text:
Kinder Surprise

Kinder Surprise (Italian: Kinder Sorpresa or Ovetto Kinder), also known as Kinder Egg or Kinder Surprise Egg,  is a milk chocolate consisting of a chocolate egg surrounding a yellow plastic capsule with a small toy inside. Manufactured by the Italian company Ferrero since 1974, it was co-created by Michele Ferrero and William Salice, and is one of several candies sold under the Kinder brand. Kinder Surprise was originally created with children in mind, replicating an Italian Easter family tradition in which adults give children large chocolate eggs with toys inside. However, Kinder Surprise toys have become collectible for adults as well. Since 1974, 30 billion Kinder Surprise eggs have been sold worldwide.

Description
Kinder Surprise is a milk chocolate egg lined with a layer of sweet milk-flavoured cream. Inside each egg is a plastic capsule that contains a small surprise toy, which sometimes requires assembly. The capsule case is colored yellow and sometimes orange, to resemble an egg's yolk. The chocolates have foil packaging with warning labels advising parents to avoid giving the eggs to children under three years old and encouraging supervision during consumption.

Kinder Surprise was originally created with children in mind, replicating an Italian Easter family tradition in which adults give children a large chocolate egg with a toy inside. However, Kinder Surprise toys have become collectible for adults as well. Collectors often try to acquire all toys within a themed set. Some even share their egg openings on social media, or create their own toys and re-wrap them in Kinder Surprise packaging. More than 100 new toys are distributed each year. Around 12,000 different toys had been included within Kinder Surprise as of 2016.

According to CNNMoney, Kinder Surprise is most popular in Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Michele Ferrero and William Salice have been credited as co-creators of the candy.

History
In 1968, Michele Ferrero raised the idea with his employees of a product that could be given to children so they could have a little "surprise" every day, based on the Italian tradition of large chocolate eggs given to children by their parents at Easter. Ferrero said that at first his attempt to follow through with this idea was unsuccessful after employees questioned the order he placed for a machine to make the chocolate eggs. They thought it would not make any money, since eggs are only for Easter. Ferrero also said that he wanted the product to have a higher milk content and make that a key part of its promotion; he believed mothers would respond well to the idea of giving their children more milk. Ferrero commissioned William Salice to realize the concept.

The Italian company Ferrero began manufacturing Kinder Surprises in 1974. Since then around 30 billion eggs have been sold worldwide.

Salice, who has been credited as the inventor of Kinder Surprise but insisted he was just "material executor", died in Italy in December 2016, at the age of 83.

Collections and promotion
The toys within Kinder Surprise have been themed for various popular licensed characters. Collections of Kinder Surprise toys have included Asterix, Fantomimi, Smurfs, and Minions. Ferrero and Kinder have also partnered with various companies, institutions, and people to promote Kinder Surprise, including The Walt Disney Company, Universal, and Smart.

United Kingdom
In 2000, three families who had lost children to choking on toys inside edible eggs campaigned for the products to be withdrawn from the European Union.

Defenders of the chocolates said that these had been unfortunate fatalities. This was discussed in the House of Commons  and also by the Department of Trade and Industry which said, "The child’s tragic death was caused by the ingestion of a small part of the egg’s contents. Many other products and toys with small parts are available in the market place. If we were to start banning every product that could be swallowed by a child, there would be very few toys left in the market".

United States
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits confectionery products that contain a "non-nutritive object", unless the non-nutritive object has functional value. Essentially, the Act bans "the sale of any candy that has embedded in it a toy or trinket".

In 1997, the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission examined and issued a recall for some Kinder Surprise illegally brought into the US with foreign labels. The staff determined that the toys within the eggs had small parts. The staff presumed that Kinder Surprise, being a chocolate product, was intended for children of all ages, including those under three years of age. On this basis, the staff took the position that Kinder Surprise was in violation of the small parts regulation and should be banned from importation into the US.

Kinder Surprise eggs are legal in Canada and Mexico, but are illegal to import into the US. In January 2011, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) threatened a Manitoba resident with a 300 Canadian dollar fine for carrying one egg across the US border into Minnesota. In June 2012, CBP held two Seattle men for two and a half hours after discovering six Kinder Surprise eggs in their car upon returning to the US from a trip to Vancouver. According to Joseph Cummings of Seattle, Washington, one of the men detained, a border guard quoted the potential fine as "$2,500 per egg".

In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) re-issued their import alert stating "The embedded non-nutritive objects in these confectionery products may pose a public health risk as the consumer may unknowingly choke on the object".

Kinder Surprise bears warnings advising the consumer that the toy is "not suitable for children under three years, due to the presence of small parts", and that "adult supervision is recommended".

As of 2017 Kinder Joy eggs, a similar product, are being sold in the United States. Instead of a toy being encased in a chocolate egg, it is in an egg-shaped package with the toy and chocolate separated. Kinder Surprise eggs are still illegal in the USA but remain popular on the black market.

Chile
In 2016, new food labeling and packaging laws resulted in Chile banning the Kinder Surprise.

Belgium
In 2022, the Belgian food agency reported about 20 cases of salmonella in Belgium due to contaminated Kinder Surprise eggs.

Canada
In 2022, Ferrero Canada Ltd. recalled 23 Kinder brand chocolate products in Canada. The recall included Kinder Surprise 100g, and other products containing them. According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the recall was voluntary. No illnesses were associated due to the consumption of the product.

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

title: Kinder Surprise


text:
Boojum

Boojum may refer to:

 * A fictional animal species in Lewis Carroll's nonsense poem The Hunting of the Snark; a particularly dangerous kind of snark
 * Jud Wilson (Jud "Boojum" Wilson), American baseball player
 * Boojum (superfluidity), a phenomenon in physics associated with superfluid helium-3
 * Boojum tree or cirio of the Baja California peninsula in Mexico
 * SSM-A-5 Boojum, a planned, but never completed, supersonic version of the SM-62 Snark, an intercontinental cruise missile
 * Boojum (restaurant), a chain of Mexican restaurants in Ireland

title: Boojum


text:
Boojum tree

Fouquieria columnaris, the Boojum tree or cirio is a tree in the ocotillo family, whose other members include the ocotillos. Some taxonomists place it in the separate genus Idria. It is nearly endemic to the Baja California Peninsula (both the northern and southern states), with only a small population in the Sierra Bacha of Sonora, Mexico. The plant's English name, Boojum, was given by Godfrey Sykes of the Desert Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, and is taken from Lewis Carroll's poem "The Hunting of the Snark".

Description
This plant is a columniform, upwardly tapering tree. The central axis of the plant is homologous to the single stem of other species. It has a cortical water-storage network, a feature unique to the family.

The Fouquieria columnaris trunk is up to 24 inches (61 centimeters) thick, off-white in color, with few or no major branches and with numerous thin, twiggy branches sticking out at right angles, all covered with small leaves 1.5 – long. They can grow to a height of 20 meters (almost 70 feet), but the tallest, in Montevideo Valley between Mission San Borja and Bahia de los Angeles is 86.5 ft in height, the second tallest succulent after Euphorbia ampliphylla.

The flowers bloom in August and September regardless of rainfall; they occur in short racemes, and have a honey scent. The flowers have short, cream-yellow corollas, with the limb of the petals inflexing around the filaments of the stamens. The anthers and stamens protrude out, while the stigma is protected by the inflexed petal limbs. The flowers are visited by at least 15 species of bees in 11 genera, who pry open the inflexed corolla limbs to obtain the sweetened nectar and contact the protected stigma. It is among the slowest growing trees. At fifty years of age, it may be only 5 ft tall, and thereafter averages twelve inches (thirty centimeters) every ten years.

Taxonomy
This species is most similar to two Fouquieria native to south-central Mexico, Fouquieria fasciculata and Fouquieria purpusii, as they share a succulent xylem, widely spaced decurrent leaf bases, and small decandrous (ten-stamen) flowers. In the two species, they are initially woody, and their succulent xylem develops only in the lower portion of their main stem. In contrast, the Boojum tree has a succulent xylem from its initiation, with the primary thickening occurring from the meristem. The chromosome number of this species is n=36.

Taxonomic history
This species was first described by Albert Kellogg based on specimens that were collected by a J. A. Veatch in Baja California. The type description was published twice and nearly identically, in the Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences and the San Francisco monthly periodical Hesperian in May 1860. Because the exact date of the publication in the Proceedings is unknown, but is likely to be after 1862, the type description in the Hesperian has the priority. The holotype specimen was destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906.

This species was previously placed in the monotypic genus Idria. However, this taxonomic classification was created before the vegetative and floral structures of F. fasciculata and F. purpursii were understood, as these two species share intermediate characteristics between the genera Idria and Fouquieria. As many other genera (Pachypodium, Euphorbia, Jatropha and Coreopsis) contain both woody and succulent species, and because there are few diagnostic characteristics to separate major groups within the family, the genus Idria has been merged into Fouquieria.

Distribution and habitat
This species occurs from sea level to up to 1450 meters in elevation on deep to shallow volcanic loams or clays to decomposed granite soils, on well-drained sites on hillsides, mesa, and alluvial plains. It is found from the vicinity of San Quintín in Baja California south to the Tres Vírgenes complex of volcanoes in Baja California Sur; a notable concentration is the Boojum Forest. It is also found on Isla Angel de la Guarda in the Gulf of California. On mainland Mexico, it is also found in a small area south of Puerto Libertad in coastal Sonora. The annual rainfall within its region only averages about 73 to 140 mm, mainly from January to April and in lesser amounts in August through September. Rainfall is unreliable and sometimes years may pass without heavy rainfall. The peculiar distribution pattern of the mainland boojums has led Mexican botanists to conclude that they were probably transplanted to the mainland by the indigenous Seri people, who lived in this area and still live on communal property south of this location. The Seri name for this plant is cototaj. In Seri belief, touching this plant will cause strong winds to blow (an undesirable state). Given this belief, the hypothesis that the Seri people transplanted it is doubtful.

title: Boojum tree


text:
Talk:Neoclassical economics

nice job on the rewrite
nice job on the rewrite - might be good to also review factors of production to see if what's said there is truly neutral w.r.t. classical, neoclassical, Marxist, green views.

Congress
If members of Congress believed neoclassical economic theory, why might they be persuaded to reduce taxes on wage and interest incomes?

behavioral economics heterodox?
Is it really correct to place behavioral economics among the other heterodox schools? It surely is a lot more mainstream than the other schools. For example it has received one Nobel prize (two if you count Herbert Simon), two John Bates Clarck medals and papers written from the behavioral perspective are reguraly published in the most prestigious journals.

217.210.4.92 09:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of neoclassical economics
''Neoclassical economics is sometimes criticised for having a normative bias. In this view, it does not focus on explaining actual economies, but instead on describing a "utopia" in which Pareto optimality obtains. Key assumptions of neoclassical economics which are widely criticised as unrealistic include:

''The focus on individuals in the economy may obscure analysis of wider long term issues, such as whether the economic system is desirable and stable on a finite planet of limited natural capital.

I'm removing this first "assumption" as it is not actually an assumption. If someone else want to rework it and put it back in so that it makes sense, go ahead. 72.75.241.36 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You're right that the third sentence above suggests a series of assumptions (immediately followed by criticisms for each) but does not follow through. A rewrite is needed to fix the inconsistency. --Thomasmeeks 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole section needs a broad rewrite. I may do it when I have time. Criticism seem to come in a few types: -Utility assumptions/Rational Agents -Profit Maximization on the firm side -Aggregation issues (basically everyone knows this is a problem, question is degree) -Philisophical (Method): too much math/computers/blackboxes -Philisophical (Objective): what NCE wants to do is impossible/not useful. -Political: People don't like results or feel the wrong questions are being asked. How much detail do we really need on the 101 criticism? Everyone has a pet critique of the dominant theory, many are rather technical and others can be addressed within the framework. What do you keep of the current mess? 149.169.67.51 01:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The criticism section is not too clear. A non-expert cannot easily tell which are minor criticism and which is major.  Perhaps first divide it up as above remarks then start trimming. KAM 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I wonder why there are no major citations in the criticism part. Some nobel price winning economists (i.e. Stiglitz) strongly disagree with the theory. This is not reflected in the article. --91.47.115.118 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Platonists
neoclassical economists? ==

I read somewhere that neoclassical economics is platonism. Why is that so? __earth (Talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 * It isn't. Someone is either making sweeping over-generalizations, or using terms so loosely as to be very unhelpful. —SlamDiego←T 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

SlamDiego←T 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On the distinctions amongst neoclassical economics, Austrian School economics, and marginalism
This article is presently written as if necoclassical economics subsumes marginalism more generally.

The first published appearance of the term “neoclassical” in reference to economics is in Veblen's “The Preconceptions of Economic Science”, Pt III (QJE v14 (1900)):

Note that Veblen writes of a world in which the Austrian School is viewed as different from the neoclassical economists (though Veblen sees them as having shared preconceptions to which he objects).

Yet, in textbooks written by neoclassical economists (and by many anti-marginalists), neoclassical economics and marginalism are usually simply treated as the same thing, and Austrian School economics are treated as a variety of neoclassical economics.

In fact, the Austrian School is certainly marginalist. The neoclassical economists have also always been at least somewhat marginalist, albeït that for a time they walked away from marginal utility (and not all of them have reëmbraced it). But neither school subsumes the whole of marginalism.

The reason that the neoclassical school is called “neoclassical” or “neo-classical” is that, while they embraced marginal utility in the explanation of the demand curve, they explained the supply curve much as had the classical economics, in terms of objective costs whose structure was determined by physical processes. The Austrian School, meantime, saw the supply curve as a complementary demand curve, with the marginal utilities of producers determining their willingness to trade good for money. The neoclassical economists utterly failed to understand this view, and mistook the Austrian School for claiming that price were simply determined by one demand curve. Hence Marshall's foolish-yet-lauded analogy of cloth being cut by both blades of scissors.

The neoclassical economist were so convinced that Marshall's synthesis had captured all of the insights of marginalism that they began to write the history of economics as if marginalism had come together with Marshall's Principles. Many eventually lost the distinction between marginalism in general and neoclassical economics in particular, and hence (since the Austrian School were plainly marginalist) began to write of the Austrian School as “neoclassical”. But the Austrian School has for the most part resisted such unfortunate confusions. —SlamDiego←T 03:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Is there a paper on this explaining how neoclassical economics has essentially tried to rewrite history? I'm afraid that I don't understand the difference between the neoclassical supply curve and the "complementary demand curve". Your description is somewhat vague; with this kind of vagueness, it's no wonder that there's a lot of misunderstanding. I've always thought that neoclassical economics viewed the supply curve as a model; a convenient abstraction. They take this abstraction a little more seriously than Austrians. When prices rise, it makes sense that producers will increase production to meet that rise, while at the same time consumers will slacken somewhat. Of course, this is complicated by advertising and other factors, but it makes sense. II  07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't know if someone has produced an executive summary on how neoclassical economics has rewritten history (generally less as a matter of trying to do so than as a consequence of grossly failing to understand rivals), but one can, for example, find discussion of the issue of the supply curve mentioned in Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis (1954). You might also profit from Cost and Choice by Buchanan.  As to your objection that my characterization above of the Austrian School notion of the supply curve is “somewhat vague”, well, your implicit demand is somewhat absurd; if I were to have write my comments anticipating-and-answering every question that you (and other readers) might have, then I'd be producing something of book-length or greater.
 * Your characterization of the Austrian School view of the supply curve, and what differentiates it from the Marshallian model, is wholly in error. The Austrian School have always understood that price could no more determined without the supply schedule than without the demand schedule; they have always understood that the supply curve would generally be upward sloping.  But the Marshallian conception is that costs are objective, and the supply curve could be inferred essentially as an act of accountancy.  The Austrian School instead recognizes that the supply curve is an expression of the producer's demand for money, for which he pays with a good or service; the supply curve is every bit as much determined by considerations of marginal utility as is the curve that we ordinarily call the demand curve. —SlamDiego←T 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I haven't actually characterized the Austrian School view. To be honest, I'm not to clear on the Marshallian model. As I've said, the Marshallian model appears to be to be a useful model; an abstraction. I'm sorry if I've offended you; these things naturally tend towards vagueness. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. I know that the Austrian School has a lot of writing, and I'm sure that someone has written something on this. If you're a figure in economics, you could write it up. Accountancy? Marshall doesn't go around trying to calculate the actual supply curve. So if the Marshallian view is that these things are objective, is the Austrian view that the supply curve is subjective? Certainly the supply curve is constantly in flux; it's slope is wildly variable, based upon the existing conditions at the time. The linear upward model presented at the undergrad level is a gross simplification, and nonlinear models are probably little better. The moment that it looks like there is a recession coming, or it looks like the demand is actually from inflation, the supply curve may tank (as people come to realize this). I'm partial to Knight's perspective on economics, myself. II  08:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * One cannot say that they neoclassical economists take the supply curve more seriously than does the Austrian School without thus characterizing the Austrian School view (as taking the supply curve less seriously). Marshall may or may not have ever given an example of ostensibly calculating  the supply curve from his principles, but a great many intro micro courses have done exactly that (and lawyers and regulators have certainly done it).  Yes, the Austrian School has long insisted that the supply curve is every bit as subjective as is “the” demand curve. (And Knight would have told you this as well; he was very good with the notion of cost.) The objective enters into the the determination of value by way of possible marginal rates of transformation, rather than as either blade of the scissors.
 * As to my writing things up, I would have to invest a lot of time producing citations (to avoid complaints of WP:OR), and I already spend too much time with Wikipedia. —SlamDiego←T 09:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I meant writing it up and publishing it in an academic journal. But this would require lots of citations. Still don't really know how to interpret this subjective/objective thing. Certainly what the supply curve looks like is subject to the "eye of the beholder", but certainly also there exists a "real" (in a manner of speaking) "supply and demand curve" -- a schedule at which people will produce/consume. Like I said, this is constantly in flux, and people are certainly not aware of their own predilections, but they will act a certain way under conditions. Are you referring to something similar to Soros' reflexivity (social theory), where each feeds on each other? II  09:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * A journal article might be worthwhile, but I'd be surprised if one hadn't appeared somewhere (probably in some grousing Austrian School journal), and just not got a lot of attention.
 * The supply and demand curves are real, but not only are they (as you note) in flux, they are (at best) observable only one point at a time. And we could only infer the precise shape of the unobservable portions if we have access to private information, including desires and expectations.  And it is thus and in this sense that the subjectivity obtains. —SlamDiego←T 09:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * SlamDiego is misrepresenting the article. Notice the link to the stub article for reservation demand in the overview section. This is a reference to a subjective theory of factor supplies. By the way, Jevons thought that his theory was not an extension of classical economics. He somewhere referred to Ricardo as something like "that able but misguided man who shunted political economy onto the wrong track". Whether neoclassical economics is a reaction against or an extension of classical economics is debated both by neoclassical and non-neoclassical economists, independently of whatever Austrians may have to say. I deliberately wrote the original version of this article to take a NPOV on this question. And that allowance for both views has persisted. I don't think I took a position on this topic either when I wrote the original version of the Austrian School article. 209.217.195.105 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) RLV

 * I made no representation (mis- or otherwise) as to whether the article had any awareness of subjective factors in factor demand.
 * Jevons indeed said that his work was not an extension of classical economics; it was Marshall who drew upon classical economics to explain the supply curve. That's why I keep associating neoclassical economics with the latter rather than with the former. (One could labor the effect of Marshall upon Jevons, but that would be beside the point here.)
 * Whatever the intentions about POV when the original version of this article was written, it has got basic facts wrong. Since you've relied heavily upon secondary sources for your own knowledge, one might locate any POV-pushing in those sources; but, as I said, the misrepresentations that come from within the neoclassical tradition itself are largely a matter of simply failing to understand their rivals. —SlamDiego←T 04:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * "Since you've relied heavily upon secondary sources" is an attack upon the man and assumes facts not in evidence. The claim that Marshall drew upon classical economics is a controversial POV. In fact many think Appendix I ("Ricardo's Theory of Value") in Marshall's Principles of Economics is mistaken about the content of classical economics. One can look above and see that SlamDiego's ill-posed objections are to neoclassical economists' supposed opinions of Marshall. His ill-posed objections are not limited to Marshall, and he writes (incorrectly) "The article is presently written as..." 209.217.195.108 (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC) RLV

 * No, I infer (rather than assume) that you rely upon secondary sources, because
 * the alternative would be that you were willfully misrepresenting some of the content of the primary sources; and,
 * meanwhile, when you do quote some of those primary sources, you quoted them not from the primary sources but as excerpted in secondary sources, as when (in your 'blog) you turn to Kirzner to report on the position of v. Mises.
 * As to whether Marshall interpretted any classical economists right, I've here not taken a position on that at all; it's purely tangential. What is not tangential is that Marshall's school was named “neoclassical” because it represented itself as producing a more complete explanation of price by combining a classical cost-based theory with marginalism; some marginalists (including the Austrian School) were never party to that.  As the neoclassical tradition evolved, further distinctions arose; there was never a fusion of the schools. —SlamDiego←T 10:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Suppose SlamDiego did not violate the norms of Wikipedia and of civilized conversation. Then he would not feel obliged to share his unjustified inferences about what I have read. I hope II is amused by SlamDiego's insistence that II has "characterized" Austrian Economics, but SlamDiego, in stating "Marshall ... drew upon classical economics to explain the supply curve," was not taking "a position on" "whether Marshall interpretted any classical economists right." Anyways, it is not all that relevant to the article why "Marshall's school was named 'neoclassical'." Neoclassical economics has not been used for over half a century to refer exclusively to economists following Marshall. As far as I can tell, SlamDiego even agrees with this claim. In the next section, SlamDiego pretends that I offered an argument for calling the Austrian School "Neoclassical". I never did. As it is, neither my comments here nor the article contradicts the claim that, looking back, Austrian school economists are today justified in asserting that there never was a fusion of Austrian schools with non-Austrian neoclassical schools. 209.217.195.99 (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC) RLV

 * We needn't merely suppose such a thing; you need merely to recognize that the norms of civilized conversation do not require me to refrain from repeatedly exploding ill-constructed arguments.
 * It is quite possible to draw upon something without correctly interpretting it. (This is plainly illustrated in the case of religion, where many people draw upon this-or-that scripture, but contradict each other in thier interpretations). I said that Marhsall drew upon classical economics; but there is no inconsistency in my refraining from making any claim about whether he interpretted it correctly.
 * The problems aren't merely that “neoclassical” economics was begun as a name distinguishing some marginalist from others; the problems include:
 * that the name was applied to the remainder of marginalism on the demonstrably false presumption that they had eventually accepted the Marshallian critique;
 * that the name has not been accepted by the Austrian School;
 * the sweeping use of “necoclassical” is effectively confined to two groups — those from within the tradition of Marshall, and various opponents of marginalism who in fact focus on flaws that are not really general to marginalism.
 * These are points that I've already made repeatedly.
 * In the next section, you in fact did present an argument for calling the Austrian School “neoclassical”, regardless of whether you intended the argument to be taken as decisive. My point was that the argument had no validity of any sort. —SlamDiego←T) 06:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (And investigation shows that you're the author of the passage from the article that I quoted in that next section. Further, well after you'd written that problematic passage, you objected “I do not understand what distinction - probably original research - SlamDiego makes between marginalism and neoclassical economics.”) —SlamDiego←T 08:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent]I wish you two would stop going for each other's throats. SlamDiego has some legitimate points. Neoclassical economics may be called the marginalist school (this is unreferenced, but certainly often stated, for example, here). Marginalism, however, is likely something that applies to all economics -- it is key to the economic approach. It dates back far enough that it has certainly had a strong influence on both Austrians and neoclassical economists. Neoclassical economics, as the dominant branch, has adopted the theory as if it were unique to itself. Perhaps that was unjust, but the world is not just. SlamDiego is free to look for an article on criticizing this in an Austrian journal -- I've begun a list of them here, and many have plenty of free access content. I may be browsing through them myself, and I'll let you know if I see something. In the meantime, we should probably let neoclassical have the "marginalist" claim. I don't have enough experience to say how much Austrians use marginalism; I imagine they use it plenty, but are less obvious about it. It is part of the economic intuition. II | (t - c) 04:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * ImperfectlyInformed, there is a very great difference between my systematically analyzing bad arguments, and going at someone's throat; I am not much interested in anyone's throat. (As an exercise, walk through things chronologically, to see who personalizes things and when. Hint: It starts with this diff.)
 * The issue here isn't whether it is just for “the dominant branch” to claim marginalism “as if it were unique to itself”; the issues is whether the claim is factual; Wikipedia isn't supposed to present something as fact if it can be shown to be false. Anyway, you should find a number of essays on how the distinctions were under-appreciated; amongst mainstream historians of thought, there is now little or no controversy over the claim that the Austrian School tradition was always distinct.  That confusion belongs mostly to the  past, and to writers whose exposure to history of thought is mostly $$n$$-th hand, with $$n > 2$$.
 * As to the use that the Austrian School makes of marginalism. they are always quite obviously using it. It isn't that the other schools have ever failed to recognize the Austrians as marginalists.  What other schools have failed to recognize are the distinctive features.  For one discussion of the distinctive nature of Austrian School marginalism, see Mc Culloch's “The Austrian Theory of the Marginal Use and of Ordinal Marginal Utility” in Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 37 (1977). —SlamDiego←T 06:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Committing a tu quoque fallacy is hardly a defense of a prior rhetorical fallacy. I don't know why SlamDiego thinks accusing a discussant of being "willfully misleading" is not personalizing discussion. 209.217.195.100 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC) RLV

 * I've not committed any tu quoque fallacy. ImperfectlyInformed made the mistake of asserting that we were at each others throats, and I explained that I was not interested in your throat.  As to my comment at another, earlier discussion (at “Marginalism”), that came after you not only were indeed willfully misleading but had already personalized that discussion. —SlamDiego←T 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I may have been sensitized to this from reading Schumpeter years ago. I don't like the passage in the intro in the article that says, "Neoclassical economics is often called the marginalist school". Among schools in neoclassical economics, I can name the school of Lausanne, several Chicago schools of different periods, and perhaps the neoclassical synthesis - if you want to call that a school of thought. I would prefer saying that, "Neoclassical economics is often called marginalism." I think that more consistent with your link. I've already noted Garegnani as one who prefers that label. I think I could find Blaug using that label for diverengent reasons.

 * I think it untrue to say that marginalism applies to all economics - at least, if you mean something more by "marginalism" that a combination of the math of differentiability and theorems about dual Linear Programs. I would not call Post-Keynesian economics, Institutional economics, or various régulationists schools "marginalist", for example. I think Gonçalo knows perfectly will that some economists disagree with some of those 12 principles of the neoclassical theory of value he lists.

 * As for SlamDiego's claims:

 * (1) He has presented no evidence that the broadening of the label "neoclassical" was associated with an acceptance of Marshall's theory of supply curves and Marshall's perception of the Austrians of his day. Since I think Wicksteed was a neoclassical (this does not preclude Wicksteed also being called "Austrian school") and had the better of that argument, I'm unlikely to agree with SlamDiego here.

 * (2) I've already pointed out that article asserts that one can distinguish between Menger and the other two revolutionaries. I've also asserted that neither the article nor myself argues against the claim that, looking back, Austrian schools economists are today justified in asserting that there never was a fusion of Austrian schools with non-Austrian neoclassical schools. I didn't take the opportunity to disagree with the article's classification of Austrians as Heterodox. I did not take any such opportunity because I agree with that classification.

 * (3) I don't know that SlamDiego has presented evidence that the use of "neoclassical" is confined to the two groups he presents. For example, Samuelson uses the label "neoclassical synthesis", and Samuelson in his pure theory work drew on general equilibrium theory and argued against the more Marshallian Chicago school. So he seems to be an easy counter-example. I understand why some would say heterodox economists, including Austrians, use "neoclassical" to mean "mainstream theory we disagree with today." I don't think that supports SlamDiego.

 * The question is not whether those who use "neoclassical" in a broad way are factually correct, whatever that would mean for the use of a label. The question is whether reliable sources say it is used in some such broad way. Did you read my documentation that a reliable source, namely David Colander, says that "neoclassical" is used in a broad way? And since the article doesn't classify Austrians as Neoclassical, I find it hard to find a point in SlamDiego's complaints. (These days I might be more likely to say that the three conventionally listed as the founders of neoclassical economics promulgated the "marginal revolution".)

 * I find where SlamDiego looks for distinction between Austrians and Neoclassicals to be quite archaic and odd. I don't think many current Austrians look to the structure of utility theory in Menger and his immediate followers. Current Austrians do argue that the subjectively of opportunity costs is not adequately incorporated in mainstream theory, but Marshall's particular formulation is not a live issue.

 * If you want to read about the distinction, I would suggest looking at some of Kirzner's collections. He writes about the difficulty he had at New York University in understanding how Mises was distinguishing his approach from, for example, Lionel Robbins. (Maybe the article should mention Robbins' book on methodology.) I think Robert Murphy gives the lecture at the Mises Institute's summer program about the distinction, and you can download mp3s there. 209.217.195.100 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC) RLV

 * Hopefully my edit has resolved some of the concerns. I know one of you might raise concerns about the New School, but the source, although just a self-published website, seems to be fairly well-researched, and I feel strongly that this is a good place to make an exception. I actually think the categorizing of the term neoclassical which they use makes sense. SlamDiego: Many Austrian economics may reject their association with the word "neoclassical", but they do share some of its assumptions and methods (marginalism, rational maximizing of welfare). That's why both they and the Chicago school are so rabidly laissez-faire (IMO). II  | (t - c) 02:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * As to your attempt to critique my remarks:
 * I've not presented evidence that the broadening of “neoclassical” was associated with acceptance of Marshall's theory of the supply curve because because I've in fact repeatedly noted that the theory was not accepted by all rival marginalist. Meanwhile, your belief that Wicksteed was neoclassical begs the question.
 * Since it is generally acknowledged that there are differences amongst those within the actual neoclassical tradition, it isn't to-the-point that the article acknowledges distinctions between Menger and other marginalists. What is to the point is when, how, and by whom the label “neoclassical” has ever been applied to the Austrian School.  And I've repeated labored the answers to those questions.
 * I didn't present any evidence that some had narrowed “neoclassical” to refer to Samuelsonian economics because McCloskey's 'blog entry is essentially concerned with that. Perhaps one would want to label McCloskey heterodox, but he plainly doesn't want “neoclassical” to refer generically to theory that he opposes; as the the Austrian School, they don't defined “neoclassical” as you suggest.
 * You don't acknowledge, and probably don't recognize, where I look for a distinction between the Austrian School and the neoclassicals. (Perhaps if you'd spent less time trying to get at my throat and more time trying to get at my argument….) Again, the question is of when, how, and by whom the label “neoclassical” has ever been applied. I started with the beginning, where “neoclassical” was used to distinguish the Marshallians from the Austrian School, explained that there had never been a fusion, but noted that they neoclassicals had mistakenly believed that one had effectively occurred.  None of this denies evolution within both of the respective traditions; it is implicit or explicit in some of my prior remarks that both traditions evolved.  But discussion of the original differences illustrates that the Austrian School is not a heretical development from neoclassical economics, and is an essential part of an explanation that the label is inappropriate. —SlamDiego←T 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not trying to go for your throat. I think it would be great if you elaborated on the difference, while noting that they are very similar, to the point where they can, and have, been grouped under the same umbrella. Veblen's quote demonstrates the similarity between the Austrians and neoclassicals; Robert has a quote in his blog similarly noting that Mises admitted that the two schools were very similar. II  | (t - c) 04:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I've not thought that you were going for my throat.

 * Neoclassical economics was a development within marginalism; which is why Veblen would both introduce the term to distinguish it from the Austrian School and yet, at a higher level of abstraction, group the Austrian School with the neoclassicals. I have earlier quoted the full sentence from v. Mises, and provide a link to the full text of the chapter in which it appears; but, even truncated, it merely refers to one idea, and that is the idea that value is explained by marginal utility.  Neoclassical economics was distinct in attempting to explain the supply curve based upon costs, and in attributing the upward slope of the supply curve first-and-foremost not to diminishing marginal utility but to diminishing marginal physical product.  Neoclassical economics contnued a tradition (found in some classical economic thought) of modelling their theory after the physical sciences, and presuming wide applicability of quantitative mathematics; Austrian School economics tended (and largely tends) to avoid explicit mathematics (indeed, most Austrian School economists think or seem to think that they are simply not using mathematics most of the time), and to proceed from attempted logical deductions about rational, purposeful action.  Neoclassical economics original presumed the real existence of quantitative happiness of some sort, and employed quantitative reasoning to infer conclusions; when the assumption of such stuff came under challenge, the neoclassical economists discarded their notion of diminishing marginal utility as without meaning. (On this matter, see “Utility and Preference” in Hicks's Value and Capital.) The Austrian School instead thought of marginal utility as priorty rank of marginal use (on this matter see the article by McCulloch to which I referred you), and had no need to walk away from their conception of diminishing marginal utility.  Neoclassical economics accepted indifference curves; Austrian School economists look askance at any but metaphorical use of them (and most Austrian School economists would object even to that).  The various neoclassicals embraced some or all of the models named “pure competition”, “perfect competition”, “imperfect competition”, and  “monopolistic competition”; the Austrian School rejected them.  Neoclassical price theory is essentially a theory of equilibria; Austrian School price theory is a theory of discovery, in which equilibria are at best like strange attractors.

 * I'm focussing on the distinction between the Austrian School and neoclassical economics because I am (as an act of courtesy) answering the question that you've asked and because that distinction is familiar to me. I do not imply (or think) that there are no marginalisms that are neither neoclassical nor Austrian School. —SlamDiego←T 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Neoclassical economics?
McCloskey, an economic historian, says that neoclassical is a "misnomer", as should include Austrians and Marshallians. I'd like to expand on this criticism and make it a section under the criticisms. Let me know if you find any other papers. Here is a paper on the origins of the term, which should be relevant for this page. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, McCloskey is correct that Samuelsonian economics has sort-of run off with the name “neoclassical”. I don't know whether that was deliberate, or just an unfortunate, thoughtless telescoping of “neoclassical synthesis” (which is itself a telescoping of a more complex description).  But, as I noted in the prior section, “neoclassical” should not include the Austrian School.
 * BTW, I found McCloskey's 'blog entry rather hard to read; it is awash in nicknames and metaphors, most of which provide zero value-added. —SlamDiego←T 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not particularly interested in SlamDiego's reading difficulties when it comes to McCloskey.

 * The article does not claim that the Austrian school is part of or the same as neoclassical economics. The term "Austrian school" appears in the article twice - in stating that Hicks "was influenced by the Austrian school economist" Hayek and in the list of schools of heterodox economics at the end of the article. Furthermore, the article explicitly allows for discussion of differences among Jevons, Menger, and Walras. (If somebody had questioned me on references, I would have pointed to Jaffe.)

 * Furthermore, SlamDiego is confused. Veblen's coinage may have limited neoclassical economics to those following Marshall, but that doesn't restrict how others have used the term. I document the usage of "Neoclassical economics" in a more general meaning in a blog post. (Given Debreu's Theory of Value, I don't think "neoclassical economics" is limited to assumptions that enable the application of the differential calculus.) You can also see Mises, in the 1930s, stating that the Austrian school did not have a separate doctrine. SlamDiego's complaint about the distinction between Austrian and Marshallian treatment of the cost or supply of factors is about a distinction that did not endure. If you have read Wicksteed, for example, you know that British economists had available an Austrian-like analysis of supply in their own language.

 * I think the claim that economists in the 1930s did not see a distinction between the Austrian school and neoclassical economics more generally is consistent with the Austrians having implicit ideas about the knowledge of agents that, when developed, make them a separate school of thought.

 * Pierangelo Garegnani prefers the label "marginalism" to "neoclassical economics" because the latter label implies a false continuity between classical and neoclassical economics. Marshall was confused, and the Classicals had a distinct approach that can be revived. Any encyclopedic treatment of the labels would have to treat this perspective. But I think it best just to ignore SlamDiego's confusion here. 209.217.195.138 (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC) RLV

 * Robert, the article plainly says
 * (Underscores mine.) Menger, of course, was the principle preceptor of the Austrian School; it would be silly to ignore or miss the fact that a claim is being made about the Austrian School, regardless of whether the term “Austrian School” appears in those sentences.
 * (Underscores mine.) Menger, of course, was the principle preceptor of the Austrian School; it would be silly to ignore or miss the fact that a claim is being made about the Austrian School, regardless of whether the term “Austrian School” appears in those sentences.

 * I'm hardly confused for rejecting any notion that the encyclopedia should play Humpty Dumpty. I plainly acknowledge that some people have been using “neoclassical” to mean pretty much everything that flowed from marginalism, and others have been restricting “neoclassical” to those who went along with the neoclassical synthesis.  The real confusion here is that which results from such uses, which have been almost exclusively by two groups — those who embrace the tradition that flowed from Marshall or the neoclassical synthesis, and those who recognize (or believe that they recognize) fatal flaws in those traditions and want a cheap victory over the rest of marginalism — hanging Samuelson or Marshall like an albatross around the neck of every marginalist.  Again, Austrian discomfort with rival marginalist traditions was present from the out-set.  You're simply misinterpretting v. Mises.  The quotation that you used in your 'blog comes from chapter 7 of Epistemological Problems of Economics.  In full, the sentence reads
 * (Underscore mine.) That chapter is concerned exactly with the thing that allowed the marginalists to be collectively recognized as marginalists — hence the reference to a singular idea rather than to ideas — and not with things such as equilibrium concepts and so forth. With his very first work on economics (The Theory of Money and Credit, 1911), Mises explicitly attacked important presumptions of rival schools. (Granted that, as time passed, he came to see the differences as even greater and more significant than he at first thought.)
 * (Underscore mine.) That chapter is concerned exactly with the thing that allowed the marginalists to be collectively recognized as marginalists — hence the reference to a singular idea rather than to ideas — and not with things such as equilibrium concepts and so forth. With his very first work on economics (The Theory of Money and Credit, 1911), Mises explicitly attacked important presumptions of rival schools. (Granted that, as time passed, he came to see the differences as even greater and more significant than he at first thought.)

 * Your reference to calculus is a straw man. No one claimed that the neoclassical school always presumed differentiability (or integratability).

 * Your example of Wicksteed confuses the notion of an economists actual nationality with the school to which he belonged. The fact that Wicksteed was British didn't mean that he was in the tradition of Marshall, nor that he stayed in the tradition of Jevons. (The present Austrian School seems mostly to be American economists.) Wicksteed was amongst those who objected to Marshall's theory of the supply curve, which was a large part of what put the “classical” in “neoclassical”.

 * The lack of perceived difference in the '30s stemmed more from failed communication than from an actual lack of difference.

 * If your earlier argument for calling the Austrian School “neoclassical” were sound, then the argument of Garegnani would be unsound. The issue, in either case, is inappropriate conflation.  But Garegnani's objection is that a name is a poor description, whereäs I don't insist that it be a description at all, merely that it be used with due consistency. —SlamDiego←T 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology: when was the term first used?
Who started using the term, and when? Does Jevons use the term? II 04:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * As I noted above, the first published appearance of the term “neoclassical” in reference to economics is in Veblen's “The Preconceptions of Economic Science”, Pt III (QJE v14 (1900)). —SlamDiego←T 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I've placed the quotation inside a Template:Quotation, to make it easier to spot. (It used to be just indented.) —SlamDiego←T 04:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OR/fn
Well, Robert, removing an assertion as OR from the body of the article even as one provides a quotation that substantiates it is certainly… different. And problematic: So I'll move the deleted claim back to the body, even while retaining the reference. —SlamDiego←T 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) “Original research″ is non-trivial claims for which a “reliable source″ cannot be found (as distinct from, say, claims for which a reference simply has not been provided).
 * 2) The “References” section of a WIkipedia article is for references substantiating what is in the body, not for thoughts that one wishes to render somehow subparenthetical. (I've sometimes wished for wider use of footnotes, but….)
 * 3) While the Stigler quote nicely supports the deleted claim, it really doesn't do a good job of substantiating what is left behind in the body after the alleged “Original Research″ is deleted.

Opening paragraph
This article is very bad - it doesn't explain consisely what neo-classical economics is. It never fails to amaze me how people who have studied economics still struggle to explain such important concepts as the neo-classical synthesis. What is wrong with:

"Neo-classical economics (or "New-Classical economics) is a collective term for a number of economic therories that emerged during the 1960s and 1970s. Common to all neo-classical theories is the assumption of continuous equilibrium in labor and product markets. There is, however, a dichotomy of thinking those in the "real-business cycle" school originating from the work of Edward Prescott at the University of Minnesota, and the "imperfect information" school originating from Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas at the University of Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.56.223 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 * First, don't attempt to jump the queue with your comments; when you're starting a new section, put it at the bottom of the page. (And, when one is replying to someone else, one should put one's comments after theirs, and generally indent those comments, so that threads of discussion are easily distinguished.)
 * Second, this article is not restricted to the neoclassical synthesis , which is named as it is in reference to the broader concept of neoclassical economics. It wouldn't surprise me if you had a degree in economics, since the teaching of history of thought has generally been very poorly handled and largely gone by the way-side.  In any case, you're confused, and should withdraw from editing this article (bad as it is in parts) until you are more familiar with its subject matter. —SlamDiego←T 12:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neoclassical economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112011011/http://cepa.newschool.edu/~het/essays/margrev/ncintro.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/~het/essays/margrev/ncintro.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again..
So in the Wikipedia tradition of ignoring any separation between mainstream economics and heterodox or "fringe" schools of thought, the article writes that,

"Although the neoclassical approach is dominant in economics, the field of economics includes others, such as Marxist,"

Actually, "the field" does not include Marxist economics, nor does it include "Austrian" economics. The odds of a Marxist economist securing a teaching position in an economics department at an accredited university are equal to the probability of a biblical creationist being hired by the biology department of the same university. It isn't a question of one view being "dominant" over the other - it's more the case that Marxist theories have no presence in academic economics. Marxism is a philosophy rather than a minority view among economists.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 * I might not use that label, but the above could look at the research of Donald Harris, the biological father of the vice president of the United States. There are other examples with more recent research. 128.132.1.132 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advancing a sectarian agenda. Just because a school of thought is not part of whatever the orthodoxy of its field is doesn't mean that that school of thought isn't within that field. This is especially true for economics! The field of economics does absolutely include many heterodox theories by way of the influences those theories had on the orthodox ones. Sure you'd be hard pressed to find a professor at a top 20 school who is a marxist for instance, but to suggest that marxism is not even a part of the field of economics is just economically illiterate. Please avoid spreading dogmatism on this website. TheBotSO (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Neoclassical economics


text:
August Weismann

August Friedrich Leopold Weismann FRS (For), HonFRSE, LLD (17 January 1834 – 5 November 1914) was a German evolutionary biologist. Fellow German Ernst Mayr ranked him as the second most notable evolutionary theorist of the 19th century, after Charles Darwin. Weismann became the Director of the Zoological Institute and the first Professor of Zoology at Freiburg.

His main contribution involved germ plasm theory, at one time also known as Weismannism, according to which inheritance (in a multicellular animal) only takes place by means of the germ cells—the gametes such as egg cells and sperm cells. Other cells of the body—somatic cells—do not function as agents of heredity. The effect is one-way: germ cells produce somatic cells and are not affected by anything the somatic cells learn or therefore any ability an individual acquires during its life. Genetic information cannot pass from soma to germ plasm and on to the next generation. Biologists refer to this concept as the Weismann barrier. This idea, if true, rules out the inheritance of acquired characteristics as proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. However, a careful reading of Weismann's work over the span of his entire career shows that he had more nuanced views, insisting, like Darwin, that a variable environment was necessary to cause variation in the hereditary material.

The idea of the Weismann barrier is central to the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, though scholars do not express it today in the same terms. In Weismann's opinion the largely random process of mutation, which must occur in the gametes (or stem cells that make them) is the only source of change for natural selection to work on. Weismann became one of the first biologists to deny Lamarckism entirely. Weismann's ideas preceded the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work, and though Weismann was cagey about accepting Mendelism, younger workers soon made the connection.

Weismann is much admired today. Ernst Mayr judged him to be the most important evolutionary thinker between Darwin and the evolutionary synthesis around 1930–1940, and "one of the great biologists of all time".

Youth and studies
Weismann was born a son of high school teacher Johann (Jean) Konrad Weismann (1804–1880), a graduate of ancient languages and theology, and his wife Elise (1803–1850), née Lübbren, the daughter of the county councillor and mayor of Stade, on 17 January 1834 in Frankfurt am Main. He had a typical 19th century bourgeois education, receiving music lessons from the age of four, and drafting and painting lessons from Jakob Becker (1810–1872) at the Frankfurter Städelsche Institut from the age of 14. His piano teacher was a devoted butterfly collector and introduced him to the collecting of imagos and caterpillars. But studying natural sciences was out of the question due to the cost involved and limited job prospects. A friend of the family, chemist Friedrich Wöhler (1800–1882), recommended studying medicine. A foundation from the inheritance of Weismann's mother allowed him to take up studies in Göttingen. Following his graduation in 1856, he wrote his dissertation on the synthesis of hippuric acid in the human body.

Professional life
Immediately after university, Weismann took on a post as assistant at the Städtische Klinik (city clinic) in Rostock. Weismann successfully submitted two manuscripts, one about hippuric acid in herbivores, and one about the salt content of the Baltic Sea, and won two prizes. The paper about the salt content dissuaded him from becoming a chemist, since he felt himself lacking in apothecarial accuracy.

After a study visit to see Vienna's museums and clinics, he visited Italy (1859) and Paris (1860). He returned to Frankfurt as personal physician to the banished Archduke Stephen of Austria at Schaumburg Castle from 1861 to 1863. During the war between Austria, France and Italy in 1859, he became Chief Medical Officer in the military, and on a leave from duty he walked through Northern Italy and the County of Tyrol. After a sabbatical in Paris, he worked with Rudolf Leuckart at the University of Gießen. He graduated as a physician and settled in Frankfurt with a medical practice in 1868.

From 1863, he was privatdozent in comparative anatomy and zoology; from 1866 extraordinary professor; and from 1873 to 1912 full professor, first holder of the chair in zoology and director of the zoological institute at Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg in Breisgau. He retired in 1912. His earlier work was largely concerned with purely zoological investigations, one of his earliest works dealing with the development of the Diptera. Microscopical work, however, became impossible to him owing to impaired eyesight, and he turned his attention to wider problems of biological inquiry.

Family
In 1867 he married Mary Dorothea Gruber.

Their son, Julius Weismann (1879–1950), was a composer.

Contributions to evolutionary biology
At the beginning of Weismann's preoccupation with evolutionary theory was his grappling with Christian creationism as a possible alternative. In his work Über die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen Theorie (On the justification of the Darwinian theory) he compared creationism and evolutionary theory, and concluded that many biological facts can be seamlessly accommodated within evolutionary theory, but remain puzzling if considered the result of acts of creation.

After this work, Weismann accepted evolution as a fact on a par with the fundamental assumptions of astronomy (e.g. Heliocentrism). Weismann's position towards the mechanism of inheritance and its role for evolution changed during his life. Three periods can be distinguished.

German work on cells

Weismann's work on the demarcation between germ-line and soma can scarcely be appreciated without considering the work of (mostly) German biologists during the second half of the 19th century. This was the time that the mechanisms of cell division began to be understood. Eduard Strasburger, Walther Flemming, Heinrich von Waldeyer and the Belgian Edouard Van Beneden laid the basis for the cytology and cytogenetics of the 20th century. Strasburger, the outstanding botanical physiologist of that century, coined the terms nucleoplasm and cytoplasm. He said "new cell nuclei can only arise from the division of other cell nuclei". Van Beneden discovered how chromosomes combined at meiosis, during the production of gametes, and discovered and named chromatin. Walther Flemming, the founder of cytogenetics, named mitosis, and pronounced "omnis nucleus e nucleo" (which means the same as Strasburger's dictum). The discovery of mitosis, meiosis and chromosomes is regarded as one of the 100 most important scientific discoveries of all times, and one of the 10 most important discoveries in cell biology.

Meiosis was discovered and described for the first time in sea urchin eggs in 1876, by Oscar Hertwig. It was described again in 1883, at the level of chromosomes, by Van Beneden in Ascaris eggs. The significance of meiosis for reproduction and inheritance, however, was first described in 1890 by Weismann, who noted that two cell divisions were necessary to transform one diploid cell into four haploid cells if the number of chromosomes had to be maintained. Thus the work of the earlier cytologists laid the ground for Weismann, who turned his mind to the consequences for evolution, which was an aspect the cytologists had not addressed. All this took place before the work of Mendel had been rediscovered

1868–1881/82
Weismann started out believing, like many other 19th century scientists, among them Charles Darwin, that the observed variability of individuals of one species is due to the inheritance of sports (Darwin's term). He believed, as written in 1876, that transmutation of species is directly due to the influence of environment. He also wrote, "if every variation is regarded as a reaction of the organism to external conditions, as a deviation of the inherited line of development, it follows that no evolution can occur without a change of the environment". (This is close to the modern use of the concept that changes in the environment can mediate selective pressures on a population, so leading to evolutionary change.) Weismann also used the classic Lamarckian metaphor of use and disuse of an organ.

1882–1895
Weismann's first rejection of the inheritance of acquired traits was in a lecture in 1883, titled "On inheritance" ("Über die Vererbung"). Again, as in his treatise on creation vs. evolution, he attempts to explain individual examples with either theory. For instance, the existence of non-reproductive castes of ants, such as workers and soldiers, cannot be explained by inheritance of acquired characters. Germ plasm theory, on the other hand, does so effortlessly. Weismann used this theory to explain Lamark's original examples for "use and disuse", such as the tendency to have degenerate wings and stronger feet in domesticated waterfowl.

1896–1910
Weismann worked on the embryology of sea urchin eggs, and in the course of this observed different kinds of cell division, namely equatorial division and reductional division, terms he coined (Äquatorialteilung and Reduktionsteilung respectively).

His germ plasm theory states that multicellular organisms consist of germ cells containing heritable information, and somatic cells that carry out ordinary bodily functions. The germ cells are influenced neither by environmental influences nor by learning or morphological changes that happen during the lifetime of an organism, which information is lost after each generation. The concept as he proposed it was referred to as Weismannism in his day, for example in the book An examination of Weismannism by George Romanes This idea was illuminated and explained by the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work in the early years of the 20th century (see Mendelian inheritance).

Experiments on the inheritance of mutilation
The idea that germline cells contain information that passes to each generation unaffected by experience and independent of the somatic (body) cells, came to be referred to as the Weismann barrier, and is frequently quoted as putting a final end to the theory of Lamarck and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. What Lamarck claimed was the inheritance of characteristics acquired through effort, or will.

Weismann conducted the experiment of removing the tails of 68 white mice, repeatedly over 5 generations, and reporting that no mice were born in consequence without a tail or even with a shorter tail. He stated that "901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or of any other abnormality in this organ." Weismann was aware of the limitations of this experiment, and made it clear that he embarked on the experiment precisely because, at the time, there were many claims of animals inheriting mutilations (he refers to a claim regarding a cat that had lost its tail having numerous tail-less offspring). There were also claims of Jews born without foreskins. None of these claims, he said, were backed up by reliable evidence that the parent had in fact been mutilated, leaving the perfectly plausible possibility that the modified offspring were the result of a mutated gene. The purpose of his experiment was to lay the claims of inherited mutilation to rest. The results were consistent with Weismann's germ plasm theory.

Awards and Honors
Weismann was elected an International Member of the American Philosophical Society in 1906. He was awarded the Linnean Society of London's Darwin-Wallace Medal in 1908. He was elected an International Member of the United States National Academy of Sciences in 1913.

Publications by Weismann

 * 1868. Über die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen Theorie: Ein akademischer Vortrag gehalten am 8. Juli 1868 in der Aula der Universität zu Freiburg im Breisgau. Engelmann, Leipzig.
 * 1872. Über den Einfluß der Isolierung auf die Artbildung. Engelmann, Leipzig.
 * 1875. Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie. I. Ueber den Saison-Dimorphismus der Schmetterlinge. Leipzig.
 * 1876. Studien zur Descendenztheorie: II. Ueber die letzten Ursachen der Transmutationen. Leipzig.
 * 1883. Die Entstehung der Sexualzellen bei den Hydromedusen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss des Baues und der Lebenserscheinungen dieser Gruppe. Fischer, Jena.
 * 1883.
 * 1883.
 * 1885. Die Continuität des Keimplasmas als Grundlage einer Theorie der Vererbung. Fischer, Jena.
 * 1886.
 * 1887. Zur Frage nach der Vererbung erworbener Eigenschaften. In: Biol. Zbl. 6:33–48
 * 1887. Über die Zahl der Richtungskörper und über ihre Bedeutung für die Vererbung. Fischer, Jena.
 * 1889 Translations: Essays upon Heredity Oxford Clarendon Press – Full online text
 * 1892. Das Keimplasma: eine Theorie der Vererbung. Fischer, Jena.
 * 1893 Translation: Germ-Plasm, a theory of Heredity Charles Scribner's Sons – Full online text
 * 1892. Aufsätze über Vererbung und angewandet biologische Fragen. Fischer, Jena.
 * 1893. Die Allmacht der Naturzüchtung: eine Erwiderung an Herbert Spencer. Jena. Translated and published in the Contemporary Review, 1893. The all-sufficiency of natural selection. A reply to Herbert Spencer. Contemporary Review 64: 309-338
 * 1902. Vorträge über Deszendenztheorie: Gehalten an der Universität zu Freiburg im Breisgau. Fischer, Jena. 2 volums

title: August Weismann


text:
Spoon

A spoon is a utensil consisting of a shallow bowl (also known as a head), oval or round, at the end of a handle. A type of cutlery (sometimes called flatware in the United States), especially as part of a place setting, it is used primarily for transferring food to the mouth (eating). Spoons are also used in food preparation to measure, mix, stir and toss ingredients and for serving food. Present day spoons are made from metal (notably flat silver or silverware, plated or solid), wood, porcelain or plastic. There are a wide variety of spoons that are made of a variety of materials and by different cultures for many different uses and foods.

Terminology
The spoon consists of a bowl and a handle. A handle in a shape of a slender stick is frequently called stem. The stem can end in a sharp point or be crowned with a knop, a decorative knob. The knop-top spoons with a variety of knop shapes described by colorful terms like "acorn", "writhen-end" (spiral ornament on a ball), "maidenhead" (a bust), "diamond point", "apostle" were particularly popular in England in 14th to 17th centuries.

The name spoon came from Old English spon, 'chip'.

History
Preserved examples of various forms of spoons used by the ancient Egyptians include those composed of ivory, flint, slate and wood, many of them carved with religious symbols. During the Neolithic Ozieri civilization in Sardinia, ceramic ladles and spoons were already in use. In Shang dynasty China, spoons were made of bone. Early bronze spoons in China were designed with a sharp point, and may have also been used as cutlery. The spoons of the Greeks and Romans were chiefly made of bronze and silver and the handle usually takes the form of a spike or pointed stem. There are many examples in the British Museum from which the forms of the various types can be ascertained, the chief points of difference being found in the junction of the bowl with the handle. Ancient Greeks called the spoon mystron (μύστρον), and they also used piece of bread scooped out in the shape of a spoon, which they called it, mystile (μυστίλη).

In the early Muslim world, spoons were used for eating soup. Medieval spoons for domestic use were commonly made of cow horn or wood, but brass, pewter, and latten spoons appear to have been common in about the 15th century. The full descriptions and entries relating to silver spoons in the inventories of the royal and other households point to their special value and rarity. The earliest English reference appears to be in a will of 1259. In the wardrobe accounts of Edward I for the year 1300 some gold and silver spoons marked with the fleur-de-lis, the Paris mark, are mentioned. One of the most interesting medieval spoons is the Coronation Spoon used in the anointing of the English and later British sovereign; this 12th-century object is the oldest surviving item in the British royal regalia.

The sets of Apostle Spoons, popular as christening presents in Tudor times, the handles of which terminate in heads or busts of the apostles, are a special form to which antiquarian interest attaches. The earlier English spoon-handles terminate in an acorn, plain knob or a diamond; at the end of the 16th century, the baluster and seal ending becomes common, the bowl being fig-shaped. During The Restoration, the handle becomes broad and flat, the bowl is broad and oval and the termination is cut into the shape known as the hind's foot.

In the first quarter of the 18th century, the bowl becomes narrow and elliptical, with a tongue or rat's tail down the back, and the handle is turned up at the end. The modern form, with the tip of the bowl narrower than the base and the rounded end of the handle turned down, came into use about 1760.

Types and uses
Spoons are used primarily for eating liquid or semi-liquid foods, such as soup, stew or ice cream, and very small or powdery solid items which cannot be easily lifted with a fork, such as rice, sugar, cereals and green peas. In Southeast Asia, spoons are the primary utensil used for eating; forks are used to push foods such as rice onto the spoon as well as their western usage for piercing the food. Use of a spoon for cutting is common in the Philippines but has resulted in disciplinary action against a student doing so in Canada.

Spoons are also widely used in cooking and serving. In baking, batter is usually thin enough to pour or drop from a spoon; a mixture of such consistency is sometimes called "drop batter". Rolled dough dropped from a spoon to a cookie sheet can be made into rock cakes and other cookies, while johnnycake may be prepared by dropping spoonfuls of cornmeal onto a hot greased griddle.

A spoon is similarly useful in processing jelly, sugar and syrup. A test sample of jelly taken from a boiling mass may be allowed to slip from a spoon in a sheet, in a step called "sheeting". At the "crack" stage, syrup from boiling sugar may be dripped from a spoon, causing it to break with a snap when chilled. When boiled to 240 °F. and poured from a spoon, sugar forms a filament, or "thread". Hot syrup is said to "pearl" when it forms such a long thread without breaking when dropped from a spoon.

Used for stirring, a spoon is passed through a substance with a continued circular movement for the purpose of mixing, blending, dissolving, cooling, or preventing sticking of the ingredients. Mixed drinks may be "muddled" by working a spoon to crush and mix ingredients such as mint and sugar on the bottom of a glass or mixer. Spoons are employed for mixing certain kinds of powder into water to make a sweet or nutritious drink. A spoon may also be employed to toss ingredients by mixing them lightly until they are well coated with a dressing.

For storage, spoons and knives were sometimes placed in paired knife boxes, which were often ornate wooden containers with sloping top, used especially during the 18th century. On the table, an ornamental utensil called a nef, shaped like a ship, might hold a napkin, knife and spoon.

Language and culture
Spoons are mentioned in the Bible (KJV): God in the Book of Exodus tells Moses to make for Tabernacle, among other things, spoons of gold.

Expression "born with a silver spoon in his mouth" (born into privilege) formed due to the Mediaeval custom of gifting a "baptismal spoon" to a child; well-to-do families were able to afford spoons made of precious metals.

Spoons can be used as a musical instrument.

To spoon-feed oneself or another can simply mean to feed by means of a spoon. Metaphorically, however, it often means to present something to a person or group so thoroughly or wholeheartedly as to preclude the need of independent thought, initiative or self-reliance on the part of the recipient; or to present information in a slanted version, with the intent to preclude questioning or revision. Someone who accepts passively what has been offered in this way is said to have been spoon-fed.

A spoonful—the amount of material a spoon contains or can contain—is used as a standard unit of measure for volume in cooking, where it normally signifies a teaspoonful. It is abbreviated coch or cochl, from cochlearium, a small Roman spoon. "Teaspoonful" is often used in a similar way to describe the dosage for over the counter medicines. Dessert spoonful and tablespoonful may also be found in drink and food recipes. A teaspoon holds about 5 ml and a tablespoon about 15 ml.

The souvenir spoon generally exists solely as a decorative object commemorating an event, place, or special date.

Manufacture
For machine-made spoons, the basic shape is cut out from a sheet of sterling silver, nickel silver alloy or stainless steel. The bowl is cross rolled between two pressurized rollers to produce a thinner section. The handle section is also rolled to produce the width needed for the top end. The blank is then cropped to the required shape, and two dies are used to apply the pattern to the blank. The flash is then removed using a linisher, and the bowl is formed between two dies and bent.

To make a spoon the traditional by way of handforging, a bar of silver is marked up to the correct proportions for the bowl and handle.

It is then heated until red hot and held in tongs and using the hammer and anvil, beaten into shape. The tip of the bar is pointed to form the tip of the bowl, then hammered to form the bowl. If a heel is to be added, a section down the centre is left thicker. The edges of the bowl and the tip of the spoon are left thicker as this is where most of the thickness is needed. The handle is then started and hammered out to length going from thick at the neck and gradually tapering down in thickness giving a balanced feel. During this process, the piece becomes very hard and has to be annealed several times, then worked again until the final shape is achieved.

The bowl is filed to shape, often using a metal template. The bowl is then formed using a tin cake and spoon stake. The molten tin is poured around the spoon stake and left to harden. The handle is then bent down to 45 degrees, and the spoon is hammered into the tin using the spoon stake and a heavy hammer, to form the bowl. The bend in the handle is then adjusted to match the other spoons in the set and so it sits correctly on the table. The bowl is then filed level, a process called striking off. The surfaces are filed, first with a rough file to remove the fire stain from the surface, then with a smooth file. It is then buffed to remove any file marks and fire stain from inside the bowl and is polished to the desired finish.

Derivatives
Both the spork and the sporf are derived from the spoon: they combine the bowl of the spoon with the tines of the fork and with both tines and the cutting edge of the knife respectively.

title: Spoon


text:
Talk:Mediation

Redundancy
I've noticed a lot of redundancy on this article. Especially in the process of meditation. Preperation is repeated at the end again and I will look into deleting it.Dprice12 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

 * The main definition of mediation on this page focuses on mediation as it is practiced in law. This definition is inadequate and US-centric, which sees mediation as an alternative to litigation.  A better definition would be the one used in Bush and Folger: Mediaiton is a "process in which a neutral third party with no power to impose a resolution helps the disputing parties try to reach a mutually acceptable settlement."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopletalk (talk • contribs) 10:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

 * ''old talk up to April 2002, shifted to ticle. Presently much of it reads like a laundry list and needs to be fleshed out.  The external links seem relevant but almost no specific sourcing inside the article.  I would like to start with the section on community mediation. Talk about specific program models (Atlanta-Community Boards) and add section on criticism ("second class justice") WP currently has no separate article on Community Mediation.  Perhaps we should create and develop a stub on this. I don't know what to make of the acrimony above.  It kind of chills my desire to edit.  --Edivorce 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I haven't looked this article recently with a critical eye, but like all articles it can be substantially improved (often by removing the "improvements" of others). I suggest revising a paragraph at a time rather than a wholesale rewrite. That way if you throw the baby out with the bath water no one will put all the bath water back in to save the baby. But if you feel piecemeal revisions will not work create Mediation/Temp and do a complete revision there before you replace the main article. Fred Bauder 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * (Reverted deletion by Paul August): This article has far too many lists. Not sure about the best way to fix this, but several pages of lists is not brilliant prose.  If Edivorce has a great vision for this page, I think the temp page creation may be the best method of fixing up the article.  This temp page could be submitted to Peer review before inclusion in this page, resulting in something that's agreeable to many and doesn't end up being abandoned or diluted by reinclusion of crud from the current version after its adoption.  I think that Edivorce is a great user to create this rewrite, provided that he suitably addresses mediation outside of the (somewhat narrow) scope of the legal profession. - JustinWick 15:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ed, (can I call you Ed ;-) I wouldn't worry too much about the above discussion, If you look at the history, you'll see its really very old. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * i shifted the old stuff to an archive page - see at top - to avoid further misunderstandings... time heals all wounds Boud 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

the adjustment and the refining of the accessory aspects
It seems to me that
 * the adjustment and the refining of the accessory aspects

is putting the cart before the horse. Surely, after discussing and analysing various solutions, first it makes sense to adjust+refine the preferred solutions before going to accessory aspects (meaning additional stuff?). While waiting for someone who knows the subject better, i've adjusted and refined the line to:
 * the adjustment and the refining of the proposed solutions

i hope this is a good solution that i've proposed. If not, we might need help from a mediator ;). Boud 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Need for disambiguation?
This page could do with a clean-up. One thing i would suggest is perhaps a disambiguation of the various meanings of mediation. The quotation at the beginning seems to hint at the basic prinicple behind mediation, but then the article seems to focus on dispute resolution (in a list form).

Mediation can be used in many contexts
 * Dispute resolution (there are many different domains and approaches)
 * Mediation in the terms of Computer-mediated communication (e-mail, chatrooms, videoconferencing.
 * Mass mediation (TV, intenet, radio, newspapers).
 * Statistical mediation.
 * Mediation of action and reality through tools (activity theory).
 * Mediation of thought and language through signs (semiotics).

Perhaps disambiguation might give a way of making this article a little more focussed. Any thoughts? MattB2 (yet to set up a user page!)

......................................... This law page should not be the top direct link to the search "mediation." The legal use of the term "mediation" is not acceptable as a primary definition of the term "mediation." ("the act of mediating; intercession", or something akin to the raw concept itself, not its usage in law.) The search "mediation" should link to the disambiguation page, not the law page. There are other equally important kinds of usages of the term "mediation". Otherwise, this link is mediated.

I propose that "mediation" be defined on the disambiguation page as reading:

.....................

 * Mediation is the middle element and stage of a transformational process. A mediator reconciles otherwise disparate elements of a process or a polarity into a third, or new, entity.

.....................

PlasticDoor (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Plasticdoor

Merges
Trentw (talk • contribs) has created a number of articles I suggest be merged into this one. They're over-specific, and possibly original research. eaolson 03:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Responsibilities Regarding Confidentiality in Mediation
 * The Uses of Mediation in Preventing Conflicts
 * Legal Implications of Mediated Agreements

Merges and Article Rationalisation
I've finally found some free time :), so have had a proper chance to look at this article in detail.

It seems to me that there is a great deal of good information here, but its layout is haphazard, which makes it confusing. There is also a lot of information that is repeated in various guises in different sections (namely: what mediation is; and what the mediator tries to do). I also feel that it is a bit too focussed on mediation in Australia - although I appreciate that that's where a lot of new ideas/developments are coming from (the move to accrediation being a good example), the mediation culture in Oz is light-years ahead of anything we have here in the UK and is probably far ahead of the US and most of Europe.

The referencing also needs to be looked at - a lot of it comes from one source (Boulle 05). As the article points out, mediation means many things to many people, and varies wildy within and between various contexts, so a wider range of references might be appropriate. At the moment, the second half especially reads as being largely anecdotal.

As for the merges, IMHO they offer a good view of important aspects of mediation, the difficulty is incorporating them into the article as it stands. I believe that it would just confuse things further - adding more information to wealth we already have here. If the article is revised, then they should be considered as part of that revision.

I'd suggest piecemeal revisions of a few paragraphs at first, to see where that takes us. I also think that a rationalisation of the article might help - if we can cut some of the repeated information and perhaps organise the topics in a more coherent manner, this could be a much improved article.

Any suggestions/comments?

MattB2 14:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation/Temp created
I've crudely reorganised the article over at Mediation/Temp. I've cut a few sections that seemed to be duplicating other parts and tried to ensure that the remaining sections follow each other in a more logical fashion. I'll try and edit that page a little more, but comments suggestions, heck - even criticisms - are appreciated before I get stuck into it. . . Cheers, MattB2 16:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, I write the mediation part on the French-speaking wiki. Couldn't you look at so that that corresponds better?
 * Catégorie médiation
 * Médiation
 * Jean-Louis Lascoux 22:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bien sur! Mais ma Francais est tres, tres mal . . . MattB2 13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A Question
I don't want to sound counter-productive. I am just a reader interested in this subject. There is a lot of good stuff about different types of mediation, history, suitable environments, choice of mediators, legal implications etc. But does anyone have any information they can insert into the article about how to actually do it? So you sit the two combatants down at a table... and then what?

Lets see if I can help. Sorry for the lack of references, I'm doing this off-the-cuff and my books are in my office where I have mediated for more than 17 years and from which I have taught the subject at the university level for more than 11 years. This is my first attempt to participate in Wikipedia. If this is considered for publication I'll perfect the citations and add others.

The mediation process is generally described as 7 step process: 1. Mediator's Opening Statement; 2. Initial Statement by the Parties; 3. Agenda Setting; 4 Surfacing of the Conflict, 5. Caucus (optional); 6. Closure; 7. Agreement Writing. In step one (Opening Statement) mediators provide "informed consent" (SPYDER Mediation Ethics and Standards) and open the session by describing the process, advising that mediation is confidential (See Ca. Evid. Code 1118 et seq.; Uniform Mediation Act, USC section ???) identifying any rules (no name calling and no interrupting are common), advise parties that mediators are neutral and have no power to decide the outcome.

In step 2 the mediator solicits a summary from each party. In practice, especially where professional negotiators such as lawers are involved, mediators often request a Mediation Brief prior to commencing the session eliminating this step. But the step shouldn't be eliminated because this is often the first time parties have been forced to actually listen to the other's position. It also provides valuable insight into parties' perceptions of the issues and character of the conflict.

Agenda Setting allows the mediator to structure negotiations around the various issues that need to be discussed and/or resolved. This is often called framing (Goffman, et. al.; Fisher & Ury) For example, in divorce cases the issues are commonly division of property and debt, child custody, visitation, child support and spousal support. In civil litigation the issue is often limited to how much if any amount will be paid to settle the case. In collective bargaining, intra- and international negotiations this step may become quite involved often with parties demanding preconditions (actually a tactic) to the commencement of negotiations.

Surfacing of the Conflict involves an exploration of the issues, their character, clarification and reframing, identification of parties needs and desires. A considerable body of research and literature identifies this process as key to resolution (Walton; Goffman; Fisher & Ury Getting To Yes;) and to the production of good agreements. As surfacing progresses Integration (Walton) takes place and agreements emerge.

Caucus is where mediators meet with parties privately. In practice, many mediators separate parties immediately after the Mediator's Opening Statement or after the initial statement which helps mediators maintian control where conflict is intense, but impedes Surfacing of the Conflict. Caucus may also be tactically to buy time, to de-escalate heated discussions, and to overcome impasse.

Closure is a statement by the mediator advising parties that mediation is over and includes a statement summarizing the agreement (or areas of agreement if agreement is not completely reached) and reminding parties that everything said,everything written and everything prepared for mediation is confidential.

Agreement Writing may be done as part of closure, or outside of the mediation session. Sometimes agreements are not be written at all as in (California) small claims court cases where agreements are simply read into the court record. Generally written agreements are the only thing that is non-confidential. In California written agreements arrived at through mediation must contain language stating that they are intended to be non-confidential (Ca. Evid. Code section 1123??)

Lawst (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Support for Merger of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution
It would be helpful to have a clearer portal to the entry on mediation.

I support merger of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution pages.

I've been working in the field for some time and earned a graduate degree & juris doctorate focused in ADR (or whatever term best fits for you). The semantics debate in law reviews and in the field itself seems to have died down, as the field has become more established and integrated into the judiciary and businesses.

I would suggest directing searches for Alternative Dispute Resolution, Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution to one page where information can be consolidate. There are wonderful resources on each of the respective pages but each page differs.

Perhaps a section to a unified page could be added discussing the evolution of the name of field. All the names of the field tend to be used interchangeably but groups may have different preferences based on common usage due to their geographic region, industry, role or educational program.

A unified page would also help educate potential ADR consumers, litigants, the judiciary, industry and the bar. Separate linked pages could focus on particular processes (example: mediation, consensus building, arbitration, etc.), applications and related organizations.

(Crossposted in Conflict Resolution, Dispute Resolution, Appropriate Dispute Resolution, etc). --Iceweaselqueen (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New external link request
Please put the following into the external lniks if you would like - thank you, Philip [e-mail address deleted by User:Ukexpat] "* www.mediationworld.net Free global mediation resource - news, articles, legislation, mediation schemes, training standards, etc."
 * That link does not comply with Wikipedia's external link policy as its sole purpose seems to be promoting your organisation and therefore will not be added. – ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This article could use some improvement
I came to this page to learn more about mediation, but I gave up after the intro because the article is so long - and broken into so many sections - that I don't even know where to start. It could use some reorganization. Ground (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Overburdened hatnote
The hatnote has legitimate information about mediation in it. It should be integrated into the body of the article, and removed from the disambiguation section. Gyro Copter (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Country specific information
While there is a separate header for South Africa, other information contain majority about Australia and some other countries. Editors on this topic can follow up on that. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.114.205 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Object of mediation
I find the following sentence confusing in terms of content:

Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights, and interests of the parties.

The criticism is: a) In the context of mediation, rights belong to a different category than needs and interests. b) Feelings are missing.

As far as I know (I've a mediation company), needs, feelings and interests are the primary objects of mediation (category 1). Rights can only be derived from them in the context of mediation (category 2).

In any case, it seems to me a linguistic confusion here by letting terms follow disorderly one another in a sentence, terms that belong to two different categories; needs, rights, interests = category 1, category 2, category 1.

I am therefore proposing a change.

Replace ''Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights, and interests of the parties. ''

by

''Mediation is a "party-centered" process in that it is focused primarily upon the needs, interests, and feelings of the parties. '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominik Sobacki (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mediation