text:
Samuel Slater

Samuel Slater (June 9, 1768 – April 21, 1835) was an early English-American industrialist known as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution", a phrase coined by Andrew Jackson, and the "Father of the American Factory System". In the United Kingdom, he was called "Slater the Traitor" and "Sam the Slate" because he brought British textile technology to the United States, modifying it for American use. He memorized the textile factory machinery designs as an apprentice to a pioneer in the British industry before migrating to the U.S. at the age of 21.

Slater designed the first textile mills in the U.S. and later went into business for himself, developing a family business with his sons. He eventually owned 13 spinning mills and had developed tenant farms and company towns around his textile mills, such as Slatersville, Rhode Island.

Early life and education
Slater was born in Belper, Derbyshire, England, to William and Elizabeth Slater, on June 9, 1768, the fifth son in a farming family of eight children. He received a basic education, perhaps at a school run by Thomas Jackson. At age ten, he began work at the cotton mill opened that year by Jedediah Strutt using the water frame pioneered by Richard Arkwright at nearby Cromford Mill. In 1782, his father died, and his family indentured Samuel as an apprentice to Strutt. Slater was well trained by Strutt and, by age 21, he had gained a thorough knowledge of the organization and practice of cotton spinning.

He learned of the American interest in developing similar machines, and he was also aware of British law against exporting the designs. He memorized as much as he could, and departed for New York City in 1789. Some people of Belper called him "Slater the Traitor", as they considered his move a betrayal of the town where many earned their living at Strutt's mills.

Mill development
In 1789, Rhode Island-based industrialist Moses Brown moved to Pawtucket, Rhode Island, to operate a mill in partnership with his son-in-law William Almy and cousin Smith-Brown. Almy & Brown, as the company was to be called, was housed in a former fulling mill near the Pawtucket Falls of the Blackstone River. They planned to manufacture cloth for sale, with yarn to be spun on spinning wheels, jennies, and frames, using water power.

In August 1789, they acquired a 32-spindle frame "after the Arkwright pattern" but could not operate it. At this point, Slater wrote to them, offering his services. Slater realized that nothing could be done with the machinery as it stood and convinced Brown of his knowledge. He promised: "If I do not make a good yarn, as they do in England, I will have nothing for my services but will throw the whole of what I have attempted over the bridge." In 1790, he signed a contract with Brown to replicate the British designs. Their deal provided Slater the funds to build the water frames and associated machinery, with a half share in their capital value and the profits derived from them. He was able to single-handedly construct from memory the water-powered spinning machinery. By December, the shop was operational with ten to twelve workers.

In 1791, Slater had some machinery in operation, despite shortages of tools and skilled mechanics. In 1793, Slater and Brown opened their first factory in Pawtucket.

Slater knew the secret of Arkwright's success, including varying fiber lengths and Arkwright's carding, drawing, and roving machines. He also had the experience of working with all the elements as a continuous production system. During construction, Slater made some adjustments to the designs to fit local needs. The result was the first successful water-powered roller spinning textile mill in the U.S.

After developing this mill, Slater instituted management principles that he had learned from Strutt and Arkwright to teach workers to be skilled mechanics. This included child labor similar to what existed in England.

In 1812, Slater built the Old Green Mill, later known as Cranston Print Works, in East Village in Webster, Massachusetts. He moved to Webster due in part to an available workforce, but also due to abundant water power from Webster Lake.

Rhode Island System
Slater created the Rhode Island System, which were factory practices based upon family life patterns in New England villages. Children aged seven to 12 were the first employees of the mill; Slater personally supervised them closely. The first child workers were hired in 1790.

He brought in whole families, developing entire villages. He provided company-owned housing nearby, along with company stores; he sponsored a Sunday School where college students taught the children reading and writing.

Slater constructed a new mill in 1793 for the sole purpose of textile manufacture under Almy, Brown & Slater, as he was now partners with Almy and Brown. It was a 72-spindle mill; the patenting of Eli Whitney's cotton gin in 1794 reduced the labor in processing cotton. It also enabled profitable cultivation of short-staple cotton, which could be grown in the interior uplands, resulting in a dramatic expansion of cotton cultivation throughout the Deep South in the antebellum years. The New England mills and their labor force of free men depended on southern cotton based on slave labor. Slater also brought a Sunday school system from his native England to his textile factory at Pawtucket.

In 1798, Samuel Slater split from Almy and Brown, forming Samuel Slater & Company in partnership with his father-in-law Oziel Wilkinson. They developed other mills in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

In 1799, he was joined by his brother John Slater from England. John was a wheelwright who had spent time studying the latest English developments and might well have gained experience of the spinning mule. Samuel put John Slater in charge of a large mill called the White Mill.

By 1810, Slater held part ownership in three factories in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In 1823, he bought a mill in Connecticut. He also built factories to make the textile manufacturing machinery used by many of the region's mills and formed a partnership with his brother-in-law to produce iron for use in machinery construction. But Slater spread himself too thin and was unable to coordinate or integrate his many different business interests. He refused to go outside his family to hire managers, and, after 1829, he made his sons partners in the new umbrella firm of Samuel Slater and Sons. His son Horatio Nelson Slater completely reorganized the family business, introduced cost-cutting measures, and giving up old-fashioned procedures.

Slater & Company became one of the leading manufacturing companies in the United States. Due to the oppressive rules and working conditions and a proposed cut of 25% in the wages of women workers by Slater and the other Mill Owners near Pawtucket, in 1824, this area was the site of the first factory strike in US history. Thus beginning the long struggle for human rights between factory workers and owners, which is continuing today. Slater resisted unionization and, in response to rapidly changing textile technology, modernized his factories and later shifted operations to the South.

Slater also hired recruiters to search for families willing to work at the mill. He advertised to attract more families to the mills.

By 1800, the Slater mill's success had been duplicated by other entrepreneurs. By 1810, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin reported that the U.S. had some 50 cotton-yarn mills, many of them started in response to the Embargo of 1807 that cut off imports from Britain before the War of 1812. That war resulted in speeding up the process of industrialization in New England. By war's end in 1815, there were 140 cotton manufacturers within 30 miles of Providence, employing 26,000 hands and operating 130,000 spindles. The American textile industry was launched.

Personal life
In 1791, Slater married Hannah Wilkinson who invented two-ply thread in 1793, becoming the first American woman to be granted a patent. Samuel and Hannah had ten children together, although four died during infancy. Hannah died in 1812 from complications of childbirth, leaving Samuel with six young children to raise. Along with his brother, Samuel started the Slater family in America.

Slater married for a second time in 1817 to a widow, Esther Parkinson. As his business was extremely successful by this time, and as Parkinson also owned the property before their marriage, the couple had a pre-nuptial agreement prepared.

Death
Slater died on April 21, 1835, in Webster, Massachusetts, a town which he had founded in 1832 and named for his friend Senator Daniel Webster. He is buried in Mount Zion Cemetery. At the time of his death, he owned 13 mills and was worth US$1.3 million, the equivalent in 2022 of US$42 million.

Legacy and honors
Slater's original mill still stands, known today as Slater Mill and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is operated as a museum dedicated to preserving Samuel Slater's history and his contribution to American industry. Slater's original mill in Pawtucket and the town of Slatersville are both parts of the Blackstone River Valley National Historical Park, which was created to preserve and interpret the history of the industrial development of the region.

His papers are held at the Harvard Business School's Baker Library in Boston.

Samuel Slater Experience, a history museum dedicated to his life and legacy located in Webster, Massachusetts, opened in March 2022.

title: Samuel Slater


text:
Matthias Maute

Matthias Maute (born 1963) is a virtuoso recorder player and composer.

Maute was born in Ebingen, Germany and studied in Freiburg and Utrecht with Baldrick Deerenberg and Marion Verbruggen. In 1990 he won first prize in the soloist category of the competition Musica Antiqua Bruges, Belgium. He subsequently won the Dutch Impressariat Chamber Music Competition.

He has played with several chamber music groups, including REBEL Baroque Orchestra, and has made a number of recordings. He is the artistic director of Ensemble Caprice, which includes his wife and duo partner, Sophie Lariviere, who plays the recorder and traverso flute.

He is a professor at McGill University in Montreal and a member of Vox Saeculorum, a society of composers working in early historical styles.

Matthias Maute is artistic director and conductor of the professional choir Ensemble ArtChoral, artistic director of the Bach Society of Minnesota and co-artistic director of Montreal Baroque Festival.

Matthias Maute was Mécénat Musica Composer in residence from 2014 to 2018, composing 57 movements of Mécénat Musica Compositions for 113 emerging artists, featuring solo music, chamber music for ensembles and orchestral music with choir. 78 movements of Maute compositions are broadcast on the Mécénat Musica videoclip channel on YouTube

Matthias Maute was Mécénat Musica Ambassadeur en résidence from 2013 – 2022. Mécénat Musica Ambassador-in-Residence presents Mécénat Musica in the cultural community and helps cultural organizations join Mécénat Musica. The Ambassador encourages organizations to expand the circle of donors and to collaborate to create an in-perpetuity culture in the community. Matthias Maute's collaborative efforts have resulted in 15 cultural organizations joining Mécénat Musica.

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

title: Matthias Maute


text:
Ludolph van Ceulen

Ludolph van Ceulen (, ; 28 January 1540 – 31 December 1610) was a German-Dutch mathematician from Hildesheim. He immigrated to the Netherlands.

Biography
Van Ceulen moved to Delft most likely in 1576 to teach fencing and mathematics and in 1594 opened a fencing school in Leiden. In 1600 he was appointed the first professor of mathematics at the Engineering School, Duytsche Mathematique, established by Maurice, Prince of Orange, at the relatively new Leiden University. He shared this professorial level at the school with the surveyor and cartographer,, which shows that the intention was to promote practical, rather than theoretical instruction.

The curriculum for the new Engineering School was devised by Simon Stevin who continued to act as the personal advisor to the Prince. At first the professors at Leiden refused to accept the status of Van Ceulen and Van Merwen, especially as they taught in Dutch rather than Latin. Theological professors generally believed that practical courses were not acceptable studies for a university, but they were not willing to reject the School outright since it was founded by Prince Maurice.

Leiden University governors heard in April 1600 that Adriaan Metius, a fortification advisor to Prince Maurice and the States General, had been recruited and raised to the level of a full professor to teach mathematics at the rival Franeker University. The Leiden governors' main problem was to match Franeker University, without raising the status too much of Duytsche Mathematique. So they quickly recruited mathematician Rudolf Snellius to the university—as distinct from the Engineering School—but then relegated him to the Faculty of Arts.

When the first degrees were to be conferred on Engineering School graduates in 1602 (under protest from the University) the governors and University's senate refused to award them except via an examination conducted by the Universities' own mathematics professor, Rudolf Snellius—ensuring that Van Ceulen and Van Merwen were seen as inferior to the university's own mathematician.

However Rudolf Snellius and his son Willebrord Snellius (the formulator of Snell's law—who replaced his father) both taught mathematics at Leiden University and appear to have cooperated closely with Van Ceulen, Van Merwen, Simon Stevin and the Engineering School. Willebrord Snellius, in fact, worked closely with Stevin.

Van Ceulen died in Leiden in 1610.

Calculating $\pi$

Ludolph van Ceulen spent a major part of his life calculating the numerical value of the mathematical constant π, using essentially the same methods as those employed by Archimedes some seventeen hundred years earlier. He published a 20-decimal value in his 1596 book Van den Circkel ("On the Circle"), which was published before he moved to Leiden, and he later expanded this to 35 decimals.

Van Ceulen's 20 digits is more than enough precision for any conceivable practical purpose. Even if a circle was perfect down to the atomic scale, the thermal vibrations of the molecules of ink would make most of those digits physically meaningless. Future attempts to calculate π to ever greater precision have been driven primarily by curiosity about the number itself.

Legacy
After his death, the "Ludolphine number",

 * 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288...,

was engraved on his tombstone in Leiden. The tombstone was eventually lost, but later restored in 2000.

His book "De circulo & adscriptis liber" was translated into Latin after his death by Snellius.

In Germany, π is still sometimes referred to as the "Ludolphine number".

title: Ludolph van Ceulen


text:
Talk:DZ Bank building

Question: the page says Behrenstraße, but (if my memory serves me) hasn't Germany finally officially dumped the "ß"? So shouldn't this read Behrenstrasse instead? Danke schon -- Finlay McWalter 18:15, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey, is there a Berliner wikipedian with a digital camera who'd care to pop down to Parizer Platz and take a couple of photos of this building? The outside looks a bit dull, but that crazy glass roof looks very photogenic, particularly at night. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 18:38, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:DZ Bank building


text:
Executive Council

Executive Council may refer to:

Government

 * Executive Council (Commonwealth countries), a constitutional organ that exercises executive power and advises the governor
 * Executive Council of Bern, the government of the Swiss canton of Bern
 * Executive Council of Catalonia, the government of the Spanish autonomous community of Catalonia
 * Executive Council of Vojvodina, the government of the Serbian province of Vojvodina
 * Executive Council (South Africa), the name of the cabinet in the governments of South African provinces
 * Executive Council of Hong Kong, a council that advises and assists the Chief Executive of Hong Kong
 * Executive Council of the Irish Free State, cabinet and de facto executive branch of government of the 1922–1937 Irish Free State
 * Executive Council of Macau, a council that advises and assists the Chief Executive of Macau
 * Massachusetts Governor's Council, an executive body of the US state of Massachusetts
 * Executive Council of New Hampshire, an executive body of the US state of New Hampshire
 * Executive Council of New South Wales, the cabinet of New South Wales, consisting of the Ministers, presided over by the Governor
 * Executive Council of New Zealand, former by ministers and others under the governor-general
 * Executive Council of the African Union, a council of ministers designated by the governments of member countries
 * Executive Council of Abu Dhabi, the local executive authority of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi
 * Federal Executive Council (Australia)
 * Federal Executive Council (Nigeria)
 * Executive Council of Singapore, 1946–1959
 * replaced the Executive Council of the Straits Settlements (c. 1877) and replaced by the Council of Ministers of Singapore (ceased to exist during 1963–1965)
 * Executive Council of Sikkim, 1953–1974
 * replaced by State Government of Sikkim after joining India
 * Federal Executive Council (Yugoslavia)
 * Viceroy's Executive Council, an advisory body during the time of British rule in India
 * Executive Council, part of the executive branch of the government of Anguilla; see Politics of Anguilla

Other fields

 * Alberta College and Technical Institute Student Executive Council, a coalition of college and technical institute students' associations
 * Stock Exchange Executive Council, a financial regulation council in the People's Republic of China
 * Executive Council, the governing body of the Ghana Football Association

title: Executive Council


text:
User talk:Kosebamse/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello and Welcome! I hope you like the place. --mav 19:09 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC) Nice to meet you all. Let´s see if I can do something useful. Kosebamse

Local anesthetic
Hi, Kosebamse. Thanks for complimenting my contribution to local anesthetic. Unfortunately, I don't really know much about the topic besides what I touched on--that the targets are voltage-gated sodium channels. I could expand on the molecular details perhaps, but I suspect it's detail that most people wouldn't want to know. Do you disagree? 168... 01:09 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, to some degree. I'll be happy to do some more on the pharmacology and clinical uses, but my knowledge about the molecular mechanisms is rather patchy. So if you like you might contribute some details, perhaps one or two more paragraphs? And by the way, I'll move this to the article's talk page where people may look for it. Thanks for your help! Kosebamse

Blood pressure
Don't worry about the "edit conflict" on blood pressure, the only one that bothered me was 'further' -> 'futher' . If you really want the "non-SI units" in there, feel free to put 'em back. I myself see no reason a torr should apologize for not being a pascal... :) -- Someone else 06:06 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * I really don't care much about the SI thing, everybody uses mmHg, even the finest peer-reviewed journals. And besides, it looks like a rewarding task to elevate (some) medical articles to staggering encyclopedic heights. Perhaps we should form a Wikipedia task force Find a patient advisory, fix a patient advisory ;) Kosebamse 06:24 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Message from Marco Krohn
Hi Kosebamse, the answer to your question: User talk:Marco Krohn.

Rewrite of medicine article
Hi Kosebamse, What's your idea for the re-write of the medicine article? How should it eventually look like ? I suppose it might begin with some general background and some info from the prehistoric times, antiquity, the middle ages, 19th century to the current issues medicine is facing. I'd vote to move medical specialties to a separate article. Good you are so brave to undertake the task. I'll try to help out a little as my time allows. Regards, Kpjas 17:04 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
 * I think that medicine should give a general overview (with or without history, which might warrant an individual entry). There is some valuable material there, which I haven't much bothered to edit, since I currently try to concentrate on cleaning out the enormous and messy list of links that was there before, replacing it with some sensible and short definitions. However this has lead to Internal medicine being nothing more than a list of links, and of course that should eventually be cleaned out, too.
 * It might be a good idea to move the links section, or perhaps only the branches of medicine to an individual article, but for the time being I've left it where it is. We would also have to consider which links to medicine (there are many) should point to such an article or to individual topics.
 * I will leave a note to contributors on medicine suggesting that further additions, if not of a general nature, should go to articles on individual topics because otherwise everything could become totally unreadable. Thanks for your help! Kosebamse 17:58 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Caption format
Hi, about covalent bond. I'm not sure what you mean by changing the layout convention. The new pic is aligned right same as the old one, so I'm not sure what your comment means?Theresa knott
 * I wasn´t sure whether a break in the caption line is o.k. - looks better to me with it, but thought I should ask ´just to be sure. BTW its the same picture, only the text was changed. Kosebamse 13:15 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. The caption looks good to me. I don't know if there is any convention not to have a break in a caption, but I dont see why not.The caption is after all quite long Theresa knott 18:10 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

"Gay disease" and NPOV
Hi, I saw your updates to the Gay disease article. I also noticed you submit a lot on medicine and I was wondering if you would be interested in working on an article on the history of medicine and homosexuality as a replacement for the POV gay disease article? -- Axon
 * I´m afraid I don´t know too much about the subject. I concentrate on medicine because that´s one of the fields where I occasionally feel well-informed. However, my knowledge on homosexuality_and_medicine is rather limited so I could not contribute much original work. But of course I could go about copyediting and the like. BTW I´m not sure what that article could be named. Homosexuality and medicine, perhaps? Kosebamse 16:37 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply: certainly, I'll be doing some research into this subject and coming up with a first draft based upon the original in gay disease. If I could rely on you to do some research into some of the facts I may uncover and details as and when I need it, I would be most grateful. My knowledge of homosexuality is good, but my knowledge of medicine is non-existant. BTW, Homosexuality and medicine sounds great. Axon 17:37 May 6, 2003 (BST)

 * Sure, I´ll help if I can but please don´t expect too much. I could check facts from a general medical POV but for specialist knowledge on things like sexually transmitted diseases I´d have to ask for help myself. As for the article, a move to a more NPOV title would be a good first step. Kosebamse 17:01 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think you will be a valuable asset to the article because, even if it isn't your speciaslist subject, you will know what questions to ask and where to go for the answers which is more than I do. For instance, you asked some interesting questions on MRSA. Some more information on the subject would be invaluable for the article. I'm working on a new article to go under the new heading and finally delete the POV gay disease one. --Axon 11:54 May 7, 2003 (BST)

 * Fine with me. Having thought some more about an appropriate title, I believe Homosexuality and health might be the most neutral expression. Kosebamse

Hi Kosebamse. Sorry its been a while but I finally did some work on those articles you metioned. Currently I have moved gay disease to Homosexuality and medical science asp er our previuos discussions. Please let me know what you think and any suggestions you may have. I also created a similar article on Homosexuality and psychology if you are interested. --Axon Tue Jul 8 16:14:53 GMTDT 2003
 * Hi. I´ve been away myself and it looks like I can´t stay here as much as did earlier this year, but I´ll have a look at your articles and let you know what I think. WikiRespect, Kosebamse 17:23 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Åland geography and Finnish names
I would suggest Turunmaan saaristo for Åbolands skärgård, but my understanding of Finnish suffixes is too bad!

Then one ought to consider if Turun saaristo/Åbo skärgård is a subset of Turunmaan saaristo or if they maybe are situated adjacent to eachother. -- Ruhrjung 08:37 19 May 2003 (UTC)

BTW: I hope you are familliar with the significance of the archipelago in the context of Finnish-Swedish relations? In the early 1920s, when the Åland-dispute was taken to the League of Nations (by Sweden), the Swedish government used as an indication of the islands' closeness to Sweden a map on which the archipelago didn't exist. This is still a thing Finns (not the least Finlandssvenskar) might mention (in late nights) when they consider the catalogue over The Sinns And Betrayals Of The Swedes. -- Ruhrjung 10:25 19 May 2003 (UTC)

 * Then, of course, Åland was the codeword for the bitterly failed Finnish hopes of the 1930s to get military support from Sweden. (Unfortunately the support was too big to become forgotten by the Swedes, but too small to be remembered by the Finns.) -- Ruhrjung 17:47 19 May 2003 (UTC)

The status of the Åland archipelago, and in particular the fact that Finnish is not (or not much) spoken there, seems to tickle Finnish, erm... nationalist feelings. There has been a near-vandalistic edit to the Åland article concerning the Finnish language, so I believe we should stay most carefully NPOV here and give Finland every credit where credit is due. Turunmaan saaristo seems fine. If I am not entirely mistaken, that is what is printed on Finnish nautical charts of the area between Åland and the Finnish mainland. Kosebamse 11:26 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but the question remains: Why call it "Åbo" skärgård and not "Åbolands" skärgård. Please note that I do not know, and I've not yet become involved enough to find out. ;-) -- Ruhrjung 17:47 19 May 2003 (UTC)

That question is quite beyond me. There are archipelagos that are named after a city (e.g. Stockholm) and there are those that are named after a region. I seem to recall that in this case it´s the city not the region but I may be mistaken due to different terminology in English or German. However, I don´t have my nautical literature at hand and therefore I´m afraid can not help solve the question right now. For now, I´ll leave the article the way it is but would be grateful for any further enlightenment in this matter. Best regards, Kosebamse 19:39 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I had the oppertunity to check with a knowledgable Finnish aquaintance (although not Finland-Swedish). Åboland is a neologism, with origins in the 19th century language-feud. Åboland includes, according to him, Åbo skärgård, Åbo stad and the swedophone area along the coast. To call the archipelago Åbolands skärgård would, still according to my source, stress its Swedishness, which has some value as it is outside of the autonomous province of Åland, but it might, similarly, disturb sensitive Finns as an unneccessary demonstration against the fennophones, in particular as it might give an exaggerated impression of the Swedishness of the archipelago. -- Ruhrjung 20:47 19 May 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, fine then, let´s leave it at Åbo skärgård. One _might_ find some chart or piloting book that has both terms, but I think it is really not that important. Unless Åbolands skärgård has some political definition (province or the like), in which case it would have to be listed somewhere under Finnish matters (but not necessarily wrt Åland geography). Thanks for your help! Kosebamse 21:14 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Nomenclature for muscles

 * brachialis vs brachialis muscle
 * I can see what you mean about this muscle. It does make it two words though. There is no other brachialis that i know of. The NZ native pohutukawa, might be refered to by many as pohutukawa tree, but i'd say the former term would be the best wiki entry for it.

 * What about the other muscles? i've seen a few that perhaps should also have muscle within the wiki. But for most, (especially those that are already two or more words,) i don't think it is necessary.

 * What other muscles do you think need changing? Tristanb 01:07 24 May 2003 (UTC)

I don´t know if any need changing, but we should keep the terminology consistent to avoid inaccuracies. There is, to my knowledge, only one human muscle whose proper anatomical name is single-worded (the platysma, but I may have overlooked some others). Of course you could refer to any other muscle as, say, "the biceps", and that is often done in clinical slang, but it is just that: slang. In a textbook or lexicon, you would always find it as "biceps brachii muscle" or in Latin, "musculus biceps brachii". Some muscles are known in common language by single-word names, such as the biceps or a few others that are of relevance to athletes, such as the serratus. This is, however, where confusion starts, as there is indeed another biceps, the biceps femoris, and there are two different serratus muscles. IMO the clean solution would be to have entries for such popular things as "biceps" under single-word names, but these must then redirect to a page with the proper anatomical name (which is BTW "biceps brachii muscle", not "biceps brachii (muscle)" as I am sure some would suggest). Less popular things should stay unter their anatomical names and not require any redirects. Kosebamse 07:40 24 May 2003 (UTC)

 * With the biceps/biceps brachii example. I made biceps a disambiguation-type page, with a note that it most commonly refers to biceps brachii.
 * I don't see too much wrong with having an article serratus anterior, with serratus anterior muscle just being a redirect. Leaving out the word muscle avoids the problem of the Latin version being used.
 * On the other hand, I wouldn't want a new article vagus, written about the vagus nerve.

 * So... on balance i probably agree with you.
 * BTW do you want to move/copy this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia medicine standards? (it'd keep my orphaned comment company).

The disamb page solution seems fine, after all most people would look there first. I just want to make sure that proper scientific terms are used as headings wherever possible. And thanks for the link, I´ll copy this to that page (and perhaps some more stuff that I wrote earlier). Cheers. Kosebamse 11:56 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Map of the Baltic Sea (made by Pit)
moin! I told you to translate the Ostsee-map for you. so did I. i hope its ok. done quick and dirty. : ) pit 20:56 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Moinmoin! Looks fine to me, but isn´t it a little large? (Sorry, I really have no clue about pictures, particularly when it comes to putting them into wikipedia). Thanks a lot, Kosebamse 21:02 31 May 2003 (UTC)

 * ok. i could make a smaller preview-version with some kind of big picture link to this one. pit 21:13 31 May 2003 (UTC)

 * Great. I´m logging out for now but will have a look tomorrow. Thanks a lot, Kosebamse 21:16 31 May 2003 (UTC)

 * you're welcome. pit 21:18 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Sysop
Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! You have volunteered for boring housekeeping activities which normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.

Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun! --Eloquence 18:44 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Vandal pages watchlist
In case you didn't already know, I've created a group watchlist of sorts at Favorite pages of banned users to help with tracking when Michael is vandalizing (and any future vandals like him). So feel free too use it, I have already found it helpful, and please add to it when he vandalizes more. Thanks. MB 22:13 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

More michaelism
Heh, that was kind of funny, the first Punk reversion someone else beat me to today, as far as I can tell, was on my own talk page. ;) -- John Owens 23:11 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * You are not alone. Cheers, Kosebamse 23:15 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Holiday notice
Holiday notice I'll be away for quite a while. No Wikipedia, no nothing. It's been a great lot of fun. Email (through the link at the left of this page) always welcome. Cheers, Kosebamse 08:11 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Have a fun holiday. It is great to get away from the computer once in a while and visit someplace new. :) --mav

Arezzo, Italy
Hello. My only "ongoing contribution" to "Arezzo, Italy" was to put the article into standard format. After I realized there was an older article I incorporated the information in the new article into the old one and redirected. -- Mike Hardy

Clitoris poll
I thought you might be interested in the opinion poll going on now at Talk:Clitoris. MB 17:52 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Humor and the lack thereof

 * -D Thanks for letting me do the "honors" for Cream pie... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:02 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I would have deleted it right away - clear sign of lack of humour... BTW, your ":-D" when starting a line looks like "-D" (what does it mean, anyway?) Kosebamse 18:12 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually it means "Wide open grin (optionally with teeth showing)". But to define it so precisely I am now exposing in turn the pedant in myself ;) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:20 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * OIC. But -D would then be "semi-decapitation" wouldn't it? (Or perhaps "my first birthday cake") Kosebamse 18:28 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Or in this instance "Grinning eyes closed and waiting for the cream pie to land". -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:32 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Boyer affair
Thank you for your insightful and well-written comments on the Boyer matter. -- Kat 17:51, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your compliments. This whole affair is rather unpleasant, but on the other hand it gives us a chance to discuss the matter and, hopefully, develop a policy before things get worse. I even think I've seen a page yesterday where "do not create articles about yourself" was dicussed but unfortunately I can't find it again. Did you happen to read it by any chance? Kosebamse 18:49, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Message from Mintguy
Thank you for your support regarding my admin status. Ireally appreciated it. Mintguy 22:22, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Messsage from Murrayof
18th street gang isn't very relevant? Isn't very relevant to what? What is it important that something be relevant to in order to be included in Wikipedia? A better question is whether the entry is accurate, but that can be worked on.

 * Context: placed on my user page by User:Murrayof in response to my placing 18th Street gang on Votes for deletion. My text was: "Sorry, don't know much about this, but it looks rather irrelevant."

 * Answer: I tend to believe that Wikipedia should concentrate on subjects covered by a classical encyclopedia before dealing with street gangs, but given my ignorance of that subject I'll leave judgement to others.Kosebamse 04:57, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Xylitol
Talk:Xylitol - you were going to translate?

 * Cimon Avaro and Dysprosia already did some work on it, and for the rest (some chemistry facts) I unfortunately don't know where to look for fact-checking. However, the article is a fine stub for now.Kosebamse 11:35, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

VfD
When you list a page on Votes for deletion you must say "Listed on Votes for deletion" on the page you are listing. Otherwise the page will not get deleted. --mav 23:43, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It seems that there is some ongoing discussion about this, but I agree that it's a reasonable policy. Will try to remember in the future, and thanks for the advice. Kosebamse 11:35, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

HLA thanks
nice edit on HLA. I should be more careful when editing after a blue martini ... -- Someone else

 * 'twas a pleasure ;-) -  and it's good to see medical matters gradually receive the attention they deserve. Cheers, Kosebamse 08:50, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Message from Irismeister
moved from my user page: "Sage nicht alles was du weisst, aber wiesse immer alles was du sagst" Omama (my grandmather, DW) - Don't say everything you know, but try at least to understand what you say (my translation ; ) OK, thank you Kosebamse. I'll try to learn the rules of the house faster.
 * Netter Spruch - wenn da nicht schon Montaigne stünde, bliebe er auf meiner Userpage. Willkommen bei Wikipedia. Kosebamse 13:46, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wow, ain't that nice ? Omama is better than Montaigne and Francis Bacon ! Well, I put my own lower bit on

Aaland here (too much for Wikipaedians?) :

http://www.iris-ward.com/_HTM/GLOS/A/1121-GLOS.htm

Mic about List of islands
Hi there! It seems I had the same idea as you. I just launched a reformat of the structure of List of islands which also created a number of sub entries. It is an anomaly that the list is structured over both continent (or ocean) and countries, but it was the only simple way that this monster list could be broken into parts. One consequence of this is that the country articles, especially for Europe and the United States, at present only contains islands conected to the respective continent. I feel that the list now is a lot easier to handle, but there is still a lot of room for improvements. What are your ideas on the structure? Best regards! -- Mic 12:21, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * More discussion on your page - Cheers - Kosebamse 12:52, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Internet child pornography article
"If you were interested in contributing valuable information, you would spend your time making your text neutral and inoffensive, instead of defending it in its current state."

 * Thanks, point taken. A question (because of my limited experience with Wikipedia) — if I have a draft version of some additions, as well as some ideas for minor sections (just a few words describing a new paragraph that probably should be added). What should I do:

Paranoid 12:00, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) Search for necessary information and write everything that I think should be added &mdash then post.
 * 2) Post it as it is, because someone might be better suited for writing some of the text.
 * 3) Post it as it is to Talk and leave the main article untouched for the time being.

It depends very much on what you're actually writing about, whether it's a popular topic with many edits being made in a short time, and how good your knowledge on that particular topic is. Please feel free to come back for further talk. Hope that helps and best wishes, Kosebamse 15:00, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * If you're just starting an article, it's probably a good idea to have it largely finished before uploading it. When I write a new article (except for stubs: sometimes you just have to write one to replace junk or if a definition is badly missing), I often go to the point where I feel it is 80% done, then upload it to see whether others will help me finishing it.
 * If you are adding to something that looks rather raw, you probably don't have to be too meticulous as long as it's clear that it is still mostly a "work in progress".
 * When adding to a much-debated and/or well-polished article, be prepared for criticism and think it over twice before making an edit.
 * When unsure, it's up to you to decide. You can either be bold (but in that case, it's good style to take part in the ensuing debate and back your edits with arguments), or take the matter to talk pages to sort it out with others.
 * Most important of all, respect others and concentrate on writing good articles rather fighting over/against persons.

Thanks, that helped. I still need to adjust a bit to find the best balance between write-review-edit-review and edit-all-together-at-the-same-time, but I hope that understanding will come with time. :) Paranoid 16:59, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

HIV and AIDS
Hi, I'm not opposed to your edit on HIV test, but there are some half-reasonable people who question HIV-AIDS, see AIDS reappraisal. Cheers, AxelBoldt 10:30, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Sure, I have read that reappraisal article BTW, but methinks it would go too far ;) to discuss it everywhere. That reappraisal article is linked to from HIV and I would think that is enough, don't you agree? Cheers, Kosebamse 17:47, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Holy Trinity
What's N/G/W? Angela

 * An incantation of our Holy Trinity. NPOV/GFDL/WikiLove, as mentioned (coined?) here by a certain Angela ;-). Love, Kosebamse 22:25, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh! :) I like it. Angela

Grapefruit
Thanks! I'm doing this from my PDA, so I can't edit anything >255 chars. BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:19, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * That's true devotion (or addiction). My best compliments, Kosebamse 14:29, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. And I think it's fair to say addiction...my laptop is in the shop and I'm not at work today.... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:22, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kosebamse/Archive1


text:
Talk:Spoiler effect

X

 * Alternative voting systems which avoid the spoiler effect include instant runoff voting, also known as single transferable vote.

This is wrong on two accounts:

 * 1) IRV and STV are not the same thing. The first is a single-winner system; the second is a multi-winner system.  The second reduces to the first in the case of a single district.
 * 2) IRV and STV can suffer from the spoiler effect. For example, if the "p-ist" vote was split between 3 p-ists, the most popular and "major party" p-ist could be eliminated early, even though they would handily beat the winning q-ist.

IRV & Spoiler Effect
IRV is free from the spoiler effect, if implemented correctly, because it meets the Independence of Clones Criterion (ICC). See:

--

I've read many other places that IRV only stops the spoiler effect when the third party is weak. In the scenario where the third party becomes almost an equal, the spoiler effect can come back into play. For example if Nader was looking like he might be almost an equal with Bush and Kerry, and we were under IRV, liberals might be afraid to vote for Nader because if it was a runoff between Bush and Nader it would seem more likely that those who ranked Kerry first instead of Nader would put Bush second.

IRV isn't free from the spoiler effect at all. In order to be "free" from the spoiler effect, it would have to be free from Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion (IIAC). It's not. It's not even compliant with relaxed versions of IIAC, such as Local IIAC. --- RobLa 03:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

12-17-07: I disagree somewhat with RobLa's claim that freedom from spoiling requires independence from irrelevant alternatives. Suppose candidates can withdraw from contention after election day, that the votes are published at the end of election day, and that withdrawn candidates are deleted from the votes before calculating the winner. If Nader by not withdrawing would elect Bush, and by withdrawing would elect Gore, Nader would have an incentive to withdraw and not be a spoiler. (Nader's supporters who prefer Gore over Bush would bang on his door until he withdraws. In 2000, Nader admitted that Gore was the "lesser of evils.")  Candidates who choose not to run out of fear of being a spoiler would no longer have that fear.

A huge part of the "spoiler problem" is that some potential candidates choose not to run. For example, in 2000 John McCain chose not to run (as an Independent) in the US presidential election after the Republicans nominated George Bush, because he knew Gore would win if McCain and Bush both ran. (McCain and McCain's supporters preferred Bush over Gore.) One cannot measure the spoiler effect by considering only the votes and the candidates on the ballot. (By the way, McCain was probably a Condorcet winner in 2000. Most of Gore's supporters preferred McCain over Bush, and most of Bush's supporters preferred McCain over Gore, and a significant number of voters thought McCain was better than both Gore and Bush.)

I agree IRV has a serious spoiler problem and that IRV would maintain the "two big party, each party nominating one candidate per office" system, would tend to defeat centrists by squeezing them between a candidate to their left and a candidate to their right, would therefore deter candidates and parties from taking moderate positions on the issues, and would therefore continue the polarization we've seen under plurality rule. For instance, the Democrats would not nominate both Obama and Clinton under IRV because that could easily elect the Republican:

30%      17%        8%        45%   Obama     Clinton   Clinton    Romney Clinton  Obama     Romney       x        (x = doesn't affect   Romney    Romney    Obama        x             the example)

IRV begins by eliminating Clinton, who was ranked top by   only 25% (17% + 8%) of the voters. Then IRV counts 8% more for Romney, giving him a majority (45% + 8%). If Obama had not run then IRV would give Clinton a majority (30% + 17% + 8%). Since Obama's supporters prefer Clinton over Romney, this is   classic spoiling.

The official book on Robert's Rules has a section on IRV. The book's authors call IRV by the generic name "preferential voting," a hint they were unaware other preference order voting methods exist. They wrote IRV is better than plurality rule, which should not be considered a strong endorsement. They point out that IRV can defeat the best compromise, which is the same as saying IRV is susceptible to spoiling. Presumably, if they had been aware of Condorcetian voting methods they would have endorsed one of those, since Condorcetian methods are better at electing the best compromise.

IRV can be patched fairly well by allowing the candidates to withdraw after the votes are cast, as described above. In the example, Obama would choose to withdraw in order to defeat Romney and elect Clinton. The Democrats and Republicans would presumably decide to stop spending money on primary elections and would nominate more than one candidate per office. Candidates who want to win would recognize that the way to win is to adopt moderate positions on the issues to try to appear to be the best compromise. With many candidates competing to be the best compromise, voters would be free to rank the less corrupt of them over the more corrupt.

I'm not a fan of plain IRV. I much prefer Condorcetian voting methods. However, I cheerfully acknowledge that if IRV is patched to allow withdrawal then it would be nearly as good as Condorcetian methods.

Condorcetian methods that allow withdrawal would be even better. It would then be a waste of effort to organize voting strategies hoping to manufacture a majority cycle that elects the strategizing voters' preferred candidate, since the "patsy" candidate--the candidate strategically raised over the sincere winner--would have a strong incentive to withdraw. I believe strategic voting would be rare, given the option to withdraw and assuming a good underlying voting method. I believe candidate withdrawals would be rare if the underlying voting method elects within the top cycle and is independent of clones. (For an example of such a voting method, google Maximize Affirmed Majorities.) --Steve Eppley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stupid question
I always knew this as vote splitting. How is it different? (add an explanation if it is, add to the merger if not) 142.177.168.90 14:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this should be merged with vote splitting. However, it should not be merged with Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives - the two are related but different subjects.

 * I would disagree that they should be merged.
 * First, I believe it would be accurate to say that Vote Splitting is related to the Independence of Clones Criterion (http://condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml).

 * The spoiler effect can refer to either independence of irrelevant alternatives and Vote Splitting and I have seen the terminology used in both contexts.
 * In the case of independence of irrelevant alternatives, one can think of candidate B as a spoiler for candidate A if, when candidate B was removed, candidate A wins the election.

 * The situation is different when it comes to clones/vote splitting. If candidate B & A split their votes, it does not imply that either candidate would win the election.

 * Ericgorr 23:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In that case, should the spoiler effect article be a disambiguation page? Tim Ivorson 13:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * ERRRR, NOPE, Vote Splitting is the action, and the result of this action is the effect of a Spoiler. The Spoiler Effect does not occur until after the voting is finished. If similar candidates read the pre-election polls correctly ; then vote splitting can be avoided and the effect does not occur. Vote Splitting is the egg, comes first, and the Spoiler Effect is the chicken, comes after. Maintain separate pages. - Trinbago

 * Trinbago is wrong to say the spoiler effect occurs after the voting. Some potential candidates choose not to compete because they expect they will spoil the election. See the example above regarding McCain choosing not to compete as an independent in 2000 after the Republican party nominated Bush. This is an effect that can't be observed merely by counting the votes to check whether any of the candidates who did compete is a spoiler. SEppley (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 * With some voting methods, such as plurality rule or runoff, vote splitting is what causes spoiling. Other kinds of voting methods have different kinds of votes that cause spoiling. At least, I would call it a different kind with a preference order voting method when most of candidate x's supporters rank x over y and y over z, the winner is z, and y would have won if x had not been on the ballot. Preference order votes can be tallied in different ways by different preference order voting methods, and x>y>z might not cause y to lose and z to win if tallied by a different method. I also call it spoiling when the best compromise (maybe y) chooses not to compete to avoid being made to appear unpopular by the voting method when s/he expects the voting method (e.g., Instant Runoff) will take away his/her victory by counting votes for other candidates (maybe x & z) that would have been counted for him/her by another voting method. The best compromise can easily be sandwiched between a candidate on the left and a candidate on the right and thus lose, when s/he would have won if either the candidate on the left or the candidate on the right had not run or if the voting method tallied the votes in a different way. Since candidates who want to win take positions that will help them win, the spoiling effect causes politicians to avoid taking compromise positions that would result in being sandwiched between other candidates, and this causes polarization. It's an effect of spoiling that you can't measure merely by counting votes. Don't believe people who claim their favorite voting method rarely has spoiling, when they base their claim on the votes in actual elections and ignore candidates who chose not to run and ignore the positions that the politicians chose in order to win. SEppley (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Mathematical Definition
I think that the "spoiler effect" is better understood as sensitivity to irrelevant alternatives rather than sensitivity to clones in the form of vote splitting. Given that, Condorcet methods reduce the spoiler effect by only being sensitive to IA's when there is no CW, and approval arguably eliminates the spoiler effect under certain assumptions. --Hermitage 06:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm, it seems to me that violations of IIA can be broken into two distinct scenarios: the "spoiler effect" and the "center squeeze" effect. As the article states, the "spoiler effect" is typically reserved for irrelevant alternatives with weak core support (few number of first choices), as in the Nader scenario. The "center squeeze" occurs when the irrelevant alternative has strong core support (large number of first choices). That's why IRV is typically said to eliminate the "spoiler effect" but not the "center squeeze". Would it be better to say that the "spoiler effect" corresponds to violations of the mutual majority criterion? That is, a "spoiler" is an irrelevant alternative who is partitioned into the "mutual minority" by a majority of voters? The difficulty here is that "spoiler effect" is quite a colloquial term, a possible "neologism" as suggested below, and tough to assign a mathematical definition to. --Progressnerd (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I have two criticisms of Progressnerd's points above. (1) If "spoiler effect" and "center squeeze" are the only ways to violate IIA, which of those classifications covers the Borda clone effect? With Borda, x will win when enough similar inferior alternatives are also nominated, since Borda will give x extra points from all voters and only give its competitor y extra points from the voters who prefer y over x. I wouldn't call this spoiling because the voters who rank the extra candidates over y prefer the new winner x over y. It's clearly not some kind of "vote splitting." (2) It's easy to construct a "center squeeze" example where IRV defeats a candidate with the greatest "core" support: 5 candidates FarLeft, Left, Center, Right, and FarRight. IRV eliminates FarLeft and FarRight first and second, and then counts FarLeft's core support for Left and counts FarRight's core support for Right, so that IRV eliminates Center third.) I also note that core support can't be measured by votes alone, since it depends on info not in the votes, such as which candidates chose not to compete. IRV will count the "core" supporters of candidates who didn't compete for candidates who do compete. Also, core support itself may depend on the voting method: After decades in which plurality rule and top two runoff have caused politicians to avoid taking compromise positions in order to avoid being squeezed into defeat--see the model in which there are only two candidates and both know a third candidate can enter the race and would enter if s/he can take a winning position--voters who follow have been led away from compromise positions they might prefer the most, and they could be led back. SEppley (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Another thought. IIA says that the addition of a candidate that does not win should not be able to change the winner, but that's not exactly what "spoiler" means colloquially. "Spoiler" refers to someone who does not have a chance of winning. Clearly, in the "center squeeze" scenario of IRV, the two candidates with the most first choices are better positioned than anyone to win. The addition of one of those candidates may change the outcome even though that candidate loses, but I don't think that candidate can be considered a "spoiler", because s/he had a legitimate chance at winning. Moreover, it would be silly not to consider Condorcet as eliminating the "spoiler effect" even though it technically does not satisfy IIA. Given that, which irrelevant alternatives are "spoilers" and which are not? --Progressnerd (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Whether or not spoiling has a colloquial meaning shouldn't deter us from generalizing it to cover voting methods with which people have little experience, since its colloquial meaning would surely evolve after people gain experience with other voting methods. The interpretation that spoiler refers only to a candidate who has no chance to win has been induced by our use of "vote-for-one" plurality rule, which causes most voters who prefer a third candidate to abandon their support of the third candidate when they expect only two other candidates have a chance to win. Abandonment is a good strategy when voters can't coordinate their preferences into a winning coalition, but an abandoned candidate, made a "sure loser" by plurality rule, may actually be preferred over the winner by a majority of the voters. Also, the term is often used in a different way to describe candidates who choose not to compete because they don't want to spoil the election. Consider John McCain in 2000 after the Republicans nominated Bush. When asked whether he would run as an independent, he said that would help Gore win and he didn't want to be a spoiler. If McCain had run and changed the winner to Gore, would you call McCain a spoiler? I don't think he fits the "sure loser" description. McCain might have beaten Gore if Bush hadn't competed, so in that sense he did have a chance to win, and with another voting method he might have won (neglecting the important effect that another voting method could have led to different candidates competing, and candidates taking different positions than they actually did). McCain and his supporters thought he would have beaten Gore if Bush hadn't been nominated. So did Rod Kiwiet of Caltech when I suggested to him in 2004 that McCain was probably a Condorcet winner in 2000: Rod agreed that most Bush supporters preferred McCain over Gore, most Gore supporters preferred McCain over Bush, and McCain would have been ranked over both Bush and Gore by many Republicans and "swing voters." SEppley (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed redirect from "Split Vote"
Just letting y'all know: I removed the redirect from "Split Vote", since that and "vote splitting" aren't the same thing, though they might sound similar. --DewiMorgan 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler (sports)
Spoiler (sports) redirects here. There is nothing said about sports. 141.151.79.241 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide View
Somebody added the note "does not represent a worldwide view". I disagree. The Bush/Gore example is from the U.S., but there's also a South Korean example. I would vote to remove the note. Jrvz (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the article title appropriate?
Where does the term "Spoiler effect" originate from? Is it verifiable? It seems like it might be a "neologism"

Also, as I understand it, "vote splitting" is the mechanism that causes the "Spoiler effect". So "spoiler effect" is a subset of "vote splitting". So shouldn't "Spoiler effect" redirect to "vote splitting"? The way it is now, "vote splitting" redirects to "Spoiler effect"; however, a minor amount of vote splitting will not be sufficient to cause a "Spoiler effect". So this is confusing for the redirected readers.

 * The term "Spoiler" almost universally refers to a weak or minor candidate in a plurality election who gets relatively few votes but none the less has a "detrimental" or "spoiling" effect on the election outcome. "vote-splitting" is a broader concept that can also involve viable candidates who are similar, and may each receive a substantial percentage of the vote, but allow a dissimilar candidate to win with a mere plurality. The term "spoiler effect" is inappropriate and is not commonly used when there is not an obvious weak "spoiler" candidate. I think the connection between the two concepts should be discussed, but also it should be clear that vote-splitting can happen where there is no "spoiler effect."
 * Tbouricius (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mikiemike (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)--

I agree. Have spoiler effect redirect to vote splitting, rather than the other way around. --Helenalex (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I too agree there should be an article titled "vote splitting". Yet I am in favor of keeping this "spoiler effect" article too.

 * Already there is a redirect for the hyphenated words "vote-splitting", and that should remain, and point to "vote splitting". For grammatical correctness the article title of "vote splitting" should not have a hyphen.  (Clarification: If the title were "vote-splitting effect", then a hyphen would be needed to indicate that the two nouns are being used together as an adjective.)

 * As I recall the information about vote splitting originally was added to an article named "strategic nomination" which is yet another related concept that also deserves a separate article. Instead of being bounced around as if it were subordinate to voting concepts that would not happen without vote splitting, "vote splitting" needs an article of its own.

 * When it is added, be sure to change links that now point to the "vote splitting" section of this article, and links that point to the hyphenated "vote-splitting" stub. VoteFair (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not convinced that 'spoiler effect' needs its own page. Are there ever situations in which the spoiler effect is not the result of vote splitting? --Helenalex (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Although I can't think of a case where vote splitting is not one of the contributing causes of the spoiler effect, there can be additional contributing causes to the spoiler effect. For instance strategic nomination may also be involved (especially in U.S. primary elections).

 * In broader terms, the fact that one concept can be the cause of different effects doesn't imply that all the effects should be fully explained in the same article as the cause. VoteFair (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. This page should be rewritten to just be about the spoiler effect, and vote splitting should get its own page. --Helenalex (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a new page for Vote splitting, but it needs work from someone who knows more about political theory than I do. --Helenalex (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I've made some refinements to the new article.  I'll let someone else decide what, if anything, to remove from the vote splitting section in this spoiler effect article. VoteFair (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TR or Taft?
In the 1912, Theodore Roosevelt had a much better chance than William Taft. Couldn't it be argued that Taft had the spoiler effect? I know that the Progressive, or "Bull-Moose" party was considered more of a third party than Taft's Republican party, but still, I don't agree with how it looks now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.15.32 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
I've partially completed copy-editing the article. I've tried to use language that's more readily understood by a lay-person. I've reformatted the list into a table. I added some references where I could find them. I removed a quote attributed to Ralph Nader, because it had no reference and I could not find any source online for it, so it is unverifiable material and has to be removed per WP:BLP guidelines. I will finish copy-editing it later today. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perot?
Where is Perot? He won Clinton the White House in two consecutive terms then disappeared forever. Where is the discussion on candidates planting a spoiler to ensure their win (as Clinton obviously did with Perot)? 198.209.0.252 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also wondered why there was no mention of Ross Perot when I read this article. To add him, you would need a reliable source describing him as a spoiler or claiming that he cost Bush the election (all the candidates from that election are still alive).  here is an article by Dan Quayle in which he claims Perot gave Clinton the election.  here is another article claiming that Perot voters would have split evenly between Clinton and Bush, but without out any reference to a poll to back up the claim, though this may have been a further result from exit polls by Voter Research and Surveys mentioned earlier in the article.  (Both articles are referenced in the Wikipedia article on Ross Perot's 1992 campaign.)  Not really enough evidence for me to add Perot to the list of spoilers, though better evidence may exist.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nader must be a Millennial thing because Perot was a much more significant force, in the elections of the last 59 years. However, the whole concept of a spoiler is an antidemocratic conspiracy that demands the electorate vote for candidates who identify within the binary party system which has evolved to today's Republicans and Democrats.  To say that any spoiler exists is to say that the two party system is threatened by voters who insist on their right to vote for whom they choose.  Oh the humanity!  CredibleSources (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The frequent "Perot spoiler" claims are always funny because in 1992, Perot was the only candidate who wasn't a spoiler. Perot was the majority-winner (as he would have beat either Clinton or HW in a one-on-one election), so HW was a spoiler. (If he'd dropped out, Perot would've defeated Clinton.) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous claim that ranking moderately left-wing candidate second will minimize chance of electing right-wing candidate?
The article says the following: For example, voters for a very left-wing candidate might select a moderately left-wing candidate as their second choice, thus minimizing the chances that their vote will result in the election of a right-wing candidate. Seems to me there are scenarios in which, depending on the voting method, minimizing the chance that the right-wing candidate will be elected requires ranking a more centrist candidate ahead of the moderately left-wing candidate. Consider an example with 4 candidates: VeryLeft, Left, Center, and Right. Abbreviate VL, L, C and R. Assume the voting method is Instant Runoff. The article stipulated that VL is a very minor candidate, so we assume Instant Runoff eliminates VL immediately. Then C can easily be sandwiched between L and R, so we'll assume Instant Runoff eliminates C next. R will have a much better chance in the final count against L than against C, since the votes that had been counted for C are likely to split between R and L, whereas L's votes would mostly go to C if L were deleted instead of C. So, the claim about minimizing R's chance seems bogus. It should be rewritten or deleted. SEppley (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers also occur in primary elections & non-partisan elections
Currently this article focuses on spoiler candidates in cross-party (especially U.S. "general") elections (where each party offers only one candidate), and excludes -- in the opening definition -- U.S. primary elections (where all the candidates are from the same party) and non-partisan elections (where the candidates are not associated with parties). Vote-splitting in U.S. primary elections happens far more often than in U.S. general elections. (After all, the reason primary elections arose is to eliminate vote splitting and spoiler candidates in general elections, and that shifted the vote-splitting/spoiler problem to primary elections.) Also, other countries that do not use primary and "general" elections also have spoiler candidates in (some of) their elections. VoteFair (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gary Johnson
There is no mathematical way that Gary Johnson could have spoiled the election for Mitt Romney due to the Electoral College. I am taking the initiative and removing his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.123.72 (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning for Stein on the list?
Why is the reasoning for Jill Stein being on the list not in the article? What is the reasoning? jrun (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Table of alleged spoilers
I have removed the table of alleged spoilers from the article for reasons stated below. The solution for putting such information back in the article is also stated below. But first, here is the deleted table for easy reference

There are two problems with this table. The first is that the table lacks citation to reliable sources. The second is that the table declares frequently disputed facts in WP:Wikivoice. Before restoring this table, it needs to pass both WP:Verification and WP:Neutrality and the best way to do this is to WP:Attribute the analysis and conclusion to the person or group the RS says is making the analysis or conclusion. We'd also need to include disputing viewpoints found in the RSs. Once we do all that, it becomes dubious that a simple table is really capable of passing muster, but I'll reserve judgment until some tweaks are proposed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond and Tulsi Gabbard
write here — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Magierowski (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party is listed as centre-left to left-wing even if it originated from the Republican Party which is currently considered to be positioned on the right of the Democratic Party. Abraham Lincoln, who was the first Republican President, was progressive by supporting minority rights in similar fashion to future Democrats like Lyndon B Johnson and Barack Obama. Democrat Franklin Roosevelt is considered to be the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt due to his policies rather than his surname which was the same due to them being distant cousins. Republicans became the conservative party that they are known to be today as a result of William Taft's presidency which preceded Strom Thurmond's candidacy in 1948. Franklin Roosevelt's presidency which paved the way for Truman's that allowed Democrats to hold the White House for two decades was defined by Keynesian economics that are considered to be more left-wing than Friedman whose ideas influenced Reagan's domestic policy which limited the state as well as the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bushes.

Strom Thurmond was far-right and his Democratic origins are due to segregationists like Buchanan and Johnson rather than Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman who were more distant to Dixiecrats than William Taft. Tulsi Gabbard's non-interventionism has bipartisan support and is endorsed by Trump on the right and Obama and Sanders on the left rather than Romney and the Clintons who are closer to the centre. So if Trump is impeached and replaced by Romney in the Republican ticket, his disgruntled supporters could endorse Sanders, Warren, Yang and Gabbard that are more left-wing than centrists such as Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton and then Tulsi Gabbard's potential run as a third party candidate could help Romney beat Hillary Clinton or Bloomberg so that Vladimir Putin does not take the blame for the third World War that Romney is going to start. But regardless of foreign policy, Taft being a right-wing candidate who spoiled Theodore Roosevelt's presidential run against capitalist non-interventionist Woodrow Wilson whose reaction to the first World War paved the way for the second reminds me of Ron Paul's libertarians accusing Romney of being the same as Obama in 2012. I believe Hillary's loss in 2016 was Obama's and Trump could not win any other election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:3A0F:5F00:E067:2638:DFC1:10B2 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 * You cannot base anything only on "I think". You have to back it up with a source. On Thurmond I could not find anything on him being a spoiler candidate on the Republicans and Gabbard... wait until after November 3rd 2020 and a try finding a source that states that. And I really don't understand what World War III, Mitt Romney, Bloomberg, the Democrat 2020 lot, Buchanan, Johnson or early 20th US politics have to do with whether or not Gabbard and Thurmond are spoiler candidates. Let's stay on topic. Tomasz Magierowski (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-g-o-p-s-dixiecrat-problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:3A0F:5F00:E067:2638:DFC1:10B2 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Once again, nothing to do with Strom Thurmond being a spoiler candidate for the Republicans. Tomasz Magierowski (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/story/dixiecrats-1948-loss-ushered-in-new-era

Article states that Thurmond's victories in southern states encouraged their shirt from Democratic to Republican but I believe it was a result of Taft's conservatism rather than the Dixiecrats. World War 2 empowered Roosevelt and no one was able to challenge the only president to serve more than two terms in office but Truman was expected to lose against Dewey and the 1948 election was one of the biggest failures of the polls that are referenced in this article. Thurmond's emergence as Truman's biggest rival in the south prevented Dewey from reaching out to voters of those states. Taft's legacy could not be represented against Franklin Roosevelt who had bipartisan support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:3A0F:5F00:E067:2638:DFC1:10B2 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Since you're not responing, my arguement is that Dewey should reach out to southern voters and Thurmond prevented him from doing so, leading to Truman winning in contrast to the polls that were correct to their arguement that Truman lacked the momentum that he needed to win but Thurmond overshadowed Dewey despite his radical views that were unappealing to moderate voters that determined the election. Same with Taft's endorsement from the Republican party undermining the campaign of Theodore Roosevelt despite the latter being regarded as one of the best US Presidents ever unlike the former. Romney should reach out to Mike Pence's religious right in 2012 and that's the reason he didn't win similarly to Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1o5DQexqzU

https://www.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his1302PCM/WhenAllTheExperts2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:3A0F:5F00:E067:2638:DFC1:10B2 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I need a source that says that Thurmond took votes away from Dewey. That's what a spoiler candidate is, and the 1948 election is the only event we should be discussing, not Trump, not Pence, they don't factor into the equation in any meaningful way. The only thing that is important is once again, did Thurmond take votes away from Dewey and ruin his chances of winning... I cannot find anything that says this. Current politics, Taft isn't at all important here Tomasz Magierowski (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

LIIA equivalent to IWA
@Wotwotwoot The LIIA == IWA equivalence holds from the standard social choice ⇒ social ordering construction (which I believe I noted, although I might not have made it explicit enough).

The second-place finisher is defined as the winner if the first-place finisher is removed; third-place is defined by results if first+second are removed; etc. This construction implies the first part of LIIA (removing the first k places does not affect finishing order of the remaining candidates) by definition, so we only need the second part: removing the last-k candidates (according to this ordering) does not affect the first-place candidate. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 * That's a good point. I think most readers would intuitively think of an order constructed by the method itself, like Plurality's three-candidate ordering being in the order of "Most first preferences, second most, fewest", not "Most first preferences, pairwise winner of the two others, pairwise loser of the two others", and get the wrong impression from the section stating that LIIA is equivalent to IWA. I'll just note it for the social choice construction at the end of IWA. Wotwotwoot (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that's what most people would think; at the same time, "remove and repeat" is probably the most mathematically natural/"correct" way to define the ordering "constructed by the method itself". It's better as a measure of candidate strength (was Le Pen really the 2nd-strongest candidate in 2002?). It's applicable to all systems (What's the "placement order" for River?) and gives a single coherent definition that works for every system, rather than having a different definition for each single-winner system. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very subtle, but important, point: "worst candidate" needs to be defined consistently across systems for IWA to make sense. Otherwise, you can "hack" IWA (make it trivial) by defining the worst-place candidate according to any set of ballots as the one that, when deleted, doesn't affect the result. (Even if that candidate was actually the runner-up.) Defining "worst" like this lets you claim any system independent of at least one candidate satisfies IWA.
 * LIIA works because it asks "What's the worst alternative, according to the system itself?" Elimination order ranks candidates from worst to best according to the base method, not according to the new method. The worst candidate, according to a sequential loser method, is the one who could only win if every candidate ahead of them dropped out. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wotwotwoot Is there some other objective way to consistently define last-place alternative for all systems, besides the last-candidate-to-win construction?
 * If not, I suppose you could define a criterion like "independence of some alternative", which requires that for any possible ballot profile, at least one candidate other than the winner is not a spoiler. (IRV would satisfy that, since the min-first-place-votes candidate can't be a spoiler; FPTP would fail, since the Condorcet loser can win.) –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Most systems are already social welfare functions (social ordering functions) and would be familiar to readers as such. For instance, Plurality generates an order of finish from the winner (with the most first preferences) to the loser (with the least). And Arrow's theorem, to pick a well-known result, explicitly deals with methods that return a social ranking.
 * Treating every method as a social choice function and then leveraging that to create a social welfare function would be confusing, because the social welfare function you end up with differs from the common definition of the method as an SWF.
 * I am not aware of any analogous election criterion mentioned in literature and directly relating to social choice functions. But I'm not aware of any reference to "independence of worst alternatives" either, so perhaps the best way to deal with the confusion is to delete the IWA section and just refer directly to LIIA. Wotwotwoot (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Most systems are already social welfare functions (social ordering functions) and would be familiar to readers as such. For instance, Plurality generates an order of finish from the winner (with the most first preferences) to the loser (with the least). And Arrow's theorem, to pick a well-known result, explicitly deals with methods that return a social ranking.
 * I actually had Arrow's theorem in mind when explaining the social ordering construction. The reason I added it is because of a misunderstanding on an old version of the Arrow theorem page, which tried to claim Arrow's theorem wasn't important (because it only dealt with rankings instead of choosing a winner):
 * In social decision making, to rank all alternatives is not usually a goal. It often suffices to find some alternative. The approach focusing on choosing an alternative investigates either social choice functions (functions that map each preference profile into an alternative) or social choice rules (functions that map each preference profile into a subset of alternatives).
 * The point of this SRF construction is it's much more relevant to a practical electoral context. Under this construction, the SRF ranks candidates from second-strongest (heir apparent) to weakest (could only win if every other candidate was hit by a bus).
 * If we use the obvious SWF as the SRF, Arrow's theorem becomes less obviously relevant to an electoral context. After all, what if the change in irrelevant preferences only affected which candidate came in 2nd or 3rd place? Then there'd be no practical importance to IIA if we were holding an election.
 * The ranking construction makes IIA directly relevant to who wins an election, and questions like "what happens if a candidate drops out"—the common interpretation of Arrow's theorem as describing what can happen when a candidate is added or removed depends on this construction.
 * The reason for the description in terms of "weakest alternatives" is that requiring the order-of-finish to stay the same if we remove the first-place winner feels quite arbitrary. Explaining the weakest-alternative definition sidesteps all that. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 03:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just say something along the lines of "voters may object that the SWF's change may not involve the winner and thus isn't important. However, a standard construction from social choice functions shows that it also affects winners, hence Arrow is robust in the sense that it can affect the relative ranking of anybody". Or find a source that explains why Arrow is important (clearly there must be one, since it is so widely considered to be important). This would then avoid the confusion of having to deal with SWF/SRFs that look the same but aren't, and would avoid IRV proponents saying "but obviously, if you remove the IRV loser then the order doesn't change, clearly this definition is useless". This would limit the scope where the standard construction is needed so it doesn't cause confusion outside of that scope. Wotwotwoot 13:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Wotwotwoot what was wrong with the previous edit—I thought you'd suggested removing the information on Independence of Worst Alternatives?
 * The previous edit tried to make it much more explicit that LIIA was defined according to the candidate-strength ranking. Are there any suggestions you have on improving it?
 * I'm trying to explain the motivation behind LIIA as intuitively as possible. It doesn't really make sense to me why I'd care if removing the top candidate caused someone other than the second-place finisher to win. In many scenarios it's outright desirable: removing Bill Clinton from the election should cause the more-moderate Ross Perot, not Bob Dole, to win.
 * OTOH, preventing very weak candidates from spoiling the election (i.e. candidates without any hope of winning) seems very intuitive. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 01:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Citations are from untechnical sources and do not support content
I plan to add an issue tag to this page denoting such in 2 days. I attempted to remove one of the offending statements but again am stymied by the editing bureaucracy here. Affinepplan (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 * considering the multitude of citations from nontechnical sources and the lack of rebuttal, I've added the tag. please do NOT remove it without consulting this talk thread. Affinepplan (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The material you removed is well-cited, including multiple citations to academic and technical sources.
 * Given your editing history, I would strongly suggest not starting another edit war on the exact same subject, or there's a pretty good chance you'll get a topic ban. I'd suggest that, if you're WP:HERE to help us build an encyclopedia, it would be a good idea to try and work on improving articles in different fields. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Center for Election Science is an advocacy agency with a political agenda and should not be used as a reference for technical claims
 * William Poundstone is a columnist, NOT a researcher or a scholar and should not be used as a reference for technical claims
 * I am trying to help improve Wikipedia's reliability for articles on this topic. I really wish you would stop sabotaging my effort.
 * Please tell me, what are your credentials to have such an iron fist over these pages? Do you hold any degrees, or have any published research, or any professional experience in the field? Affinepplan (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim you attempted to remove has two separate citations to scholarly journals, one to a well-researched popular science book, and one (you allege) biased source.
 * If you think one or two of the citations are not reliable, you can remove them. That said, you can't look at a sentence and say "this claim has two mediocre citations and two strong ones, therefore it does not have strong citations and can be deleted." That's not how Wikipedia, or logic, works at all; this isn't a court or bureaucracy where you can get a well-cited claim thrown out on a technicality because you happened to find a problem in one of four separate citations. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spoiler effect