of the United States, and as the head of the United States Department of Labor, controls the department, and enforces and suggests laws involving unions, the workplace, and all other issues involving any form of business-person controversies.

Formerly, there was a Department of Commerce and Labor. That department split into two in 1913. The Department of Commerce is headed by the secretary of commerce.

Secretary of labor is a Level I position in the Executive Schedule, thus earning a salary of $221,400 as of January 2021.

Julie Su has been serving as acting secretary since the resignation of Marty Walsh on March 11, 2023.

List of secretaries of labor
(13) (16)
 * Parties

Status

Line of succession
The line of succession for the Secretary of Labor is as follows:
 * 1) Deputy Secretary of Labor
 * 2) Solicitor of Labor
 * 3) Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management
 * 4) Assistant Secretary for Policy
 * 5) Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
 * 6) Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training
 * 7) Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security
 * 8) Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health
 * 9) Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health
 * 10) Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
 * 11) Chief Financial Officer
 * 12) Administrator, Wage and Hour Division
 * 13) Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training
 * 14) Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy
 * 15) Deputy Solicitor of Labor (First Assistant of the Solicitor of Labor)
 * 16) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy (First Assistant of the Assistant Secretary for Policy)
 * 17) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs (First Assistant of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs)
 * 18) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training (First Assistant of the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training)
 * 19) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy (First Assistant of the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security)
 * 20) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health (First Assistant of the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health)
 * 21) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health (First Assistant of the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health)
 * 22) Regional Solicitor—Dallas
 * 23) Regional Administrator for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management—Region VI/Dallas

Secretary succession
If none of the above officials are available to serve as Acting Secretary of Labor, the Designated Secretarial Designee assumes interim operational control over the Department, except the Secretary's non-delegable responsibilities.
 * 1) Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
 * 2) Director of the Women's Bureau
 * 3) Regional Administrator, Employment and Training Administration—Dallas
 * 4) Regional Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration—Dallas

title: United States Secretary of Labor