text:
Cuvette

In laboratories, a cuvette (cuvette) is a small tube-like container with straight sides and a circular or square cross-section. It is sealed at one end, and made of a clear, transparent material such as plastic, glass, or fused quartz. Cuvettes are designed to hold samples for spectroscopic measurement, where a beam of light is passed through the sample within the cuvette to measure the absorbance, transmittance, fluorescence intensity,  fluorescence polarization, or fluorescence lifetime of the sample. This measurement is done with a spectrophotometer.

Overview
Traditional ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy or fluorescence spectroscopy uses samples that are liquid. Often the sample is a solution, with the substance of interest dissolved within. The sample is placed in a cuvette and the cuvette is placed in a spectrophotometer for testing. The cuvette can be made of any material that is transparent in the range of wavelengths used in the test.

The smallest cuvettes can hold 70 microliters, while the largest can hold 2.5 milliliters or more. The width determines the length of the light path through the sample, which affects the calculation of the absorbance value. Many cuvettes have a light path of 10 mm, which simplifies calculation of the coefficient of absorption. Most cuvettes have two transparent sides opposite one another so the spectrophotometer light can pass through, although some tests use reflection so only need a single transparent side. For fluorescence measurements, two more transparent sides, at right angles to those used for the spectrophotometer light, are needed for the excitation light. Some cuvettes have a glass or plastic cap for use with hazardous solutions, or to protect samples from air.

Technique
Scratches on the sides of the cuvette that the light passes through scatter light and cause errors. A rubber or plastic rack protects the cuvette from accidentally hitting and being scratched by the machine casing. The solvent and temperature can also affect measurements. Cuvettes to be used in circular dichroism experiments should never be mechanically stressed, as the stress will induce birefringence in the quartz and affect measurements. Analyses are performed by using a conventional scanning spectrophotometer and the usual laboratory cuvette (special vial) that fits into the sample cavity of the instrument.

Fingerprints and droplets of water disrupt light rays during measurement, so low-lint gauze or cloth may be used to wipe clean the outer surface of a cuvette before use. Paper towel or similar may scratch the cuvette. Mild detergent or ethanol may be applied, followed by rinsing with tap water. Acid and alkali are avoided due to their corrosive effects on glass, and acetone is unsuitable when working with plastic cuvettes. If solution is transferred into a cuvette using a Pasteur pipette containing air, bubbles may form inside the cuvette, reducing the purity of a solution and scattering light beams. The finger-clad finger method is used to remove bubbles. The solution contained in the cuvette should be high enough to be in the path of the light source. In case the sample needs incubation at a high temperature, care must be taken to avoid temperatures too hot for the cuvette.

Types
Historically, reusable quartz cuvettes were required for measurements in the ultraviolet range, because glass and most plastics absorb ultraviolet light, creating interference. Today there are disposable plastic cuvettes made of specialized plastics that are transparent to ultraviolet light. Glass, plastic and quartz cuvettes are all suitable for measurements made at longer wavelengths, such as in the visible light range.

"Tandem cuvettes" have a glass barrier medium that extends two-thirds of the way up in the middle, so that measurements can be taken with two solutions separated and again when they are mixed.

Cuvettes are made from quartz, and plastic (disposable) depending upon UV transmission requirements.

Plastic
Plastic cuvettes are often used in fast spectroscopic assays, where high speed is more important than high accuracy. Plastic cuvettes with a usable wavelength range of 380–780 nm (the visible spectrum) may be disposed of after use, preventing contamination from re-use. They are cheap to manufacture and purchase. Disposable cuvettes can be used in some laboratories where the beam light is not high enough to affect the absorption tolerance and consistency of the value.

Most often Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and Polystyrene (PS) material are used to make the plastic cuvettes.

Glass
Crown glass has an optimal wavelength range of 340–2500 nm. Glass cuvettes are typically for use in the wavelength range of visible light, whereas fused quartz tends to be used for ultraviolet applications.

Quartz
Quartz cells provide more durability than plastic or glass. Quartz excels at transmitting UV light, and can be used for wavelengths ranging from 190 to 2500 nm.

Fused quartz
Fused quartz cells are used for wavelengths below 380 nm, i.e. ultraviolet light.

Infrared quartz
IR quartz has a usable wavelength range of 220 to 3,500 nm. It is more resistant to chemical attack from the sample solution than other types designed for fluorescence measurements.

Sapphire
Sapphire cuvettes are the most expensive, though provide the most durable, scratch-resistant, and transmissible material. The transmission extends from UV light to mid-infrared, ranging from 250 to 5,000 nm. Sapphire can withstand the extreme natural condition of some sample solutions and variances in temperature.

History
In 1934, James Franklin Hyde created a combined silica cell, which was free from other extraneous elements, as a liquefying technique of other glass products. In the 1950s, Starna Ltd. improved the method to completely melt a segment of glass using heat without deforming its shape. This innovation has altered the production of inert cuvettes without any thermosetting resin. Before the rectangular cuvette was created, ordinary test tubes were used. As innovation motivated changes in technique, cuvettes were constructed to have focal points over ordinary test tubes.

title: Cuvette


text:
User:Bertfried Fauser

I am researcher in mathematical physics with special interst in the relation between algebra and geometry with applications in physics. Further information may be retrieved from my homepage.

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

title: User:Bertfried Fauser


text:
Graduated cylinder

A graduated cylinder, also known as a measuring cylinder or mixing cylinder, is a common piece of laboratory equipment used to measure the volume of a liquid. It has a narrow cylindrical shape. Each marked line on the graduated cylinder represents the amount of liquid that has been measured.

Materials and structure
Large graduated cylinders are usually made of polypropylene for its excellent chemical resistance or polymethylpentene for its transparency, making them lighter and less fragile than glass. Polypropylene (PP) is easy to repeatedly autoclave; however, autoclaving in excess of about 121 °C (depending on the chemical formulation: typical commercial grade polypropylene melts in excess of 177 °C), can warp or damage polypropylene graduated cylinders, affecting accuracy.

A traditional graduated cylinder is usually narrow and tall so as to increase the accuracy and precision of volume measurement. It has a plastic or glass base (stand, foot, support) and a "spout" for easy pouring of the measured liquid. An additional version is wide and low.

Mixing cylinders have ground glass joints instead of a spout, so they can be closed with a stopper or connected directly with other elements of a manifold. With this kind of cylinder, the metered liquid does not pour directly, but is often removed using a Cannula. A graduated cylinder is meant to be read with the surface of the liquid at eye level, where the center of the meniscus shows the measurement line. Typical capacities of graduated cylinders are from 10 mL to 1000 mL.

Common uses
Graduated cylinders are often used to measure the volume of a liquid. Graduated cylinders are generally more accurate and precise than laboratory flasks and beakers, but they should not be used to perform volumetric analysis; volumetric glassware, such as a volumetric flask or volumetric pipette, should be used, as it is even more accurate and precise. Graduated cylinders are sometimes used to measure the volume of a solid indirectly by measuring the displacement of a liquid.

Scales and accuracy
For accuracy the volume on graduated cylinders is depicted on scales with 3 significant digits: 100mL cylinders have 1ml grading divisions while 10mL cylinders have 0.1 mL grading divisions.

Two classes of accuracy exist for graduated cylinders. Class A has double the accuracy of class B. Cylinders can have single or double scales. Single scales allow to read the volume from top to bottom (filling volume) while double scale cylinders allow reading for filling and pouring (reverse scale).

Graduated cylinders are calibrated either “to contain” (indicated liquid volume inside the cylinder) and marked as "TC" or “to deliver” (indicated liquid volume poured out, accounting for liquid traces left in the cylinder) and marked “TD”. Formerly the tolerances for “to deliver” and “to contain” cylinders are distinct; however now these are  the same. Also, the international symbols “IN” and “EX” are more likely to be used instead of “TC” and “TD” respectively.

Measurement
To read the volume accurately, the observation must be at an eye level and read at the bottom of a meniscus of the liquid level. The main reason as to why the reading of the volume is done via meniscus is due to the nature of the liquid in a closed surrounded space. By nature, liquid in the cylinder is attracted to the wall around it through molecular forces. This forces the liquid surface to develop either a convex or concave shape, depending on the type of the liquid in the cylinder. Reading the liquid at the bottom part of a concave or the top part of the convex liquid is equivalent to reading the liquid at its meniscus. From the picture, the level of the liquid will be read at the bottom of the meniscus, which is the concave. The most accurate of the reading that could be done here is reduced down to 1 mL due to the given means of measurement on the cylinder. From this, the derived error is one tenth of the least figure. For instance, if the reading is done and the value calculated is set to be 36.5 mL. The error, give or take 0.1 mL, must be included too. Therefore, the more precise value equates to 36.5 $$\pm$$ 0.1; 36.4 or 36.6 mL. Therefore, there are 3 significant figures can be read from the given graduated cylinder picture. Another example, if the reading is done and the value calculated is set to be 40.0 mL. The precise value is 40.0 $$\pm$$ 0.1; 40.1 or 39.9 mL.

History
The graduated cylinder was first introduced in 1784 by Louis Bernard Guyton de Morveau, for use in volumetric analysis.

title: Graduated cylinder


text:
Two suiter

In contract bridge, a two suiter is a hand containing cards mostly from two of the four suits. Traditionally a hand is considered a two suiter if it contains at least ten cards in two suits, with the two suits not differing in length by more than one card. Depending on suit quality and partnership agreement different classification schemes are viable. The more modern trend is to lower the threshold of ten cards to nine cards and consider 5-4 distributions also two suiters.

The six possible combinations are given the names "major suits" (spades and hearts), "minor suits" (diamonds and clubs), "black suits" (spades and clubs), "red suits" (hearts and diamonds), "pointed suits" (spades and diamonds), and "rounded suits" (hearts and clubs).

When including two suited hands with 5-4 distribution, two suiters have a high likelihood of occurrence, and the modern preemptive style is to incorporate such two-suited hands in the arsenal of preemptive openings. Example of such a preemptive conventional opening is the Muiderberg convention. Some take this aggressive style even further and use Ekren to preemptively open on a 4-4 in the majors.

Conventional overcalls such as Michaels, Unusual notrump, Ghestem and Raptor are designed to introduce a two suiter over an opening bid of the opponents. Conventions like Landy, DONT, Lionel and CoCa can be used to denote a two suiter over an opposing 1NT bid.

title: Two suiter


text:
Minor suit

In contract bridge the minor suits are diamonds and clubs. They are given that name because contracts made in those suits score less (20 per contracted trick) than contracts made in the major suits (30 per contracted trick), and they rank lower in bidding. In particular, one can make game with a four-level bid in a major suit, while a five-level bid is required in a minor. Of the two minor suits, diamonds rank higher than clubs.

Suit combinations
Fundamentally, there are three ways to divide four suits into pairs: by color, by rank and by shape resulting in six possible suit combinations.
 * Color is used to denote the red suits (hearts and diamonds) and the black suits (spades and clubs).
 * Rank is used to indicate the major (spades and hearts) versus minor (diamonds and clubs) suits.
 * Shape is used to denote the pointed (diamonds and spades, which visually have a sharp point uppermost) versus rounded (hearts and clubs) suits. This is used only as a mnemonic.

title: Minor suit


text:
Talk:Graduated cylinder

REVAMP
I AM REVAMPING MiKE100malloy (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

measuring volumes of irregular objects
This does not warrant listing as a separate use of graduated cylinders in the lede. That use is explained in the article, and it is not correct to say that the graduated cylinder is used to measured the volume of the object directly. It measures the volume of the displaced liquid. It is still just measuring the volume of a liquid. There are lots of other potential uses for graduated cylinders (drinking beer, holding flowers, replacing measuring cups in the kitchen, etc.) that we don't mention at all in the article, and they don't need to be there. If anyone thinks that "or the volume of an irregularly shaped object" should be in the lede please explain why. Meters (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Science
Measuring cylinder 202.5.153.244 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Graduated cylinder


text:
Talk:Two suiter

Nice edits
Nice condensation there, Lee. I take it poker is not your only "long suit"? --Ed Poor

It is funny how wikipedia ressembles life, where I talk too much. Sorry for the simultaneous updates, I got confused ;). That reminds me of a link to fill :)) cheers Robert_Dober 21:00 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

title: Talk:Two suiter


text:
Double squeeze

The double squeeze is a type of squeeze play in the card game of bridge.

Double squeezes are a combination of two simple squeezes carried out against both opponents. If both squeezes are executed by the same trick, that is the same squeeze card, the double squeeze is called simultaneous. If both opponents are squeezed on different tricks (the squeeze card is then a card in the suit that was menacing the opponent squeezed first) the double squeeze is called non-simultaneous.

As there are only four suits in contract bridge the two simple squeezes can only be combined by using a menace for both opponents, the squeeze card being in the fourth suit.

Example
The following demonstrates the basics of a double squeeze; south requires the three remaining tricks. When the South leads the 2 (the squeeze card), West must keep his A (menaced by dummy's king) and gives up his spade guard (spades being the double menace). In the same trick (this is therefore a simultaneous double squeeze), East must keep his Q (menaced by declarer's jack), and is forced to discard his low spade.Consequently, the 2 in North is established.

South completes the play by leading the 6 to the A and wins the last trick with the 2.

title: Double squeeze


text:
Simultaneous double squeeze

In contract bridge, a simultaneous double squeeze is a double squeeze in which both opponents are squeezed by the same card, as opposed to non-simultaneous double squeeze where the two opponents are squeezed in different tricks.

There are three basic matrices. In each of those, the double menace (the suit guarded by both opponents) must be accompanied by an entry, and the other two (single) menaces need not have one.

1) In the first matrix, the double menace (spades) is in one hand (dummy in the example), accompanied by an entry, and the other two are split between two declarer's hands. When the club deuce is played West has to shed a spade, dummy sheds the now useless king of hearts and East is squeezed in the pointed suits. This is a positional squeeze (it would not work with E-W hands reversed).

2) The double menace (spades) is in one hand (declarer's) with entries in both hands, and two single menaces are in the other hand. The two of clubs is cashed and again West has to give up the guard in the double menace suit (spades). The now useless king of hearts is played from dummy and East is squeezed in the pointed suits. This is an automatic squeeze (working with hands interchanged), but the declarer has to know which defender guards which suit.

3) This is the most comfortable end position of the three simultaneous double squeeze matrices, because this squeeze is automatic with no guessing game involved. There, the double menace is a 3-card menace with two winners (including an entry) sits opposite the hand with two single menaces. The declarer discards the two of diamonds on the squeeze card (3) regardless of West's discard. As long as the squeeze worked, all spades in the North hand must be winners, unless one of our two queens became a master. It's not possible with one spade less in the layout: there would be no room in South's hand to keep the squeeze card, two red menaces, and an entry card (small spade) in only 3 cards. It is possible, though, (but rare) with a four-card double menace:

title: Simultaneous double squeeze


text:
Prime Minister of New Zealand

The prime minister of New Zealand (Te pirimia o Aotearoa) is the head of government of New Zealand. The prime minister, Christopher Luxon, leader of the New Zealand National Party, took office on 27 November 2023.

The prime minister (informally abbreviated to PM) ranks as the most senior government minister. They are responsible for chairing meetings of Cabinet; allocating posts to ministers within the government; acting as the spokesperson for the government; and providing advice to the sovereign or the sovereign's representative, the governor-general. They also have ministerial responsibility for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which is based in the Beehive in Wellington.

The office exists by a long-established convention, which originated in New Zealand's former colonial power, the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The convention stipulates that when the office becomes vacant, the governor-general must select as prime minister the person most likely to command the support, or confidence, of the House of Representatives. This individual is typically the parliamentary leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that house. The prime minister and Cabinet are collectively accountable for their actions to the governor-general, to the House of Representatives, to their political party, and ultimately to the national electorate.

Originally the head of government was titled "colonial secretary" or "first minister". This was changed in 1869 to "premier". That title remained in use for more than 30 years, until Richard Seddon changed it to "prime minister" in 1900 during his tenure in the office. Following the declaration of New Zealand as a Dominion in 1907, the term prime minister has been used exclusively in English. In Māori, the title pirimia, meaning "premier", continues to be used. New Zealand prime ministers are styled as "The Right Honourable", a privilege they retain for life.

Forty-two people (thirty-nine men and three women) have served as prime minister, the first of whom was Henry Sewell taking office on 7 May 1856 as premier. The longest-serving prime minister was Richard Seddon, who served over 13 years, and the shortest-serving was Sewell, who served two weeks.

Appointment and tenure
The governor-general appoints a prime minister, like other ministerial positions, on behalf of the monarch. By the conventions of responsible government, the governor-general will call to form a government the individual most likely to receive the support, or confidence, of a majority of the elected members of parliament (MPs). In making this appointment, convention requires the governor-general to act on the outcome of the electoral process and subsequent discussions between political parties by which the person who will lead the government as prime minister is identified. In practice, the position typically falls to an MP who is the parliamentary leader of the largest political party among those forming the government. The prime minister may lead a coalition government and/or a minority government dependent on support from smaller parties during confidence and supply votes.

Once appointed and sworn in by the governor-general, the prime minister remains in the post until dismissal, resignation, or death in office. They, like all ministers, hold office "during the pleasure of the Governor-General", so theoretically, the governor-general can dismiss a prime minister at any time; however, convention heavily circumscribes the power to do so. The governor-general retains reserve powers to dismiss a prime minister in certain circumstances, such as those pertaining to a no-confidence motion against the government in the House of Representatives.

Where a prime minister, and by extension the government, can no longer command the confidence of the house, either by losing a confidence vote or as the result of an election, convention dictates that they should tender their resignation to the governor-general. As the Constitution Act 1986 requires general elections every three years, this is the maximum period of time that a prime minister can serve without their mandate being renewed.

Responsibilities and powers
The office of prime minister is not defined by codified laws, but by unwritten customs known as constitutional conventions which developed in Britain and which New Zealand replicated. These conventions depend for the most part on the underlying principle that the prime minister and fellow ministers must not lose the confidence of the democratically elected component of parliament, the House of Representatives. The prime minister is leader of the Cabinet (itself a body existing by convention), and takes a coordinating role.

The Cabinet Manual provides an outline of the prime minister's powers and responsibilities.

Principal adviser to the sovereign
By constitutional convention, the prime minister holds formal power to advise the sovereign. This means that as long as the prime minister has the confidence of parliament, they alone may advise the monarch on:
 * appointment or of the governor-general
 * amendments to the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General, which most recently occurred in 2006
 * the conferment of New Zealand honours (except for honours in the personal gift of the monarch)

Principal adviser to the governor-general
As head of government, the prime minister alone has the right to advise the governor-general to:
 * appoint, dismiss, or accept the resignation of ministers
 * dissolve parliament and issue a writ for an election to be held. The governor-general may reject the advice to dissolve parliament if the prime minister has recently lost a vote of confidence (that is, the governor-general would be using their reserve powers), but none has done so.

Head of government
Convention regards the prime minister as "first among equals". A prime minister does hold the most senior post in government, but must also adhere to any decisions taken by Cabinet, as per the convention of collective ministerial responsibility. The actual ability of a prime minister to give direct orders is largely limited; most of the position's power comes about through other means, such as:
 * the ability to set the Cabinet agenda, thereby controlling items for discussion
 * the ability to appoint and dismiss ministers, and to allocate portfolios
 * the influence a prime minister is likely/assumed to have as leader of the dominant political party, which may afford more direct control over subordinates than is attached to the prime ministerial role
 * the power gained simply from being central to most significant decision-making, and from being able (as of right) to comment on and criticise any decisions taken by other ministers

Since the 1996 implementation of the MMP electoral system, the role of the prime minister in negotiating and maintaining relationships with support parties has increased, placing some constraints on prime ministerial abilities.

Other roles and functions
Prime ministers also take on additional portfolios (to prioritise policy areas). Historically, 19th-century premiers looked after the colonial-secretary and finance portfolios. As New Zealand developed, the role of minister of finance became too big; Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon came under criticism for taking on the finance portfolio during his time in office (1975–1984), as it resulted in a large concentration of power in the hands of one individual.

Before 1987 it was common for prime ministers to take the role of minister of foreign affairs, so they could represent New Zealand on the international stage. More recent prime ministers have taken portfolios relevant to their interests, or to promote specific areas they saw as important. For example, David Lange took the education portfolio in his second term; Helen Clark took the role of minister for arts, culture and heritage; John Key served as minister of tourism; and Jacinda Ardern became minister for child-poverty reduction.

Although no longer likely to be the minister of foreign affairs, the prime minister remains responsible for welcoming foreign heads of government, visiting leaders overseas, and attending Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings.

Conventionally, the prime minister is the responsible minister for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC; founded in 1990), which has the task of supporting the policy agenda of Cabinet through policy advice and the coordination of the implementation of key government programmes.

Prior to 2014, the prime minister was also responsible for the New Zealand Security and Intelligence Service (NZSIS) and for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). In 2014, Prime Minister John Key gave himself the new portfolio of National Security and Intellegence and delegated responsibility for SIS and GCSB to other ministers. He also expanded the role of DPMC in security and intelligence. This model has been followed by subsequent prime ministers.

Salary and perquisites
Under the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, and the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, a prime minister's salary is determined annually by the Remuneration Authority, an independent body established by parliament to set salaries for members of parliament and other government officials. MPs' salaries were temporarily reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand. , the prime minister's salary is set at NZ$484,200. In addition, like all other ministers and MPs, the prime minister receives annual allowances for travel and lodging, as do the prime minister's spouse and children.

The incumbent prime minister's official residence is Premier House, Tinakori Road, Wellington. There the prime minister hosts receptions and events for New Zealand and overseas guests. Unlike the residences of certain other heads of government (e.g. the White House and 10 Downing Street), Premier House does not serve as the government headquarters; the location of the prime minister's office is the Beehive, in the parliament precinct a short distance away. The prime minister's governmental work is supported by the non-partisan Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The separate Private Office of the Prime Minister provides advice and support on political party matters.

The style of "The Right Honourable" (abbreviated to "The Rt Hon") is always granted to the prime minister upon taking office. Former prime ministers retain this style for the remainder of their lives. The written form of address for the head of government should use their full parliamentary title as applicable: The Right Honourable [name], [post-nominal letters], Prime Minister of New Zealand. It is also traditional for the monarch to bestow a knighthood or damehood on prime ministers after they leave office, and two prime ministers were knighted while still in office (namely Sir Keith Holyoake in 1970, and Sir Robert Muldoon in 1983 ).

Security and transport
The Diplomatic Protection Service (DPS) is a special branch of the New Zealand Police that is charged with protecting the prime minister (and their family) and other senior government officials, as well as diplomats.

The DPS provides the prime minister with transport; they are driven in the BMW 7 Series 730LD and 750LI, the latter of which is armoured. Although usually flown domestically on regularly scheduled Air New Zealand flights, the prime minister also makes use of Royal New Zealand Air Force aircraft, usually Boeing 757. The 757 aircraft, which are used for international travel, have been upgraded with work stations, internal air stairs, and military communications capabilities. The 757 fleet is set to be replaced by 2028.

After office
Former officeholders are entitled to annuity and travel payments for the rest of their lives. Former prime ministers who held the office for no less than two years are entitled to a yearly rate of $10,900 for each complete year the person held office, with a maximum of $54,500 payable annually. Former prime ministers, when travelling within New Zealand, are eligible to be paid if the travel is for the purpose of fulfilling commitments related to his or her role as a former prime minister.

Should a serving or former prime minister die, they are accorded a state funeral (subject to the approval of the family). Two prime ministers who died in office were buried in mausoleums: William Massey (died 1925) in the Massey Memorial in Wellington, and Michael Joseph Savage (died 1940) in the Savage Memorial at Bastion Point in Auckland.

History

Assuming that Henry Sewell is counted as the first prime minister, 42 individuals have held the office since it was established. Some of these people have held it on several separate occasions, with the record for maximum number of times being shared between William Fox and Harry Atkinson (both of whom served four times). The longest that anyone has served in the office is 13 years, a record set by Richard Seddon. The first holder of the office, Henry Sewell, led the country for the shortest total time; his only term lasted just 13 days. The shortest term belonged to Harry Atkinson, whose third term lasted only seven days, but Atkinson served longer in total than did Sewell. The youngest was Edward Stafford, who was appointed premier in 1856, at 37 years, 40 days old. The oldest was Walter Nash, who was 78 years old when he left office in 1960 (and 75 upon taking office in 1957).

It is regarded that all New Zealand prime ministers thus far have been Pākehā (New Zealand European), and mostly of British and Irish descent. There was persistent speculation during his lifetime that Norman Kirk (Prime Minister from 1972 to 1974) was Māori and had Kāi Tahu ancestry; he never publicly identified himself as such, and there is no substantial evidence for the claim.

New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world to have had three female heads of government, and one of only three countries to have had a female head of government directly succeed another. The first female prime minister was Jenny Shipley of the National Party, who replaced Jim Bolger in late 1997; Shipley was succeeded by Helen Clark in 1999. Jacinda Ardern, the second female leader of the Labour Party after Clark, became prime minister in 2017.

Early leaders
On becoming the Colony of New Zealand in 1841, New Zealand was directly governed by a governor, appointed by the Colonial Office in Britain. Self-government was established in 1853, following the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, and the First Parliament met on 24 May 1854.

The origins of the office of prime minister are disputed. Use of the words prime minister as a descriptive term date back to the First Parliament, where they are applied to James FitzGerald and Thomas Forsaith. FitzGerald and Forsaith had no official titles, however, and New Zealand had not yet obtained self-government. As such, they are not usually considered prime ministers in any substantive sense.

The first person to be formally appointed to a position of executive leadership was Henry Sewell, who formed a brief ministry in April 1856, at the beginning of the Second Parliament. Despite his formal leadership role, however, his only actual title was "colonial secretary", a position comparable to a minister of internal affairs. His successor, William Fox, was also given a formal leadership role, but was not colonial secretary. In 1864 when Frederick Weld became the sixth person appointed to formal leadership, a substantive leadership title, "premier", appeared. Weld's successor, Edward Stafford, briefly changed the title to "first minister", but it was soon restored to premier during the second tenure of Fox in 1869. From that point, the title "premier" was used almost exclusively for the remainder of the 19th century. Nevertheless, in the Schedule of the Civil List of 1873, provision was made for the salary of the head of government "being the Prime Minister".

Initially, premiers acted as mere advisers to the governor—with the governor at times a very active partner. This began to change during the first tenure of Edward Stafford. Stafford met with his ministers and made decisions outside of the Executive Council (which was chaired by the governor), thus establishing the modern convention of cabinet government. Stafford also clashed with the governor over control of native affairs, which was eventually to fall within the premier's powers.

Party leadership
Premiers were initially supported by unorganised factions based on personal interests, and their governments were short-lived. The political position of the premier was enhanced by the development of modern political parties. Premier John Ballance organised the first formal party in New Zealand, the Liberal Party, forming the Liberal Government in 1891. There was little real parliamentary opposition until 1909, when William Massey organised his conservative faction to form the Reform Party. Thereafter political power centred on parties and their leaders. (Subsequent governments were led by prime ministers from the Reform, United, Labour and National parties. ) Although not every government would have a large majority, the party system and tight control of party members by whips helped heads of government to direct the passage of legislation in the House of Representatives. In 1893, the premier gained the ability to restrict the term of appointments to the Legislative Council.

After 1900, Richard Seddon, the incumbent head of government, used the title of "prime minister". The change of title was reflected in the New Zealand Official Yearbook of that year. Seddon's immediate successor, William Hall-Jones, was the first to be sworn in as "prime minister", in 1906.

The expanding power of the prime minister was kept in check by the need to build consensus with other leading members of Cabinet and of the governing party, including those who represented various ideological wings of the party. Other institutions, including Parliament itself and the wider state bureaucracy, also acted as limits on prime ministerial power; in 1912 Thomas Mackenzie was the last prime minister to lose power through an unsuccessful confidence motion in the House of Representatives.

Towards modern leadership
One change brought about by the First World War was direct participation in governing the British Empire. Previously, New Zealand prime ministers had attended occasional colonial and imperial conferences, but they otherwise communicated with London through the governor (a position then appointed by the British government). In 1917, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George offered the New Zealand prime minister a seat in the Imperial War Cabinet, the British Empire's wartime coordinating body. In 1919, Prime Minister William Massey signed the Treaty of Versailles on behalf of New Zealand, signalling the independence of New Zealand within the empire, although Massey downplayed the event as an ardent imperialist.

Constitutional conventions adopted in 1930, following the Imperial Conference held that year, increased the domestic and international prestige of the prime minister. The Statute of Westminster 1931 confirmed that Dominions had exclusive power to make their laws. New Zealand initially resisted greater autonomy and did not adopt the statute until 1947. Increasingly New Zealand began to act independently in foreign affairs. During the 1940s the prime minister's profile rose as New Zealand signed a number of international treaties. In 1967, Keith Holyoake became the first New Zealand prime minister to select candidates for the position of governor-general without any involvement of the British government. Holyoake advised the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, to appoint Sir Arthur Porritt, the first New Zealand-born governor-general.

After the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system was introduced in 1996, prime ministers have had to manage minority governments. The skill of MMP management was exemplified by Helen Clark's nine years as prime minister (1999–2008), when her Labour government remained in power thanks to a range of confidence-and-supply agreements with five smaller parties.

Until the premiership of Helen Clark, it was customary for senior members of the legislature, executive and judiciary—including the prime minister—to be appointed to the British Privy Council, granting them the style "Right Honourable". This practice was discontinued at the same time as the abolition of knighthoods and damehoods in 2000 from the New Zealand royal honours system. National's John Key became prime minister in 2008 and moved to restore titular honours, but did not resume appointments to the Privy Council, meaning Key was styled "The Honourable". On 3 August 2010 the Queen granted the prime minister, along with the governor-general, speaker of the House of Representatives and chief justice, the style "Right Honourable" upon appointment.

On 21 June 2018, Labour's Jacinda Ardern became the first prime minister of New Zealand (and second elected head of government in the world) to give birth while in office. Ardern was also the first prime minister to lead a single-party majority government since the introduction of MMP, doing so from 2020 to 2023.

Deputy prime minister
An office titled "deputy prime minister" has existed since 1949. The deputy typically holds important ministerial portfolios and, by convention, becomes acting prime minister in the absence or incapacity of the prime minister. The deputy is commonly a member of the same party as the prime minister, but not necessarily so; in coalition governments the parliamentary leader of a junior party may be offered the post. Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First, has been deputy prime minister since 27 November 2023.

Lists relating to the prime ministers of New Zealand
Lists of the 42 people who have so far held the premiership:
 * List of prime ministers of New Zealand
 * List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age
 * List of prime ministers of New Zealand by place of birth
 * List of prime ministers of New Zealand by education
 * List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers

title: Prime Minister of New Zealand


text:
Talk:Galois theory

Quadratic example
I have a minor beef with the "Example of a quadratic equation" section. Roots should be thought of algebraicly and the discussion of symmetries in a graph is misleading. For instance, we can permute the three roots of x^3-2 but it doesn't correspond to any reflections or rotations of a graph. Maybe this should be rewritten? dunkstr 01:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * done --Dmharvey 14:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The quadratic example (x - 2)(x - 1) is not clear, at least to me.  The commentary says that there is only one permutation; to me it looks like there are two,  (1,2)-> (1,2)  and (1,2) -> (2, 1).  Am I missing something?    2001:558:6011:1:38F3:171E:261:EBEA (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 * One of the roots satisfies the equation $$x-1=0, $$ which does not remain true if the root are exchanged. Thus the permutation that exchanges the roots does not belong to the Galois group, which, here, is reduced to the identity permutation. D.Lazard (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Algebraic Equation
The first example says "Furthermore, it is true, but far less obvious, that this holds for every possible algebraic equation satisfied by A and B." And I thought, this clearly isn't true for the equation "A * A + B = c". But then I realised that that equation isn't algebraic because c contains sqrt(3). Anyway, my point is that the example is confusing to the non-mathematician who doesn't know the technical definition of algebraic equation. Algebraic equation currently redirects to Algebraic Geometry, which also isn't very helpful because it talks about Algebraic equations without defining them. I think wikipedia needs a simple article defining algebraic equations with links to and from this article and algebraic geometry. But I'm not qualified to do it. Reilly 15:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * On a related subject the piece currently reads:

 * 'One might raise the objection that $$A$$ and $$B$$ are related by yet another algebraic equation,

 * $$ A-B-2\sqrt{3} = 0 $$ ,

 * which does not remain true when A and B are exchanged. However, this equation does not concern us, because it does not have rational coefficients; in particular, √3 is not rational.'

 * But this last sentence cannot be correct can it?

 * a) Can galois theory really not handle complex coefficients?

 * b) isn't the real reason that that equation isn't part of the Galois group since it cannot be permuted?

 * WolfKeeper 19:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I've had a stab at this: Algebraic equation

 * Reilly 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Consider reading the article more than once.

 * "An important proviso is that we restrict ourselves to algebraic equations whose coefficients are rational numbers. (One might instead specify a certain field in which the coefficients should lie, but for the simple examples below, we will restrict ourselves to the field of rational numbers.)"

 * Consider F=Z[x]/(x^2+1). There are two automorphisms identity, and a+bx->a-bx. Here we are working over the field of integers. The equation x^2-1=0 has two solutions A=i and B=-i. However the equation A-B=2i implies that there is only the identity automorphism (since A and B cannot be interchanged). This is because the equation A-B=2i has coefficents in F which are not in the integers.

 * -kaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.85.118 (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Kaz, I am not satisfied with your answer. The link by Reilly also does not help. I support the claim by WolfKeeper. In which sense it "does not remain true when $$A$$ and $$B$$ are exchanged". What does in mean, "to remain true", while the equation has no solution among pairs of rational numbers? It cannot "remain true" because, for any rational  $$A$$ and $$B$$, it was not true. This example is not clear, we should either rewrite or remove it. dima (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * P.S. Is it possible to suggest some example, where $$ A-B $$ appear (disabeling the swapping), but still remain in the set of rational numbers? dima (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Guys, I think it's simpler than that.
 * The initial constraints within the polynomial that define A and B are:
 * $$ A + B = 4 $$ and $$ AB = 1 $$.

 * This has two solutions for [A,B].
 * For a _specific_ solution of [A,B], it happens to also be true that $$ A-B-2\sqrt{3} = 0 $$. For that same _specific_ solution, it happens to also be true that $$ A=2-\sqrt{3} $$.

 * But neither of those relations are not true for _all_ solutions of [A,B]. That is why these relations are not to be considered.  The fact that this particular polynomial happens to have irrational roots is coincidental.

 * As your discussion is over a decade old, I think I'll go ahead and make this change shortly unless I hear back. The point was very confusing to me when reading this article and it hurts readability.  Jurgen Hissen (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Solvable
The definition of solvable given in the article is wrong. Cyclic should be replaced with abelian. 159.115.238.165 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with it. You are presumably referring to the definition of solvable group as one having a subnormal series with abelian factors. Now, (for finite groups) it does not make a difference whether you use "abelian" or "cyclic" in this definition, as every finite abelian group is a direct sum of cyclic groups. Note that the (equivalent) definition in this article is still different, it asks for a composition series with cyclic factors, not just subnormal series; since factors of a composition series are simple by definition, it cannot have noncyclic abelian factors, thus it would be pointless to refer to general abelian groups here. Moreover, in the context of Galois theory it makes much more sense to refer to cyclic instead of abelian even for subnormal series, as radical field extensions correspond to cyclic factors. — Emil J. 12:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Discriminant is not a symmetric function in the coefficients
But only in the roots, or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.176.2 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not missing anything, it was indeed wrong. — Emil J. 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Solvable groups and solution by radicals not clear
thanks for writing this great article

the last sentence of the first paragraph in the section "solvable groups and solution by radicals" is very very long and includes two "if"

It's much too confusing for me! can you please rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.239.105 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The great triumph
The article says "One of the great triumphs of Galois Theory was the proof that for every n > 4, there exist polynomials of degree n which are not solvable by radicals—the Abel–Ruffini theorem. This is due to the fact that for n > 4 the symmetric group Sn contains a simple, non-cyclic, normal subgroup, namely An."

But the criterion for solvability is that the factor groups of the normal composition chain are cyclic, not that the normal subgroup in the chains themselves are cyclic.

According to me the real reason why Sn is unsolvable, is because its subgroup An is unsolvable, because that one has no normal subgroups anymore which could lead to cyclic factor groups and the chain ends right there without resolving to {1}.

It's been too long since I've studied group theory so perhaps there is equivalence here, but for the Galois layman with some undergraduate math skills this argument is not intelligible I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.35.195 (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that An is simple and normal implies, by the definition of simple that (1) ⊂ An ⊂ Sn is a composition series. The fact that it is simple and non-cyclic implies that it is not solvable. Thus the formulation of the article and yours are both correct.
 * However, there is something else that is wrong in this paragraph: The "great triumph" of Galois is not that one, which was not a surprise after Abel-Ruffini result. It is that Galois gave an algorithmic criterion to decide which equations are solvable or not. This is better explained at the end of section "History". D.Lazard (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Vague phrase
Under the heading "Inverse Galois problem", the vague phrase "For that" is used. The word "that" might refer to the easy construction, the ground field or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.179 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * . This led me to further edit the section. D.Lazard (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

up to sign?
Pre-history says coefficients are symmetric functions of the roots "up to sign"; looks to me they are functions of the roots either "up to a common factor", or, assuming the highest-order coefficient is fixed to 1, uniquely defined by the roots. Am I missing something? 12.104.156.31 (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The assertion in the article is "the coefficients of a monic polynomial are (up to sign) the elementary symmetric polynomials in the roots". This is cocorrect, as "monic" means that the highest-degree coefficient is 1 (you can follow the link). D.Lazard (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted version of the lead
I have reverted a new version of the lead written by. Here are some of the multiple reasons. So, There is nothing to be kept in 's version. D.Lazard (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Galois correspondence between subfields and subgroups is the foundation of Galois theory. It is therefore fundamental that it is mentioned at the beginning of the lead. This is the case for the older lead not for 's one.
 * The general study of automorphisms groups of algebraic structures is not Galois theory, as wrongly suggested by 's first paragraph. In particular, GL(n) is such an automorphism group that does not belong to Galois theory.
 * This is wrong, the impossibility was proved previously by Abel (even it is unclear whether Galois knew of Abel's result). Galois introduced the theory for characterizing solvable polynomials and solving those that are solvable (Galois himself acknowledged explicitly that his theory allowed a mechanical solving process, even if the needed computations are too long to be written down explicitly).
 * As far as I know this was already a result of Galois, and the merit of Kummer was to formalize the concept of a solvable group (which was already implicit in Galois writings). In any case, this needs a reliable source, and belongs to the history section rather than to the lead.
 * This is not related methods that proved these impossibilities, but Galois theory itself. "The possibility of constructing a regular 17- or 257-sided polygon" was proved before by Gauss, who gave a necessary and suficient condition for a regular polygon to be constructible. However, he did not proved that the condition was necessary. The proof was given later using Galois theory, and, as far as I know, all known proofs use Galois theory.
 * Wrong again: inseparable and transcendental extensions, algebraic closure, ... belong to field theory, not to Galois theory. Conversely, the concepts of solvable groups and transitive groups are concepts of group theory that are directly issued from Galois theory (the use of the words "group", "transitive", and "resoluble"—the French equivalent of "solvable"— has been introduced by Galois himself).

 * Daniel: You make many good points here, but the current version is unacceptable according to your own criteria. It badly needs revision, so I will try again soon. There are some mathematical and historical questions here that we should clarify, especially about constructibility.Magyar25 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 * You're right about the importance of the Galois correspondence, but the whole current article does not use the word "subgroup" until about the 10th page, or "subfield" at all except in the illustration caption, which I retained in my version. This is an unacceptable omission.

The general study of automorphisms groups of algebraic structures is not Galois theory

 * Good point. Of course I did not mean general structures, only those structures similar to the examples. I need to phrase this better. However, the current version is deficient in mentioning these. Also, the idea of algebraic symmetry (automorphisms of rings and fields, and also finite covering maps & finite algebraic morphisms) is the fundamental idea of Galois theory, and must be mentioned.

 * I will definitely revise the claim that Galois tried to prove impossibility: Abel & Ruffini deserve credit.

As far as I know this was already a result of Galois, and the merit of Kummer was to formalize the concept of a solvable group (which was already implicit in Galois writings).

 * This seems likely. But it is my understanding that Galois thought of the Galois group as permutations of the roots, not field automorphisms, so I do not see how he could have clearly understood the subfield-subgroup correspondence. Wasn't this formulated by Kummer?

The proof was given later using Galois theory, and, as far as I know, all known proofs use Galois theory.

 * Questions of constructibility are decided by Gauss' insight that constructible numbers are precisely those lying in repeated quadratic extensions of the base, so their minimal polynomials have degree 2^n. Automorphisms do not seem necessary or relevant, and are not used in any treatment I've seen. I thought such basic "background" field theory (mulitplicativity of degree) was not due to Galois, while the term "Galois theory" applies to questions about automorphisms.

Wrong again: inseparable and transcendental extensions, algebraic closure, ... belong to field theory, not to Galois theory. Conversely, the concepts of solvable groups and transitive groups are concepts of group theory that are directly issued from Galois theory (the use of the words "group", "transitive", and "resoluble" has been introduced by Galois himself)

 * I didn't mean that all field theory is now Galois theory, but that Galois theory became a branch of field theory, unlike in Galois' original formulation. For example, Lang's chapter on Galois theory is in the middle of the section on rings and fields. Of course, Galois was a main founder of group theory, but group theory is not what we today call Galois theory.

 * I hope we can work to improve this important article, which is currently in bad shape. By the way, I think it is worth comparing to the French article [], though it seems the purpose of this English article is a more elementary introduction.

 * Magyar25 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read the lead again; it was not as bad as you suggest. Nevertheless, I have edited it for a better logical structure, and for fixing some points (mention of the fundamental theorem of Galois theory, and removal of an historical assertion that is challenged in section "History"). In my opinion, for improving the article, one has first to work on the body. D.Lazard (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What role did Alfred Galois play in preserving Évariste's legacy?
In his Oeuvres mathématiques d’Évarist Galois in 1846, Joseph Liouville writes, "... I engaged myself, under the watchful eyes of his brother [Alfred Galois], so to speak, to the attentive study of all the publications and manuscripts he left." So, what motivation did Joseph Liouville have to embark on a careful study of Évarist's papers 14 years after his death? What role did Alfred play in motivating Joseph Liouville to invest his time and effort? OneSkyWalker (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Galois theory


text:
Talk:Mana (Oceanian cultures)

Starting point
Hi guys, I see some pretty high-flown theory in here. Maybe someday it will heve a place, but not right now. First things first. Here is the starting point. What is the topic of this article? It cannot be all the things mentioned in the article. One article, one topic. I just put the disambig straight (for the most part). It gives a large choice of articles. Big chunks of material need to be hacked out of here and moved to the right article, or the disambig page itsefl. Then we can see what we have. I presume thie topic would be the Polynesian "power" meaning and its study in cultural anthropology. What do you say we stick to that. The Hebrew Manna and the Uralic manas are unrelated. The archetype business is very interesting, but archtype of what? It it is some sort of Jungian thing then we need an article Mana (Jungian). That can wait. a, b, c comes before the rest of the alphabet, and that is what we need here. Get your red marker out, let's get down to basic text. I may elect to start this, but on a back-burner basis. You need to use some courage. Sure, there are nasty people on WP. Bow, wow, wow. If no one stands up tp them this article will stay just exactly as it is, tags and all, and be of no use to anyone.Botteville (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed from article
I removed this as essentially irrelevant. This is an encyclopedic article, not one of interesting coincidences and conjectures. No doubt it is interesting, but I think it will have to be that somewhere else.Botteville (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

By coincidence, in the unrelated Uralic languages, such as Finnish, Enets and Mari, mana- means "to say", or in Finnish, "to curse", "to exorcise" or "to magically invoke", from the Proto-Uralic root *mënᴈ- "to say". In Finnish, mana by itself is a poetic word for death, and manala is a synonym for Tuonela, the land of the dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botteville (talk • contribs) 00:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Simplistic views
Basically one of the reasons the article is not satisfactory to WP is the non-NOPV (neutral point of view) approach. We can't take any point of view not already taken by the experts. Thus we cannot say that Morgan or some of the other scholars in cultural anthropology are wrong or simplistic. That would be what WP is calling "original research." The whole sentence about what is or is not accepted today is the wrong turf on which to fight. What we do is present the views of the experts. We are, so to speak, the servants and not the masters of the house. This cast is often hard to take, I do not deny. At first sight it seems as though you are going to get a chance to give YOUR opinion. You aren't. A lot of experts who try to write on here fall into the trap, so to speak. If you're an expert, better keep it a secret, at least as far as tone is concerned. In a nutshell, it is NOT up to you to decide whether these views are held in good repute today. You can't just up and attack cultural evolutionism, even in another article. A published author can do it all right. But, you must present that as his view, not yours. No one cares what YOU think. The other article, in which the editor has turf problems, does not fare any better than this one. It has tags all over it. So, this is why I am lending a hand in this article and on that section. It isn't because I just stubbornly want it "my way" as opposed to "your way." I don't especially care whose way it is, except that it can't be yours or mine. I would suggest, first get that other article acceptable. Fight the battle over there. If that flies, then there is not much to do over here. I got here through the article on numen, which has similar problems. Can numen be identified with mana? Some say yes, some no. But first, can mana be identified with mana? First we need the original definitions. I will be doing a little more here. Then if there are other and later views, fine. But, we don't use the experts to confirm our own points of view, we rather present those points of view without taking any stand. That is NPOV. Tough standard no doubt. ciao.Botteville (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

removed passage
"During this period, many scholars subscribed to a theory of cultural evolutionism which held that all societies evolved from simple to advanced, and that indigenous people were historical fossils of unevolved societies. However, this simplistic form of cultural evolutionism is no longer accepted by scholars, and Marrett's position is considered incorrect. Marrett assumed all cultures have a concept similar to mana, but in fact they do not."

This passage is too imprecise to be of much use, and can't be corrected. It has no refs anyway. 1. all societies evolved from simple to advanced. That's not the theory. Society advanced, no doubt by many paths. Individual societies might have declined. They all don't have to advance. In these days when a common ancestry of man and the great apes has been proved by chemical analysis, you aren't going to find any supporters of the view that culture did not advance from simple to complex. 2. indigenous people were historical fossils of unevolved societies. No one said or implied that at all. People are not fossils. We are speaking of folkways here. Moreover the theory is not of the whole society, if that is what is meant, but only of memes and memeplexes within it. Today a chief might be driving around in a Rolls-Royce but in other situatons might be honoring customs that originated beyond the reach of history. There are no unevolved societies. You sound like you're trying to misunderstand Sir John Lubbock or else be a writer for "White Power." 3. simplistic ... no longer accepted ... considered incorrect. I'm getting bored with this. I don't see any evidence that the editor even knew what Marret's position was. I can't understand why this has been here for so long, unless the editor attacks more viciously than anyone else. Time for a change.Botteville (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Etymology section too long
Why on earth does the etymology section spend two paragraphs talking about methods of linguistic analysis without mentioning the word in question until the third paragraph. This needs to be readable, not just an exercise in information dumping (even if comparative linguistics is a cool topic).Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed. The first two paragraphs about comparative linguistics should probably be moved to a more suitable article. Neptilo (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Serious problems
Large portions of this article are off the topic of mana. The opening section fails to to convey what mana is.--Ekplatonos (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the reference that appears below the present comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs654654 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

More on primitivity
I insert this here because it related to the previous comment. The use of "primitive" in Victorian anthropology was undoubtedly Eurocentric, i.e. a culture was often seen as being relatively retrograde or advanced in comparison with post-Enlightenment thinking and the effects of the industrial revolution. Alongside words like heathen and pagan, such comparisons muddy the water and devalue non-European cultures in our age. I am a British European, by the way, but this critique should be self evident; it has no place in comparative studies of cultural evolution today, though, of course, it is of historic significance. I have insinuated this change in perspectives in my amendment to the article. Trevor H. (UK) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor H. (talk • contribs)

"Supernatural" is not the right way to begin this entry
Mana is a Loanword that has become part of mainstream New Zealand English. To begin the encyclopedic description with " In most cases, this power is understood to be supernatural..." is to limit the article to an anthropological treatise that may have been appropriate in 1840 when the English showed up and examined the Maori as if they were a primitive species who held beliefs that the scholars viewed as unenlightened. A google search for "mana" restricted to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ will generate 11,000 hits. Excluding references to political parties in Parliament (the Mana Party), a search still generates over 7,000 NZ HErald articles with quotes like this one "''Rodney Gallen is a man of great mana who has made a huge contribution not only as a judge, but as a member of society," said a former colleague, Justice Goddard. "He has enormous faith in human nature and always sees the potential in people irrespective of the surrounding circumstances''." This article should begin with the general understanding of the word, as representative in NZ English. The supernatural is subsidiary. Akonga (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2020

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

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Fair enough; perhaps this article and other articles using the term "Mana" in this context don't do enough justice to the significance of this topic. feminist (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

– Nowhere close to being the WP:PTOPIC. Maná and Mana (series) both receive higher page views. I am also open to other suggestions for disambiguators. feminist (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mana → Mana (concept of power)
 * Mana (disambiguation) → Mana
 * Oppose as this topic is the root meaning when inspired the names of the topics mentioned above and many others. This is evidence of this topic having long-term significance to a level which supersedes fleeting page view numbers.  The proposed disambiguation "(concept of power)" is unappealing and awkward, and that often hints that the topic is meant to be primary.  -- Netoholic @ 10:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence that the Mexican band or the Japanese video game series are named after the religious concept. Maná could as well be named after manna. feminist (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From the Spanish-language article: El nombre del grupo fue elegido por el significado que tiene la palabra en polinesio: «energía positiva». -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the root meaning; see this article, "The History of Mana: How an Austronesian Concept Became a Video Game Mechanic".  SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose There is no way that the Mana series is more primary than the term it is based on. A Mexican rock band does not have longterm significance and fails that criterion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

"Mana (Anglo-Saxon)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mana (Anglo-Saxon) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move both pages, and that this is not the primary topic of "Mana". There is no clear consensus on what the article title of the Oceanian topic should be, but I am provisionally moving the page to "Mana (Oceanian mythology)" without prejudice to another move request. (t · c)  buidhe  01:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

– I'm not convinced that the average English reader recognizes this term as synonymous with this topic to the extent required by the disambiguation guidelines. This seems to be evidenced by the existence and usage of two hatnotes, both of which are in fact on top of the list of the most clicked links in the article at the WikiNav clickstream data for Mana, which is indicative of a problem with navigation. In March 2023 data, of the 17.1k incoming views, there were 839 outgoing views to Mana (disambiguation), 531 outgoing views to Manna and then 389 to Orenda which is an italicized term in the lead section, etc. 1370 out of ~17000 is ~8%, which isn't nominally a lot per se, but it has previously been indicative of navigation issues. This is because we can't really be sure that this statistic translates into ~92% readers actually ending up in the right place, as some readers might find it interesting to read about something that they weren't looking for, which is fine, but some might just give up and not read much more, which is not. Mass views statistics for all Mana topics indicates that there's a wide smattering of largely homonymous topics that have larger or comparable readership. Some were already mentioned, also in the previous MR shown above, and apparently there's also a Japanese musician who became prominent. I also tried to verify what happens in other similar sources of information. At a Google Books search for Mana and while this topic is the most common one, there's a fair bit of other stuff in there in the first couple of pages as well. At e.g. Britannica when one searches for 'mana', it prominently displays their article about this concept, but doesn't short-circuit readers, and instead shows a list in which the next item is the homonymous South American geography topic. At encyclopedia.com, they also show a list of topics when searching for the term, and happen to show Mana-Zucca and Maná before this concept. I think we should give full disambiguation a try and see how it affects reader behavior, obviously keeping the link to this topic on top, collate the data over a period of a couple of months (until the various search engine patterns settle, from previous experience it takes a while), and then proceed accordingly based on that. Obviously, "Oceanian culture" is just one very generic possible disambiguation marker, please feel free to propose a better alternative. --Joy (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mana → Mana (Oceanian culture)
 * Mana (disambiguation) → Mana
 * Support in principle. I've seen Manna spelled as "mana" many a time. I think the disambiguator could use work, perhaps Mana (Melanesia and Polynesia) instead -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. There are 43 entries listed upon the Mana (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the Oceanian culture topic overwhelms the combined prominence of the remaining 42 entries. As for the choice of parenthetical qualifier, per final sentence of the nomination and alternative proposal by 64.229.90.172, if consensus skews towards any other reasonable suggestion, I would join in supporting it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Support per nominator. I agree that this does not appear to be the primary topic. --Spekkios (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support the Oceanian culture could be the origin of most of the other meaning but group has more views (12,882) than the Oceanian culture (10,802)[] and SMALLDETAILS doesn't work as most people won't know to type the diacritic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment if it does get moved, I'm not sure that "Oceanian culture" is the best way to disambiguate this page. I'm also not entirely sure what would be, which I know isn't helpful. I'm also wondering whether it would be worth merging MANA and MaNa into the Mana disambiguation page, regardless of the outcome? Turnagra (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd generally advise against merging lists of visibly different words because we have no real proof it makes it easier for readers to find what they're looking for faster in a 50+ item list. --Joy (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It can also make it more difficult to find stuff, though - the Mana Movement, for example, was almost exclusively styled in all capital letters (as in their logo) but shows up on the Mana disambiguation, not the MANA one. Turnagra (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have to agree here. This page has been confusing people for a long time. I would suggest "Mana (spiritual concept)" following the example of Livity (spiritual concept). JTdale   🗩  05:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that sufficiently unambiguous, though? No point putting it in parenthesis if it's still going to be ambiguous even so. Red   Slash  19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A pageview check demonstrates there is almost certainly no primary topic. Mana (mythology) would be my vote, or Mana (Oceanian mythology) if that would be too easily confused with manna. I also agree that MANA and MaNa should be merged into the disambiguation page - people may still type in lowercase to search for an acronym. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but prefer Mana (Oceanian mythology). No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"Mythology"
The current disambiguator "Oceanic mythology" (product of an exceptionally brief move discussion) was not really discussed. It's not really appropriate, since "mythology" indicates something that pertains to "myths" (i.e. old stories, usually considered to be untrue or only metaphorically true), while "mana" is very much a living concept, relevant to everyday life in Oceanic cultures. Furius (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Furius, I'm not sure I agree with your take on "mythology". In anthropology, "myths" are considered to be true (in spite of the word's popular use in vernacular English); see work by Mircea Eliade, Lévi-Strauss, among others. Oceanic cultures consider mana to be equally true (and equally metaphorical) as, say, the origin myth of the coconut tree, or Maui's myth in Aotearoa. They could all be assigned to Oceanic mythology, I think.
 * Besides (but this is another debate), it could be up for debate whether mana is a "living concept" still today, in modern (Christian / secular) societies of the Pacific. I think it is indeed, in some areas, but "relevant to everyday life in Oceanic cultures" as a whole would be exaggerated.
 * Third question: "Oceanian"? or "Oceanic"? I'm not sure which one is better. (Linguists use "Oceanic", but I don't know about other domains.) -- Womtelo (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC).
 * In New Zealand, in secular contexts, people regularly talk about, for example, the mana of, for example, current members of parliament and complainants in court cases . Whether a tribe has mana whenua is the subject of legal rulings . It's not really a "metaphor" any more than "ownership" or "authority" are in English. All are cultural concepts. The comparison with origin myths and myths of Maui also brings out the difference - there's no "myth of mana". Furius (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would describe mana, in the New Zealand context, as "moral authority".  Schwede 66  18:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I essentially agree with Furius. Myths are narratives. Mana is a concept, not a narrative. I suggest renaming to Mana (Oceanian culture), similar to the use of "culture" in article titles Tapu (Polynesian culture), Kapu (Hawaiian culture) and Ghosts and spirits in Māori culture, and its use in section headings in this article. Nurg (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm 100% with User:Schwede66 on this. There are certainly enough contemporary English-language secondary sources from within the New Zealand for a Mana (moral authority) article about the concept in contemporary New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mana (Oceanian cultures)


text:
Mmabatho

Mmabatho (Tswana for "Mother of the People") is the former capital of the North-West Province of South Africa. During the apartheid era, it was the capital of the former "Bantustan" of Bophuthatswana, separated from the adjacent Mafeking which temporarily remained outside Bophuthatswana.

Following the end of apartheid in 1994, Bophuthatswana was integrated into the newly established North-West Province and Mmabatho was proclaimed the provincial capital. However, Mmabatho's status as the provincial capital was short-lived. Later in 1994, the North West provincial legislature voted to rename the capital to Mahikeng (the town of Mafikeng having been merged with Mmabatho in 1980 and treated as a suburb of Mmabatho between 1980 and 1994 ), reducing Mmabatho to a suburb of Mafikeng. The city is an enclave within the latter. Mmabatho contains many provincial government buildings, a shopping complex called Mega City and a Sports Stadium formerly called the Independence Stadium. The North-West University, formerly the University of Bophuthatswana, is located in Mmabatho.

Situated just south of the Botswana border, the town is connected by main roads to South Africa's national capital of Pretoria in the east and to Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, in the north. A railway runs north and south from the neighbouring town of Mafikeng. The city is served by Mmabatho International Airport, handling flights to and from Johannesburg.

title: Mmabatho


text:
Talk:Neil Young

Proto-grunge
I went ahead and removed the "proto-grunge" genre. While he certainly may have had some influence on some grunge bands (such as Pearl Jam) and even recorded a grunge album with Pearl Jam, this does not make grunge one of his primary genres, especially since the Mirror Ball album appears to be his only work in the genre. Because of this, I removed the "proto-grunge" genre and left a note saying it should only be added back in if he records more grunge in the future, which is highly unlikely. If anyone can find evidence that Young had much more involvement in the grunge genre besides Mirror Ball and influencing grunge bands and has reliable sources to back it up, then by all means, add it back, but as of right now, I fail to see Neil Young as having involvement in the grunge genre outside of the Mirror Ball album and influencing a few grunge bands such as Pearl Jam. Moline1 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to put my vote in to bring proto-grunge back, as there is literature referring to Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere, Rust Never Sleeps, and Ragged Glory as having proto-grunge elements. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Have the sources for it? I want to see them myself. They should also be credible. And let's not forget that grunge is made up of many genres besides hard rock, and includes genres such as heavy metal, something I don't see Neil Young as having ventured in on those albums. Nonetheless, if you have the sources, please do post them here. Also, do not add in the genre until a consensus can be reached (hopefully). Also, if we can reach a consensus that proto-grunge is appropriate here, then we should include a blurb with those sources on the grunge page, most likely in a section called proto-grunge, which would detail Younf as well as the other artists and bands that have been described as having elements of grunge before the full genre emerged in the mid-to-late-1980's. Moline1 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be a distinction between grunge and proto-grunge. I don't think authors are saying that Neil Young is a grunge artist as much as they are using the term "proto-grunge" to describe grunge in its pre-natal form on display in his work with Crazy Horse (due to the synthesis of garage rock elements, low-fi production, cathartic lyrics, extended jam sessions, and grungy fashion all coming together to influence the eventual grunge movement). But again I agree that there is no point in calling Young a literal grunge artist, just that maybe "proto-grunge" is appropriate in the spirit the authors intend. So there's no big conflict, I would be good with either could work to either put it in the infobox, or to put it in more informally in the lead paragraph (or neither if that's the way the vote goes, I'm easy). And without further ado, here are some texts with authors that refer to Young in the context of proto-grunge. I don't know how many of them are academic, I just looked for a bunch.
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dixie_Lullaby/mor24CeBsGwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Neil+Young+proto-grunge&pg=PA90&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Neil_Young_Nation/3zzZBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Neil+Young+proto-grunge&pg=PT144&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Exit_Music/0q9bTJp2Bi4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Neil+Young+proto-grunge&pg=PT356&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pearl_Jam_Eddie_Vedder/LB43DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Neil+Young+proto-grunge&pg=PT189&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Grown_Up_All_Wrong/EdN8VLiEZtcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Neil+Young+proto-grunge&pg=PA468&printsec=frontcover

SweetTaylorJames (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked through albums such as Ragged Glory and Rust Never Sleeps, and they are both described as grunge and proto-grunge with sources respectively. I am going to add back in the proto-grunge genre and "close" this discussion down since it is not needed and found evidence of more involvement in the grunge genre besides the Mirror Ball album and influencing his backing band for that album. I am also gonna update the grunge page to account for this as well. Moline1 (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thank you. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

For posterity's sake, in case this rather silly debate is ever considered by anyone in the future to be raised again, just Google "Grandfather of Grunge" and see what the effective consensus of the Internet is. 73.69.251.97 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Canadian-American unnecessary
Let’s do the same procedure wiki does with so many other Canadian dual citizens such as Alanis Morissette, Celine Dion, Michael Bublé, Drake, Justin Bieber, Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds, Barry Pepper, and Paul Anka the country that they were born grew up in would be in the lead, This is also the reason why American dual citizens such as Scarlett Johanson and Kirsten Dunst just have American in their respective leads. If this was a case like Anna Paquin who grew up in two countries than you can put the two citizenship in the lead but it isn’t that. Neil Young was born and grew up in Canada so only Canadian belongs in his lead if American was put in this would be a double standard and cause confusion to readers why people like Drake has just Canadian in his lead when Drake was an American from birth through his farther but Neil Young who only recently became a American has American in his lead let’s at least try and bring some sort of consistency to wiki articles. Black roses124 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started a Request for Comment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_Young#Request_for_comment)-- FMSky (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the RfC. Young's citizenship has been the subject of quite a bit of misunderstanding at this article, which probably reflects misunderstanding in the real world. I think Canadian-American belongs in the lead as it's mentioned in the article. I don't think this would lead to any any " double standard" or necessarily cause any "confusion" to readers comparing this with other articles. I agree that consistency is a good idea, but there may be a similar case for one or more of the others to change. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the lead sentence say "Canadian" or "Canadian-American"? FMSky (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Canadian-American, as that's a simple fact and it's mentioned quite a few times in the article lead and main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not simply Canadian, either Canadian-American - which is simplest, but incomplete or Canadian-born, Canadian-American dual citizen, or  some vartiation thereof, which is fairly complete. In Young's case, his Canadian heritage/upbringing is relevant, but his having adopted US citizenship (for practical reasons one presumes) is simply factually accurate. Can someone confirm that he still holds both citizenships as I understood this was not always possible? Pincrete (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Canadian-American is most appropriate, although I would also accept Canadian-American dual citizen, as that is what the most recent reliable sources seem to identify him as. The other names mentioned in the talk section above seem to be primarily known for being Canadian, and despite having acquired dual citizenship, are still mostly known as being Canadian.  Neil Young was pretty outspoken about wanting to have dual citizenship and has multiple reliable sources about it.  I do not feel that this is a double standard, but rather applying the rule of what the sources state. Fieari (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Canadian-American makes sense, or some variation of that. I don't know a lot about the guidelines, but it makes sense given that beyond having citizenship in America, he has devoted himself to living in America and associating himself with America for most of his life, so it makes sense noting the duality more than someone from Canada who got dual-citizenship but who still lives in Canada/abroad. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Canadian-American - Some older sources identify him simply as Canadian, but I'm willing to bet that in the light of his dual-citizenship announcement that is going to change and Canadian-American will become the default. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Canadian-American He has American and Canadian citizenship.Tepkunset (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Forbes article on Young's use of GMO insulin
I recently added the following content:

Forbes accused Young of hypocrisy because he uses insulin which is made with GMOs.

User:Dumuzid removed the content, and commented, "strikes me as a non-notable opinion, with the typical modern Forbes issues."

What do others here think?

And by the way, I'd also like to point out this article from the Guardian, which is called, "Block on GM rice ‘has cost millions of lives and led to child blindness’"

I think this makes Young's hypocrisy highly notable.

But I also want to see what others here think of whether or not this should be included in the article.

Baxter329 (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi Baxter329, and thanks for coming here instead of edit warring. When I say "not notable," I mean in the Wikipedia sense.  Forbes, in its current incarnation, is a bit of a hodgepodge; things said in it are not automatically as notable as they might be in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.  I think this sort of opinion IS getting some traction in more notable places, and I will of course bow to consensus whatever it may be!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a Forbes Contributor, not Forbes staff. Forbes Contributors are unreliable and generally should not be used per WP:FORBESCON. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What Hemiauchenia said - it's a contributor, we treat this more or less like a random blog. Trying to link the Guardian article to this issue would be WP:SYNTH. This is not how we compose BLPs. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Polio
Here is an explanation (by a doctor with polio herself) of how the song "Helpless" refers to Neil Young's polio http://nonprofits.accesscomm.ca/polio/Neil%20Young.html Also discussed on TWiV, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKruriG1qVQ?t=2842 --Nbauman (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Instruments to add: piano, organ, bass
Young plays piano frequently as listed on multiple studio albums with Buffalo Springfield, CSNY, and Graham Nash's "Songs for Beginners" album--among others, and his solo albums, as well as seen in numerous concert videos showing him playing it. The article reference him playing piano and includes a photo of him playing piano. He also plays organ and bass, per multiple studio album credits from said artists.

Genwicky (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Genwicky (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Secondary instruments are not listed in the infobox, they're meant to be brought up in the article body per Infobox musical artist -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 * What constitutes a primary vs. secondary instrument for a given musician? Piano is clearly a primary instrument for Neil Young. I understand organ and bass would not be primary instruments, but not piano. For example, here's what's listed as Instruments on Stephen Stills' wiki page:  Vocals, guitar, bass guitar, keyboards, drums, percussion. Drums and percussion are not primary instruments for Stills Genwicky (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that piano is a primary instruments, but organ and bass, maybe not. 80s Sam (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

POV, political views...
Taking a look at this article, it looks like his political views are mostly covered in the "Activism, Philanthropy and as a Humanitarian" section, which only covers stuff he's said and done post-2000. Conspicuously absent is any coverage of the statements he made in the 1980s, which ranged from very right wing to blatantly homophobic. As detailed in the Guardian:

"Politically-speaking, its hard to exorcise the ghost of his 1980s pronouncements, when he swung hard-right behind the Reagan presidency and lashed out at gays ("you go to the supermarket and you see a f**got behind the f***ing cash register, you don't want him to handle your potatoes") and welfare spongers. "Stop being supported by the government and get out and work," Neil advised. "You have to make the weak stand up on one leg, or half a leg, whatever they've got."" (Note: The original guardian article didn't censor either of these F-words, but I had to put *** in the middle of them, for them not to be blocked by the filter.)

I'm not sure if there's been an intentional effort to santize his image here, but one could certainly get that impression based on these omissions.

I would recommend having a "Political Views" section, which would be more all-encompassing, and to keep this separate from "Philanthropy and as a Humanitarian" as to be more neutral in tone. -2003:A:502:E400:614B:80F6:BB4D:8DFE (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Those comments should definitely be included in the article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now added. A "Political views" section would definitely be a good thing, BTW. Popcornfud (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Powder Finger
No mention of one of Young's greatest songs in article! 2603:8000:5C3E:F21A:1830:A625:D120:7AC0 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Disability Rhetorics
— Assignment last updated by Other Friend, Different Hat (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Neil Young