text:
Talk:Jesus/Archive 5

Unprotection?
Can I get Lir, Adam Carr, and ChrisG to agree that this page can now be unprotected? If so, then I will do it. -- Toby Bartels 18:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I certainly feel like the issues have been addressed; but then, Im sure Mr. Carr would disagree. I still feel that the article should begin, somewhat, like so:
 * Jesus Christ (or Jesus of Nazareth, see alternate names below) (c. 4 BC - c. 30) was, according to the Christian religion, the Messiah and Son of God; who brought salvation to humanity, through his crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus is recognized by several other religions; for instance, many Muslims consider him to have been an ascetic prophet, and many Hindus view Jesus as a guru.
 * The primary source of historical knowledge, about Jesus, is contained within the Gospels, which Christians view as the divinely inspired writings of God. Most secular historians accept that the Gospels are sufficient evidence that Jesus existed; but, do not agree that the details, or particulars of his life and death, are accurately expressed by the Gospels.
 * Lirath Q. Pynnor

Given the comments on User talk:Adam Carr, I will not ask on his talk page, but will assume that he's OK with unprotection. -- Toby Bartels 19:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And given the above, I unprotected the page. As far as I can tell, the current opening conforms pretty closely to Lir's proposal -- which I basically like (although I have made a couple of changes which I hope people will find innocuous) Slrubenstein

I was going to wait for Chris to reply; but since SLR has acted, I'm going off-line now. -- Toby Bartels 20:14, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ascetic
There is some biblical evidence that John the Baptist was as ascetic. He ate locusts and wild honey in the wilderness (Matthew 3:1-6, Mark 1:6)

But people at the time contrasted Jesus with John, saying that Jesus "ate and drank".

 * “John [the Baptist] came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He has a demon’; I come eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet,” says Jesus, referring to this morning’s passage from Proverbs, “Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds”[Matthew 11:18-19].

--Uncle Ed 20:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stephen, removal of the material posted does not imply any opinion of its quality as a presentation of the case for the uniqueness of Christ; rather, it is not appropriate content for the encyclopedia. I hope that the action is understandable in that light. Mkmcconn 22:38, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

the "problem of Jesus"
This is not on the ascetic issue.

I think the second section, the Problem of Jesus, is fundamentally mistaken. There are not two kinds of knowledge, only one with more or less evidence supporting it. Because of the obscurity of the life of Jesus, an obscurity which he himself sought and cherished,evidence of his life has come to us in scanty form.

The Gospels are written records of people's memories, who themselves saw   him at first hand, and there are other writings which  are less clearly defined in their origin. This evidence is sufficient for non-secular historians, and most Christians. The article should therefore not misrepresent the status of people's faith as being mystical and unevidenced, when it clearly is evidence based. TonyClarke 23:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Gospel accounts
What makes you believe that the authors of the Gospels presented first-hand accounts of Jesus? The texts do not reference the time or place of their authorship and the authors themselves remain anonymous. The authorship attributed to them is according to later tradition (formed as early as the 2nd century). And even that tradition does not accept that all four Evangelists met Jesus.

 * Both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation are traditionaly attributed to John the Evangelist. He is occasionaly believed to be John the Apostle, a cousin of Jesus that supposedly took care of Mary, the mother of Jesus after her son's death. There are certain problems if this attribution is accepted. Among them, the age John would have reached. The later book is believed to have been written in 96, the last year of Domitian's reign. By that time John would probably have reached a century of life and have survived most of his generation. If that is accepted then this Gospel can be accepted as a first-hand source.
 * The Gospel of Matthew is traditionaly attributed to Matthew the Evangelist. He is believed to be the same as Matthew, the tax-collector who became a disciple of Jesus. If attribution was accepted it would make it a first-hand account.
 * The Gospel of Mark is traditionaly attributed to Mark the Evangelist. He is believed to be the same as a young traveling companion to Paul of Tarsus and Barnabas in the Acts of the Apostles. According to Papias, Mark's source was Saint Peter. If attribution and source are accepted, this Gospel would be a second-hand account at best.
 * Both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are traditionaly attributed to Luke the Evangelist, a follower of Paul of Tarsus from the later book. His sources are not given by tradition. Luke is traditionaly believed to have been born in Antioch. Since neither Luke nor Paul ever met Jesus it is at best a third-hand account.

As you can see at best two of them are first-hand accounrs. And even them are harly considered to be contemporarie sources. They are believed to have been written decades after Jesus crucifiction. Personaly I believe he was a historical figure since both the Talmud and the Roman polemic writers do not doubt his existance but his morality. I think the second section is fine enough in presenting Jesus as a historical subject. I would however suggest expanding the fourth section and give a better presentation of the Gospels' accounts on our subject. As it is now they miss many of the interesting details contained in them. User:Dimadick.

Hi, I didn't actually say that the authors met Jesus. Its a bit more tenuous than that. The Gospels were written at a time when peopel who knew Jesus, or knew people who had known him, were beginning to die out. Considering that this was an occupied country and Jesus wasa poor wandering teacher, and that the country was ravaged by   war shortly after his death, I think it is objectively remarkable that there is the range of largely consistent writing which has reached us today about his life.

TonyClarke

Magic vs miracle
LIr: thank your for responding, and for not undoing my reversion. The fact that secular historians do not belive in a magic god is not genuine information, it is a tautolgy, true by  definition. If they did believe they would not be secular, if they are secular then they do not believe.

I am not trying to score points here, but we are all in the same boat and there is not _different _ evidence for Jesus, just more patchy and oral. But there _is_ evidence, accepted by  a lot of people. TonyClarke 01:13, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the comment about secular historians and Jesus being a "magic" god has to do with anything. Christians do not believe in magic either. Magic is capricious. Miracle is purposeful. They are worlds apart.Pollinator 03:28, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From the article:
 * Dies [ April 3rd, 3:00pm ]

Even for a list of options, this seems rather over-precise. Is this from some sect's articles of faith, or is this someone's idea of a joke? -- 217.158.229.99 16:11, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Frankly this whole table is screwy. It doesn't accurately present what is believed. For example, Jesus' death date may be somewhere between AD 30 and AD 36, but as far as I know there is no reason why it should be AD33 rather than AD34, which isn't listed. Likewise it is generally thought that Jesus' ministry lasted around 3 yrs, and so the start of it would shift according to when you placed his death date. As far as I know the other events of Jesus ministry can be dated only by reference to his death date. Unless anyone knows better. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

An example of why there are problems with this article. The 'life and teachings' section says that he learned carpentry, a fact for which there is not the tiniest shred of documentary evidence whatsoever, but then says that 'The nature of Jesus' spiritual teaching cannot be agreed', although Jesus' teachings and death are about the best documented parts of his life. DJ Clayworth 17:01, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I've just deleted it now that you have pointed it out. It was in the old text before I started fleshing it out with I hope uncontroversial points about his teaching, iether agreed at least three of the gospels and not contradicted. One can say stuff about Jesus' ethical teachings without being controversial; which I will do at some point, but we can't talk about spiritual ideas without getting into Son of God debates.: ChrisG 18:14, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry Chris. One of the other troubles with Wikipedia is that you are always catching snapshots. Howver can't help but observe that we shouldn't be getting into debates, we should just record what is observed. It shouldn't be controversial that hundreds of millions of Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Healer
I made two changes to the opening paragraph: first, I added "healer." I think most Christians view Jesus' work as a healer as pretty important to his work. I know that many historians consider it important, as the role of healer in Judea under Roman domination was well-established and for some historians important in making sense out of what Jesus actually did. I would have no objection if someone wanted to modify this term as "spiritual" or "faith" healer, although this may be an anachronistic distinction. I did delete the adjective "religious" modifying "teacher" because I do think it is anachronistic and out of place -- his teachings are also civil/social (indeed, even today many Jews hesitate to call Judaism a "religion"). In fact, one could argue for adding "social reformer" (or putative, or attempted, or something) to this indroductory characterization, as I think both religious Christians and secular historians would agree with this reading of his vocation. Slrubenstein

what do you mean by healer? Was he a doctor? Lirath Q. Pynnor

The term doctor doesn't work. It projects the concept of a modern physician back to Jesus' time. Healer is better, even if more ambiguous. There are many references to healing people.

Who did Jesus heal, and how? I don't think its very NPOV to define him as a "healer" without even defining what a "healer" is. Lirath Q. Pynnor

 * People reportedly came to him blind, deaf, lame, and leprous, and he sent them away free of these handicaps, according to accounts. What is that?  I'd call it a "healer".  Mkmcconn 00:28, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV requires defining "healer," we can assume most readers have access to a dictionary. Since both Christians and secular scholars identify him as a healer, I think that is sufficient grounds for including "healer" as NPOV. Nevertheless, Lir is right that the term shouold be explained and developed; I am certain that there is space later in the article for a section on Jesus as healer, with some of the examples that Mkmcconn suggests, as well as some context drawn from secular/critical histories of Roman-dominated Judea, Slrubenstein

 * Slrubenstein, I've restored 'religious teacher'. I agree that there is an ethical and social reform element to his teachings. However, the concept of God and creating the Kingdom of Heaven were central to his teachings, whatever he meant by those concepts. If Jesus wasn't a religious teacher then neither was Mohammed or anyone else for that matter. He is also the inspiration for a religion of 2 billion followers, and is considered a prophet by another billion. I agree it is important to describe as a healer in exactly the same spirit you describe. : ChrisG 10:01, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Carpenter
Re: Jesus as Carpenter, see Mark 6:2-3:

 * And when the sabath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon?  and are not his sisters here with us?  And they were offended at him.

john 00:11, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * John, the idea that Jesus was a carpenter is only from one of the Gospels, and is only suitable for the Christian account of Jesus, which is happy to amalgamate all non-contradictory Christian accounts.
 * We haven't established any agreed standards for this page for the historical account. But at minimum I would imagine the information ought to be shared by at least three of the Four Gospels and doesn't breach scientific laws and common sense.
 * Even then it would be nice if we had corroboration from historical or 'heretical' Christian or non-Christian writings. And I'm sure that some people would argue that should be our minimum standards and I'm not sure I disagree. For instance, I'm unsure whether the story of Jesus being executed at the behest of Jewish religious leaders and indeed handed over to the Roman authorities should be allowed on the basis it is fairly clear that there was prejudice in the early Church against Jews. So this information may have been added at a later date. On the other hand it could be true, because it suggests Jesus' teaching was not infallible because one of his closest disciples betrayed him. It can be read either way. : ChrisG 09:05, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, I largely agree with you, I was just pointing out that Jesus-as-carpenter wasn't wholly made up. As far as the gospels, I think we should just say, "according to the gospels," or "according to the gospel of Luke," or whatever, and leave it at that, without trying to judge the trustworthiness of the biblical stories. john 04:46, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This paragraph was moved to a section on "Jewish Perspectives on Jesus:"
 * Christianity as we have come to know it emerged from Judaism in the first century of the Common Era. The first Christians were Jews, and likely subscribed to Jewish beliefs and practices common at the time. Among these was a belief that a messiah—a descendant of King David—would restore the monarchy and Jewish independence.

I object to the move or two reasons. first, the above is not about Jewish views about Jesus; it is about Jewish views during the 1st century about "the messiah." Second, it is not a strictly Jewish view: it is the view of (secular/critical) historians of Jewish views of the messiah during the 1st century. It is a view held by Jews before Jesus was even born; it is a view people held while Jesus was growing up -- in short, it provides importanthistorical context. I agree that the sentence that follows is appropriate to the section on "Jewish Perspectives on Jesus," but the above passage does not. I am pretty sure most if not all Christians would agree with the first two sentences, and I am virtually certain that all historians would agree with all three sentences. Slrubenstein

 * I agree with Slr. RK

I reverted the insert, which labeled historians as "secular" and as "rationalists". That's unjustifiable; we have hundreds of entries mentioning the views of historians, scientists, etc. Should we include these scare quotes before all of their uses? Also, take note that in much of the very religious Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities, these words are often used as insults, and are very often used to delegitimize the views of those who are not true believers. I think that most English speaking readers are well aware that historians (and scientists) are not purveyors of religious dogma, and that their disciplines depend on critical, rationalist readings of historical texts (or experiments), and that they do not rely on mysticism or any other putative supernatural source of information. RK 00:28, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

 * I've largely reverted RK's changes, because after those edits the introduction becomes merely a debate between Christians and historians; when Muslims, Jews, Mandeans, and Bahai have their own beliefs and scripture. It is not a two sided 'battle', Jesus has many faces which needs to be acknowledged

Preface
Excellent intro paragraph. I'd quibble with 'faith healer', but it's minor. I wish there was a way we could lock down the intro paragraph and get on with editing the rest now. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * DJ, lets be clear here. Do you mean the preface, i.e. what is before the table of contents or the section entitled Introduction which I largely reverted? I'm not sure whether there is a confusion. Your reference to Faith Healer suggests you are referring to the first. In which case add a line break. Thanks. :ChrisG 14:41, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I mean the whole preface, i.e. down to the 'Introduction' header. DJ Clayworth 14:51, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PREFACE SHOULD NOW BE LEFT ALONE, ADD YOUR NAME HERE:

IF NOT:
 * ChrisG 15:52, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC) (I like the current preface. But I think the fact it is a strong, uncontroversial preface means that people will not feel the need to amend it, unless they can think of an improvement. I feel we should have faith in Wiki wisdom. It is worthwhile people saying they like it, because that will discourage anyone from making thoughtless changes, but there is no need to protect it as such. I think this article is now a very good article on Jesus, and hopefully in the next few weeks we can turn it into a brilliant piece of prose.

 * Hi Chris. On your second point, I see the improvement. On the first: the reason I wanted some opinions on the Preface was that I'm sure (unfortunately) that someone will come along in a few months and change the opening preface to say 'The gospels are utterly unreliable as historical documents and everybody knows Jesus never existed'. (or possibly they will say exactly the opposite). I wanted to establish a little consensus that the current form was a good one. Maybe I'm too pessimistic. Let's see what happens. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Birth?
I removed this from the article:
 * Evidence points to Jesus being born during the Passover season during and dying just a few days short of his 34th birthday.

I have no objection to returning it to the article -- as long as the "evidence" is provided/specified. Slrubenstein

 * Here's just 2 link [but I don't know how much wieght to put into them; they are just from a quick search]
 * http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/3021/ascension2.html
 * http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm
 * mabey more diggin' would help ...
 * reddi

The first link concludes by saying that Jesus may have died between 30 and 36, which is alreadyin the article; the second link provides what is explicitly a "best guess" (which in any event happens not to be during the Passover season!) This is speculation, not "evidence." Inany event, my main point is that no enclyclopedia article should have such an uninformative sencence as "Evidence points to ..." It has to review the evidence and discuss which scholars have debated over how to interpret it, and what are the different arguments for differrent interpretations. Slrubenstein

Jesus Married
Is it really appropriate to include admitted "speculations" about Jesus being married, here? So some "scholars" apparently think this: is that relevant? Other "scholars" think that Jesus was a "magic mushroom" drug guru: that doesn't belong in this article either. Mkmcconn 03:26, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jesus/Archive 5


text:
Lakehurst

There are a number of places named Lakehurst:
 * Lakehurst, New Jersey
 * Lakehurst High School, a fictional school in Degrassi: The Next Generation
 * Lakehurst Mall, a defunct shopping complex in Waukegan, Illinois
 * Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, the location of the Hindenburg Disaster

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

title: Lakehurst


text:
User:COGDEN

I have been editing since November 6, 2003, and was an administrator from 2004 to 2022. My edits are mostly in the religion space, but I've also made contributions to areas of law, politics, and science. I have also made important early contributions, and continued development, to citation templates. See my edit summary here.

title: User:COGDEN


text:
Talk:David Miller (Canadian politician)

Waste of Bandwidth
My God, this article is about twice as long as the Wikipedia biography of Steve Jobs, and around the same length as the article for Winston bloody Churchill. Did the City of Toronto pay for this, or is it simply a labour of love on the part of someone with Asperger's Syndrome, a strange obsession with political mediocrities and a lot of time on his or her hands? If the latter, can I suggest that you move on to beefing up the profile of another equally prominent Canadian, such as Casey LeBlanc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.7.213 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Should be shortened, and de-fluffed. it fails to mention any of the contentious issues or criticisms of Miller. This obviously was crafted with heavy bias. Perhaps Miller wrote it himself?

Agreed This article definitely needs to be shortened. --Drewwerd12 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Garbage policy
The section on Environmental policy is dominated by the discussion on garbage. I would like to suggest that the text regarding garbage be placed in its own section. The remaining section could be expanded to include Miller's support for other environmental initiatives such as the 20 minute makeover, Trees Across Toronto, Roundtable for a Beautiful City, Wet Weather Flow improvements to name a few. Any comments? Atrian 01:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I might it might be better to have garbage disposal as a sub-section of the environmental policy section. (I'm currently expanding the page with reference to Miller's newspaper references, btw, and I'd have no problem if someone wants to supplement this with city press releases.) CJCurrie 01:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Useless
Why isn't there a heading on the article that he was the most useless mayor Toronto has ever had?

Toronto has become dirtier, scummier and bummier since he has taken power.

Maybe his legacy of empowering homelessness and the drifting tumbleweeds of trash swirling around Queen Street should be referenced?

 * Because that would be POV ("drifting tumbleweeds of trash swirling around Queen Street", my ass), and for what it's worth, while I know very few people would assert that Miller's been the most effective mayor in recent memory, I really doubt that very many people would state that he's been a worse mayor than Mel Lastman was, either. Bearcat 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm not so sure about that. Lastman would get 80% plus apporval ratings and Miller has a hard time getting past 55%. Plus, Lastman did not make the city finances out of control like Miller has, and you can't deny that. SFrank85 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * People whining about Miller as the worst mayor should read more history. Leslie Howard Saunders in the 1950s was a worse case scenario as you can imagine. Bigoted and racist were kind terms to apply to him. Miller by contrast is a saint. Atrian 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I did not state he was the worst mayor, I just was saying that between the two, he is worse than Lastman. SFrank85 00:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 * All one needs to do is to look at the amount of aggressive panhandlers, return of squeegee kids and the amount of trash in the streets to see how effective Miller has been compared to Lastman. Mel may have been a tool, but I wasn't embarassed to bring people into the downtown core during his tenure. Get rid of Miller, he's too hung up trying to shut down the island airport to pay attention to the city's real problems. Barbara Hall was even better than Miller.

 * Reverted - Once again CJCurrie is trying to erase all negative comments about Miller by editing the TALK PAGE. Editing the article is one thing, but now you wish to erase one's OPINIONS? You are a disgrace to everything that Wikipedia stands for, sir.

 * I hafta agree with Mr. Anonymous there...CJCurrie, I can see that you have put a lot of work into Wikipedia and it's commendable, but I do think you have gravely crossed a line by censoring this article's Talk Page. Wikipedia is about presenting facts... true enough -- I defend your edits on the main page. Keeping an open-source resource such as this true and proper is indeed a challenge!! Your actions on the talk pg, however, are wrong. You obviously are a fan of Mr. Miller - that is fine, but your editorial duties don't extend to removing negative opinions and comments on this page. I think you should sit back and consider your actions. While Mr. Anon's got a flair for the dramatic and obviously got a chip on his shoulder, you don't have the right to obliterate all trace of his comments. It reeks of censorship and bias. The talk pages are just that, discussion related to the article. Please think before you act in the future, sir..... Wikipedia is in our hands! --Heterodyne 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I didn't censor the page. Users are not supposed to use these pages for partisan comments -- the anon's posts were made in violation of Wikipedia regulations, and I removed them in accordance with Wikipedia policy.  CJCurrie 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Your past actions on this page don't jive with what you are saying, CJCurrie. --206.223.177.111 12:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that this article (David Miller's Wikipedia entry) seems to be very self-serving, considering the fact that Miller is running for Mayor this November 13th election. Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein, George Washington and Pierre Trudeau, all of whom I think most would agree had a greater impact on our lives, have smaller listings in the Wikipedia. Maybe we should not allow those running for public office to use this site for their own political gain. If allowed, guess I could put my own vanity page on as well, under the rules followed for Mayor Miller...User:lanceoak

 * Feel free to expand the Jesus, Einstein, Washington and Trudeau pages, if you want. CJCurrie 00:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 * This isn't necessarily as it should be, but you'll generally find that on Wikipedia, current figures and topics tend to attract far more detail and effort than historical ones, partly because less work is required to research them. For a historical figure, you may have to go to the library and sign out biographies and history books; for a current one, much of the time you need only monitor the Toronto Star webpage. Wikipedia does not have any rules about the appropriate length of an article, however — "this topic is less important than this other one that has a shorter article" is a reason to put some work into expanding the other articles, not a reason to remove the work people have already put in here. Bearcat 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is first-rate work
This is an amazingly comprehensive article, better than many Wikipedia articles on premiers, prime ministers, and even presidents. Kudos all around to those who have worked on this page. Tyronen 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is. But my question is why?  Why does a civic mayor merit an article of such length? Scientz 14:11, 18 November 2006 (EDT)

 * Any topic on Wikipedia is permitted whatever length of article it takes to cover the topic properly. There are no length limitations on Wikipedia. If you think other more important topics are shrifted by being shorter than this, then feel free to expand those other articles. Bearcat 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. This article is longer than articles for presidents and prime ministers. David Miller is a tool - who cares about him? Did he write most of this himself?--140.247.125.108 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind a piece on Miller as a mayor of Toronto but I found this piece somewhat self-serving before an election. My question is, who did this piece and were they paid somehow by Miller to produce this somewhat long vanity page for the purposes of increasing his exposure for an election? Yes, I could increase information on those other pages I listed but I think they inform one of the person's importance within an easily read piece. Miller, I get bored reading about how great he is. I'm not running for mayor, nor supporting someone but, if we can all put vanity pieces like this in, I guess I should get writing and develop my own.

This is a fluff piece and hardly accurate. Where is the discussion and controversy surrounding the G20 illegal arrests, and Miller's subsequent support of the rights violations by police? Hmmm... interesting!

Miller's blog
I trust this is real, and not an elaborate hoax. CJCurrie 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Too long?
It probably won't come as a surprise that I disagree with this notice. CJCurrie 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * This article has become way too long. Some categories need to be combined, and other things just have become irrelevant as of late. SFrank85 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think the article is too long in principle, but I'm open to suggestions for improvement. CJCurrie 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * This article is approximately 120 kilobytes large. I suggest that the article should be split with Miller's role as city councillor on one article and his role as mayor in another article, while the main article contains his non-political biography and a summary of his political biography. Johnny Au (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I had created a new sub-article called David Miller's role as mayor to alleviate the length issue. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that you took this step with good intentions, but I don't think it's the right solution. I still believe the best solution is to carefully edit the text where and as required -- not to take out huge chunks from the text.  CJCurrie (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I love how this article is much longer than the one for George Bush. Certainly there's more to say about the US President than the Mayor of Toronto, especially since Bush has effed over the entire world, while Miller may have screwed just Spadina Street.

 * Nowhere in Wikipedia policy is there any clause indicating that the length of any article is to be compared to George W. Bush's article as a metric for determining a recommended length. Each article stands on its own, and can be as long or as short as interested editors want it to be. And seriously, David Miller is screwing Toronto worse than Mel Lastman ever did? News to me. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move. I'll move to David Miller (mayor of Toronto) since that's where it originated and that requires +sysop. If anyone wants to continue discussion for a move to David Miller (mayor), that move isn't blocked so feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
David Miller → NewName — Move somewhere else. Undo a bad move by User:Rosameliamartinez. This should not be the primary disambiguation. If there were only two of them, maybe he would deserve primary head-to-head against any of the others, but he does not deserve the primary spot versus at least 13 other David Millers with Wikipedia articles, plus others mentioned which do not yet have articles. Any of the former names of this article which are now redirects would be better: David Miller (mayor of Toronto) or David Miller (Canadian politician) [was badly capitalized with lc "c" before] or David R. Miller. Also, many of the current links to the David Miller article should be linked either to someone else or the disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * David Miller (disambiguation) → David Miller

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support Mea Culpa...lol...I moved this page as a newbie ages ago, it was a clumsy mistake. I fully support the disambiguation page to become the primary page for this article as none of the David Millers are obviously more remarkable than the others, least of all the mayor of Toronto, who isn't known outside of Canada (as opposed to for example David Miller (singer) who is a multi-platinum selling artist of worldwide acclaim). David Miller, the politician should become David Miller (mayor of Toronto) or David Miller (Canadian politician).Rosa 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as nominator and suggest move to David Miller (mayor of Toronto) so we have something to fall back to unless somebody has a better idea. It might not have been my choice if it hadn't been used before so the redirect already exists, but I think it is as good as any of them.  Gene Nygaard 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. There are no other mayors listed on the dab page.  Seems like David Miller (mayor) then is the most appropriate choice, as it distinguishes him effectively from all the other David Millers.  --Serge 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

Having "David Miller" as the disambiguation page will make it easier to maintain misdirected links. As it is now, the Canadian mayor's article has a large number of links which do belong to it, but also a significant number of links which do not belong there, and it is very tedious and time-consuming to find them. OTOH, it is easy to find inappropriate links to a disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Toronto Life
I don't think tacking on "left-leaning" to Toronto Life or "right-leaning" to National Post is appropriate or necessary. As a subscriber to TL, I don't find particularly leftish, but more importantly, it is not appropriate to jaundice the reader's perspective on a source unless it is totally wacko, like the Communist Party organ (in which case, it would be enough to describe it as such, rather than "the crazy extreme leftist People's Daily). Ground Zero | t 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Toronto Star may also not come across as particularly leftish if you compare it to the People's Daily. CJCurrie has described it as left-leaning in his original wording and I support that. And this is of particular importance in an endorsement, such as in Mike_Del_Grande, unless the endorser is a generally-accepted centrist source. If Miller got both the endorsement both the Star and Sun, then maybe the tacking on wouldn't matter as much. GoldDragon 01:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon writes: CJCurrie has described it as left-leaning in his original wording and I support that. Wrong again. CJCurrie 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree that TL is left-leaning. This is POV, unless you can provide a definitive source. Ground Zero | t 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

For CJCurrie, thanks for pointing out that SFrank85 also considers TL left-leaning. And CJCurrie did not challenge that until recently. Would we be in a deadlock situation? GoldDragon 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So congratulations, you and SFrank are of the opinion that TL is left-leaning. Can you explain why your opinion about TL is a necessary qualifier here? And can you explain why it is appropriate to set aside Wikipedia policies on neutrality here? There is no deadlock if you can provide a definitive source on this. Otherwise, your opinion doesn't belong, even if another editor shares that opinion. Ground Zero | t 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have the opinion that TL is not left-leaning, and if CJCurrie shares that view, of course we have a deadlock. Second, how does it violate neutrality, as everyone always mentions the left-leaning NOW or right-leaning National Post?

Would Miller get such a high rating from other publications that are more centrist or right-leaning? And just mentioning the TL rating Miller would mislead the reader into believing that it is representative of the spectrum's view of him, unless we could also find other ratings from other publications. GoldDragon 22:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, here's a Toronto Star clip from 28 October 2000:

''Yes, the teacher hands out "A" grades as if they were solid gold. They are. So are the four - Olivia Chow, Jack Layton, Case Ootes and David Miller - who earned top marks''.

The original source document is an overview of the amalgamated council after its first term. The author, if you can believe this, was Royson James. CJCurrie 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, so we will say that Royson James gave a grade... GoldDragon 16:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Well, if you have the opinion that TL is not left-leaning, and if CJCurrie shares that view, of course we have a deadlock." Right. So it would be POV to write "The non-left-leaning Toronto Life" or the "right-leaning Toronto Life", or "the middle-of-the-road Toronto Life", or the "left-leaning Toronto Life". So the only NPOV thing to do is to call it just "Toronto Life". Unless, of course, you can provide a source that identifies TL as "left-leaning (third request), and I think the only source that would be credible here would be a statement by the magazine or its editor-in-chief self-identifying the magazine as left-leaning. Since you have not prvided one yet, I'll add a "fact" tag to the statement. Ground Zero | t 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that it doesn't appear in the current version. So let's not add in "left-leaning" until it is verifiable. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lastman paragraph
Gold Dragon's preferred version:

 * Mayor Mel Lastman and Miller were generally said to have an adversarial relationship. This was exemplified during a May 2002 debate when Lastman yelled at Miller, "You will never be mayor of this city because you say stupid and dumb things!" Miller afterwards remarked that the exchange was what encouraged him to run for mayor. Despite being council opponents, Lastman attended the funeral for Miller's mother and lent his shoulder for Miller to cry upon. refJohn Barber, "Mel's funny, but Miller has last laugh", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; James Rusk, "Lastman loses council battle", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; Bruce DeMara, "Lastman attack falls flat", Toronto Star, 23 May 2002, B03; Linda Diebel, "Miller: A candidate 'clear on who he is'", 11 October 2003, A01./ref

CJCurrie's preferred version:
 * In May 2002, Mayor Lastman criticized Miller for using the word "corruption" during a debate about the city's appointments process. Deputy Mayor Case Ootes censured Miller for his choice of words, but the council voted 27-16 to overturn this decision. At one stage in the debate, Lastman yelled at Miller, "You will never be mayor of this city because you say stupid and dumb things!" Lastman's comment was widely ridiculed, particularly in light of his own penchant for embarrassing comments. Several political observers believe that the exchange increased Miller's profile in the buildup to the 2003 campaign.refJohn Barber, "Mel's funny, but Miller has last laugh", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; James Rusk, "Lastman loses council battle", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; Bruce DeMara, "Lastman attack falls flat", Toronto Star, 23 May 2002, B03; Linda Diebel, "Miller: A candidate 'clear on who he is'", 11 October 2003, A01./ref

I think that we should look at how much detail is appropriate here. I think that GD's version provides an overview of the relationship between the two, while CJC's version gets mired in detail that, while interesting at the time, doesn't shed much light on the relationship, and covers a relatively minor episode (the use of "corruption"). I'd opt for GD's version. Ground Zero | t 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that the debate over the word "corruption" was a minor episode, and will not object to its removal. (There are a number of other minor episodes that should be cut from this page as well; I'll have to do a comprehensive update shortly.)

As against which, I still find GoldDragon's reference to the funeral of Miller's mother to be somewhat problematic in this context. It's hardly unusual for political opponents to be civil, even accommodating to one another during memorial ceremonies: one thinks of the recent cross-party demonstrations of grief over the death of Dominic Agostino in 2004, or for Shaughnessy Cohen a few years earlier. While I don't doubt that Lastman's gesture toward Miller was heartfelt and sincere, I'm not certain it sheds any light on their interpersonal relationship, and it seems a bit too close to "junk news" for comfort.

A couple of other minor gripes: (i) Miller's plans to run for mayor were already well known before Lastman's outburst, (ii) Lastman's remark was widely ridiculed at the time, for the obvious reasons.

Could I suggest this revised version:

 * Mayor Mel Lastman and Miller generally had an adversarial relationship on council. This was exemplified during a May 2002 debate when Lastman yelled at Miller, "You will never be mayor of this city because you say stupid and dumb things!" Lastman's remark was widely ridiculed in light of his own history of gaffes, and many believe the exchange increased Miller's profile in the buildup to the 2003 campaign. refJohn Barber, "Mel's funny, but Miller has last laugh", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; James Rusk, "Lastman loses council battle", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; Bruce DeMara, "Lastman attack falls flat", Toronto Star, 23 May 2002, B03; Linda Diebel, "Miller: A candidate 'clear on who he is'", 11 October 2003, A01./ref

CJCurrie 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Lastman's outburst was ridiculed, but there is no need to rub it in as it speaks for itself. That is why I feel that this is excessive and not adding any useful information: Lastman's remark was widely ridiculed in light of his own history of gaffes. Second, Miller's support was in single digits and far below Hall and Nunziata in early 2003, so its not certain if it really raised his profile. GoldDragon 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree on the first count: I don't believe it's "excessive" to clarify that Lastman has a history of making gaffes (which is hardly a disputable point). You may have a point on the second concern, though -- I'll suggest another adjustment presently.  CJCurrie 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Would you also say that it is not "excessive" to say that Howard Moscoe had a history of making gaffes? Also, given Lastman's history of controversial statements, this would not come as a surprise. Thus there is no need to clarify this. GoldDragon 16:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bombardier v. Siemens
If Siemens' contention that it could have provided the cars for $100m less is here, then Bombardier's challenge to that claim should be here as well. From what I understand, there wasn't much substance to Siemens' claim. Ground Zero | t 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this was a topic of dispute in Howard Moscoe and Rick Ducharme. If we included the Bombardier challenge, we could also include Bombardier's lobbying efforts with Adam Giambrone, Moscoe and Miller's links to Bombardier's union, etc... In general, I feel that it is not NPOV to only dispute Siemen's claim. GoldDragon 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... no. Siemens made a claim. Bombardier disputed it. That presents both sides of the story. Saying only that Siemens made a claim presents one side of the story. The Bombardier lobbying is a separate issue. Ground Zero | t 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The current dispute
Could I please request that someone comment on these matters? CJCurrie 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And as long as I have everyone's attention, could I once again request that the following paragraph be added to the article, concerning Miller's relationship with Lastman?

 * "Mayor Mel Lastman and Miller generally had an adversarial relationship on council. During a May 2002 debate, Lastman yelled at Miller, "You will never be mayor of this city because you say stupid and dumb things!" Lastman's remark was widely ridiculed in light of his own history of gaffes, and many believe the exchange increased Miller's profile in the buildup to the 2003 campaign. refJohn Barber, "Mel's funny, but Miller has last laugh", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; James Rusk, "Lastman loses council battle", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; Bruce DeMara, "Lastman attack falls flat", Toronto Star, 23 May 2002, B03; Linda Diebel, "Miller: A candidate 'clear on who he is'", 11 October 2003, A01./ref

CJCurrie 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an old dispute that GroundZero settled, ruling against CJCurrie. I also would ask, is it okay to describe Howard Moscoe in similar terms to how CJCurrie is trying to describe Lastman? I expect a no and so I don't understand why CJCurrie would insist on treating them differently, unless he is POV pushing. GoldDragon 16:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond shortly. CJCurrie 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon's latest edit
It might be worth noting that the Sun's editor didn't apologize for "Miller as Hitler" cartoon. CJCurrie 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone at the Sun did apologize to Miller. GoldDragon 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GA?
I see that there are intentions of trying to make this article a future FA. Although Did anyone considered nominating this article for at least GA-class? There are probably a few one sentence paragraphs that can be moved into another and maybe some wikifying in some spots and may be a bit too long but otherwise looks neutral, well written and it's not the reliable sources that are missing. Any thoughts about upgrading the class of this article? JForget 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also it seems to be often occasionally updated (i.e : The recent massive budget shortfall possible for this year), so it looks pretty up to date.-- JForget 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Exclude columnists as reliable sources from this article
I find that columnists such as John Barber of the Globe and Mail and Royson James of the Toronto Star have certain opinions that bias their columns to suit a particular point of view. Using them as sources for articles tends to skew the article towards their own personal viewpoint. This makes them unreliable as sources for articles on people such as David Miller who easily polarize opinions. I suggest they be excluded as appropriate sources. Comments? Atrian (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Royson James about casting a protest vote stands out in particular, so that and another lead-up paragraph were removed.

However, regarding this section: Miller later described Harper's 2007 budget as a "step backwards", criticizing its lack of revenues for long-term transit funding and permanent infrastructure.[203] Globe and Mail columnist John Barber, however, has noted that this was not echoed by other city mayors and described the One Cent Campaign as "wishful thinking". A second opposing POV is needed because the first assertion says that Miller is right and Harper is wrong. GoldDragon (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for a shorter article
The recent attempt to shorten this article proved to be a failure as some people couldn't agree on what form the daughter article should take. Even the title, David Miller's role as mayor prompted a dispute over neutrality. My suggestion would be that one or more articles could be created based on the evolution of Toronto's post amalgamation government and structure. This content could include much of what makes up the discussion on policy issues that are included in the Miller article but could be expanded to include what happened during the Lastman days as well. While these issues are heavily influenced by Miller, I don't think they are specifically related to him, ie. they go well beyond what is traditionally included in biographical articles. Is this material better suited to a discussion on Miller as mayor or on Toronto as a city? EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unable to come up with a more neutral name for the daughter article than "David Miller's role as mayor" at the time. Since he is no longer mayor, how about trimming up the main article and the details can be found in the new daughter article "Mayoralty of David Miller" or something similar.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

David Miller was so insignificant to Toronto that there shouldn't be a daughter article and this article should be cut way down. This article looks about 6 times as long as Mel Lastman (which is preposterous) and 3 times as long as Rob Ford (even more preposterous). Whomever is controlling/promoting this page appears to have an pro-Miller objective and agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickGSB (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Just checked. This article is longer than the article for Jesus. I think that says it all Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickGSB (talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

2008 Toronto Explosions Aftermath
Who keeps deleting the material about the 2008 Toronot explosions and how Mayor Miller was absent in the aftermath of the explosions??? Just because it looks bad on Mayor Miller, it CANNOT be erased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It looks bad on Wikipedia to have unsourced POV diatribes about a single incident on what purports to be a biography. If you can find reliable sources to say that rather than your own original research, then we could discuss whether it belongs in this bio or an article about the explosion but, as it stands, it belongs only in your personal blog. Double Blue  (Talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for your personal opinions. Neutral, verifiable media coverage in reliable sources of Miller being publicly criticized for his absence may be valid content if it's properly worded. But what you're adding is an unsourced personal diatribe. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article.
It's rare to find any article on Wikipedia that gives information without a positive or negative spin, but this is one. No editorializing, just the facts. Well done.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

To say that this article is unbiased is to say that the universe is full of marshmallows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickGSB (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The gun violence?
Is it necessary to note that David Miller is responding to the recent handgun violence in Toronto.Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 00:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

triple citizenship
Well, Wikipedia has some strange nationality procedure...so going by it, shouldn't he be considered to be a Canadian-British-American lawyer? Wikipedia should really work on the issues of nationalities and ethnicities. Norum 05:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on David Miller (Canadian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101008232519/http://www.nationalpost.com:80/opinion/columnists/Status+revolutionary+times/3588359/story.html to http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Status+revolutionary+times/3588359/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on David Miller (Canadian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928203750/http://www.lakefieldcollegeschool.ca/ftpimages/108/download/download_group1266_id24049.pdf to http://www.lakefieldcollegeschool.ca/ftpimages/108/download/download_group1266_id24049.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050502004533/http://www.davidmiller.org/aboutdavidcommittees.asp to http://www.davidmiller.org/aboutdavidcommittees.asp
 * Added tag to http://webhome.idirect.com/~jleeson/council_ratings.htm
 * Added tag to http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/09/11/david-miller-s-grip-is-slipping-council-ready-to-undo-cuts.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204023936/http://www.680news.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20071022_071117_4864 to http://www.680news.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20071022_071117_4864
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050824224442/http://www.torontoalliance.ca/urban_challenges/regional_transportation/articles.asp?articleID=156 to http://www.torontoalliance.ca/urban_challenges/regional_transportation/articles.asp?articleID=156
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227190409/http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_10.20.05/op/editorial.html to http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_10.20.05/op/editorial.html
 * Added tag to http://www.torontocopsaretops.ca/index.cfm?pid=15403
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128092328/http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=24078b8e-6af9-4e70-9969-948379781cd4 to http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=24078b8e-6af9-4e70-9969-948379781cd4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070327175127/http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-01-26/news_upfront.php to http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-01-26/news_upfront.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929095752/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=5241d6f7-fe4b-4bda-a51c-bda6dec37bea&p=2 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=5241d6f7-fe4b-4bda-a51c-bda6dec37bea&p=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109154850/http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/08/we-do-things-quickly-here-hazel-mccallion.aspx to http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/08/we-do-things-quickly-here-hazel-mccallion.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104210847/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=f68e3571-d459-4ca2-85e7-c230f9242ec0 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=f68e3571-d459-4ca2-85e7-c230f9242ec0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118045006/http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/16/mayoral-smackdown-miller-wins-but-compromises.aspx to http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/11/16/mayoral-smackdown-miller-wins-but-compromises.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070527140747/http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_10235.aspx to http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_10235.aspx
 * Added tag to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070412.TORBUDGET12/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018205533/http://www.toronto.ca/greatcity/ to http://www.toronto.ca/greatcity

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Miller (Canadian politician)


text:
Harold Brown

Harold Brown may refer to:

 * Harold Brown (Tuskegee Airman) (1924–2023), U.S. Air Force officer and Tuskegee Airmen fighter pilot, World War II prisoner of war (POW)
 * Harry Brown (journalist) (Harold Andrew Brown, 1930–2002), Canadian radio and television host
 * Harold K. Brown (born 1934), San Diego civil rights activist
 * Harold L. Brown (born 1946), Pennsylvania politician
 * Harold P. Brown (1857–1932), American inventor, anti-alternating current activist
 * Harold Brown (basketball) (1923–1980), American basketball player
 * Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense) (1927–2019), American physicist, U.S. Secretary of Defense
 * Harold Ray Brown (born 1946), American drummer, member of the 1970s band War
 * Harold Brown (athlete) (1917–2002), Canadian athlete
 * Harold Brown (footballer) (1878–1940), Australian rules footballer for Essendon and St Kilda
 * Harold Brown (gymnast) (1904–1986), British Olympic gymnast
 * Harold Brown (Rhode Island financier) (1863–1900), American financier, philanthropist, and prominent member of New York society
 * Harold Brown (ice hockey) (1920–1997), Canadian ice hockey right winger
 * Harold Brown (film preservationist) (1919–2008), British pioneer in the science of film preservation
 * Harold Brown (Royal Navy officer) (1878–1968), English engineer with the Royal Navy
 * Harold Brown, main character in Harry Brown
 * J. Harold Brown (1902–1982), American composer
 * Harold O. J. Brown (1933–2007), American theologian, professor, activist, and author
 * Harold Vivian Marsh Brown (c. 1907–1992), Australian architect

title: Harold Brown


text:
Talk:Gennifer Flowers

Huh?
Did she claim he paid for her abortion three years before their affair started? --Charles A. L. 17:00, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

where her handlers Larry Case and Larry Nichols?
where her handlers Larry Case and Larry Nichols?

 * You mean these guys? "Temps for the vast right-wing conspiracy" (Salon) Go ahead and add (in a NPOV manner) whatever information you can find sources for. Be Bold. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * English try you write maybe please. -- 98.108.200.196 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Penthosue or Playboy?
All the Playboy Google references seem to come from Wikipedia. Penthouse refs are fewer, but they're independent. Also can find PH covers supposedly of her. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Say, did she expose her crotch in the Penthouse shoot? -Amit, 04/22/07

From another article
Moved out of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, where it didn't belong. Can't remember how true any of this is. Incorporate into the article if warranted. Wasted Time R 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * However, Clinton himself confessed on national television to having had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers, who alleged that the affair had been set up by Arkansas state troopers. Two of these corroborated her story. She also possessed, and played, recordings of intimate phone calls between herself and Mr. Clinton. George Stephanopoulos and James Carville claimed that these were "doctored" or "selectively edited", but never presented any evidence to support their arguments.  Flowers sued both for defamation but lost her case on grounds of not being able to prove "active malice" on the part of the defendants.  She likewise sued Hillary Clinton in the same motion for statements made in 1992, but the judge threw Mrs. Clinton out of the suit on grounds of Nevada's four-year statute of limitations.

Important Details
"A number of judgments have been made and some appeals have been upheld"? Isn't that a little vague?CoW mAnX (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not able to cite a source, but weren't there multiple news stories regarding Flowers' claim that she gave birth to Clinton's son who was later given up for adoption? Someone please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.237.45 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs correction on appeal timeline
'''Flowers sued Hillary Rodham Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, James Carville, and others for defamation, claiming that they orchestrated a campaign to discredit her. Judicial Watch represented her in her defamation lawsuit against Hillary's former aides, Stephanopoulos and Carville. In January, 2006, the Ninth Circuit rejected the latest appeal. [4] In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals revived the appeal. [5] In 2003, a federal judge further approved appeal. [6]'''

The above doesn't make sense and doesn't reflect the reference links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.36.195 (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporter
I posted the first few minutes of the 60 Minutes interview with the Clintons about this from 1992 on YouTube, and there was some footage included of Flowers as a reporter for KARK in Little Rock during the mid-1970s (shortly before the affair began). Should there be some mention of this? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image
--Baysean (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

==The Sources Say That News Reports Speculated That The Phone Conservations Could Have Doctored== While Clinton admit to one sexual encounter with Flowers in 1977, it hasn't been proven that the tape conservations weren't doctored. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not a political fanbase.75.72.35.253 (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Making note of a Change
This article starts with "Gennifer Flowers (born January 24, 1950) is a model and actress who had a sexual relationship with former U.S. President Bill Clinton. Prior to Bill Clinton's presidency, she also posed nude for Penthouse magazine and was an actress in two films and one TV show."

I am making the following edit: "Gennifer Flowers (born January 24, 1950) is a model and actress who famously claimed to have a sexual relationship with former U.S. President Bill Clinton, prior to his presidency. She also posed nude for Penthouse magazine, and was an actress in two films and one TV show." There was never any proof or support beyond her own story that she slept with Clinton. As such, we must note that she only claimed this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atchemey (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Gennifer?! Not Jennifer?
There's no such name as Gennifer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.204.96.64 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gennifer Flowers. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.salon.com/people/col/reit/1999/09/20/nipmon/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Importance
The subject's importance seems entirely due to her role in an American president's extramarital affair. At best, this seems like a matter of low importance. I have marked the article accordingly for WP: Oklahoma. Bruin2 (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've placed a POV tag on this page. I came across it during normal browsing, and I already cleaned up several uses of "claimed", etc. which non-neutrally casts doubt on the claims made by the subject (WP:CLAIM). I only did one section, though, and we could use a copyedit for neutrality. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gennifer Flowers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209092553/http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/1119flower.html to http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/1119flower.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080430195915/http://www.vegascommunityonline.com:80/AskGenniferwithaG.htm to http://www.vegascommunityonline.com/AskGenniferwithaG.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413143033/http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/13172/20121129/gennifer-flowers-bill-clinton-scandal-ex-president.htm to http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/13172/20121129/gennifer-flowers-bill-clinton-scandal-ex-president.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gennifer Flowers


text:
Participant observation

Participant observation is one type of data collection method by practitioner-scholars typically used in qualitative research and ethnography. This type of methodology is employed in many disciplines, particularly anthropology (incl. cultural anthropology and ethnology), sociology (incl. sociology of culture and cultural criminology), communication studies, human geography, and social psychology. Its aim is to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given group of individuals (such as a religious, occupational, youth group, or a particular community) and their practices through an intensive involvement with people in their cultural environment, usually over an extended period of time.

The concept "participant observation" was first coined in 1924 by Eduard C. Lindeman (1885-1953), an American pioneer in adult education influenced by John Dewey and Danish educator-philosopher N.F.S.Grundtvig, in his 1925 book  |Social Discovery: An Approach to the Study of Functional Groups. The method, however, originated earlier and was applied in the field research linked to European and American voyages of scientific exploration.

In 1800 one of precursors of the method, Joseph Marie, baron de Gérando, said that: "The first way to get to know the Indians is to become like one of them; and it is by learning their language that we will become their fellow citizens." Later, the method would be popularized by Bronisław Malinowski and his students in Britain; the students of Franz Boas in the United States; and, in the later urban research, the students of the Chicago school of sociology.

History and development
Participant observation was used extensively by Frank Hamilton Cushing in his study of the Zuni people in the latter half of the nineteenth century. This would be followed in the early twentieth century by studies of non-Western societies through such people as Bronisław Malinowski (1929), E.E. Evans-Pritchard (1940), and Margaret Mead (1928).

The practice emerged as the principal approach to ethnographic research by anthropologists and relied on the cultivation of personal relationships with local informants as a way of learning about a culture, involving both observing and participating in the social life of a group. By living with the cultures they studied, researchers were able to formulate first-hand accounts of their lives and gain novel insights. This same method of study has also been applied to groups within Western society and is especially successful in the study of sub-cultures or groups sharing a strong sense of identity, where only by taking part may the observer truly get access to the lives of those being studied. The postmortem publication of Grenville Goodwin's decade of work as a participant-observer with the Western Apache established him as a prominent figure in the field of ethnology.

Since the 1980s, some anthropologists and other social scientists have questioned the degree to which participant observation can give veridical insight into the minds of other people. At the same time, a more formalized qualitative research program known as grounded theory, initiated by Glaser and Strauss (1967), began gaining currency within American sociology and related fields such as public health. In response to these challenges, some ethnographers have refined their methods, either making them more amenable to formal hypothesis-testing and replicability or framing their interpretations within a more carefully considered epistemology.

The development of participant-observation as a research tool has therefore not been a haphazard process, but instead has involved a great deal of self-criticism and review. It has, as a result, become specialized. Visual anthropology can be viewed as a subset of methods of participant-observation, as the central questions in that field have to do with how to take a camera into the field, while dealing with such issues as the observer effect. Issues with entry into the field have evolved into a separate subfield. Clifford Geertz's famous essay on how to approach the multi-faceted arena of human action from an observational point of view, in Interpretation of Cultures uses the simple example of a human wink, perceived in a cultural context far from home.

Method and practice
Such research involves a range of well-defined, though variable methods: informal interviews, direct observation, participation in the life of the group, collective discussions, analyses of personal documents produced within the group, self-analysis, results from activities undertaken off or online, and life-histories. Although the method is generally characterized as qualitative research, it can (and often does) include quantitative dimensions. Traditional participant observation is usually undertaken over an extended period of time, ranging from several months to many years, and even generations. An extended research time period means that the researcher is able to obtain more detailed and accurate information about the individuals, community, and/or population under study. Observable details (like daily time allotment) and more hidden details (like taboo behavior) are more easily observed and interpreted over a longer period of time. A strength of observation and interaction over extended periods of time is that researchers can discover discrepancies between what participants say—and often believe—should happen (the formal system) and what actually does happen, or between different aspects of the formal system; in contrast, a one-time survey of people's answers to a set of questions might be quite consistent, but is less likely to show conflicts between different aspects of the social system or between conscious representations and behavior.

Howell's phases of participant observation
In participant observation, a researcher's discipline based interests and commitments shape which events he or she considers are important and relevant to the research inquiry. According to Howell (1972), the four stages that most participant observation research studies are establishing rapport or getting to know the people, immersing oneself in the field, recording data and observations, and consolidating the information gathered.

The phases are as follows:

 * Establishing Rapport: Get to know the members, visit the scene before study. Howell states that it is important to become friends, or at least be accepted in the community, in order to obtain quality data.
 * In the Field (do as the locals do): It is important for the researcher to connect or show a connection with the population in order to be accepted as a member of the community. DeWalt & DeWalt (2011) call this form of rapport establishment as "talking the talk" and "walking the walk".  Also mentioned by Howell, DeWalt & DeWalt state that the researcher must strive to fit in with the population of study through moderation of language and participation. This sets the stage for how well the researcher blends in with the field and the quality of observable events he or she experiences.
 * Recording Observations and Data: Along with field notes and interviews, researchers are encouraged to record their personal thoughts and feelings about the subject of study through reflexivity journals. The researchers are prompted to think about how their experiences, ethnicity, race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and other factors might influence their research, in this case what the researcher decides to record and observe. Researchers must be aware of these biases and enter the study with no misconceptions about not bringing in any subjectivities into the data collection process.
 * Analyzing Data:
 * Thematic Analysis: organizing data according to recurrent themes found in interviews or other types of qualitative data collection and
 * Narrative Analysis: categorizing information gathered through interviews, finding common themes, and constructing a coherent story from data.

Types of participant observation
Participant observation is not simply showing up at a site and writing things down. On the contrary, participant observation is a complex method that has many components. One of the first things that a researcher or individual must do after deciding to conduct participant observations to gather data is decide what kind of participant observer he or she will be. Spradley (1980) provides five different types of participant observations summarised below. '''Limitations To Any Participant Observation
 * The recorded observations about a group of people or event is never going to be the full description.
 * As mentioned before this is due to the selective nature of any type of recordable data process: it is inevitably influenced by researchers' personal beliefs of what is relevant and important.
 * This also plays out in the analysis of collected data; the researcher's worldview invariably influences how he or she interprets and evaluates the data.
 * The researcher may not capture accurately what the participant or may misunderstand the meaning of the participant's words, thus drawing inaccurate generalizations about the participant's perceptions.

Impact of researcher involvement
The presence of the researcher in the field may influence the participants' behavior, causing the participants to behave differently than they would without the presence of the observer (see:observer-expectancy effect). Researchers engaging in this type of qualitative research method must be aware that participants may act differently or put up a facade that is in accordance to what they believe the researcher is studying. This is why it is important to employ rigor in any qualitative research study. A useful method of rigor to employ is member-checking or triangulation.

According to Richard Fenno, one problem in participant observation is the risk of "going native", by which he means that the researcher becomes so immersed in the world of the participant that the researcher loses scholarly objectivity. Fenno also warns that the researcher may lose the ability and willingness to criticize the participant in order to maintain ties with the participant. While gathering data through participant observation, investigator triangulation would be a way to ensure that one researcher is not letting his or her biases or personal preferences in the way of observing and recording meaningful experiences. As the name suggests, investigator triangulation involves multiple research team members gathering data about the same event, but this method ensures a variety of recorded observations due to the varying theoretical perspectives of each research team member. In other words, triangulation, be it data, investigator, theory or methodological triangulation, is a form of cross-checking information.

Member checking is when the researcher asks for participant feedback on his or her recorded observations to ensure that the researcher is accurately depicting the participants' experiences and the accuracy of conclusions drawn from the data. This method can be used in participant observation studies or when conducting interviews. Member-checking and triangulation are good methods to use when conducting participant observations, or any other form of qualitative research, because they increase data and research conclusion credibility and transferability. In quantitative research, credibility is liken to internal validity, or the knowledge that our findings are representative of reality, and transferability is similar to external validity or the extent to which the findings can be generalized across different populations, methods, and settings.

A variant of participant observation is observing participation, described by Marek M. Kaminski, who explored prison subculture as a political prisoner in communist Poland in 1985. "Observing" or "observant" participation has also been used to describe fieldwork in sexual minority subcultures by anthropologists and sociologists who are themselves lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, as well as amongst political activists and in protest events. The different phrasing is meant to highlight the way in which their partial or full membership in the community/subculture that they are researching both allows a different sort of access to the community and also shapes their perceptions in ways different from a full outsider. This is similar to considerations by anthropologists such as Lila Abu-Lughod on "halfie anthropology", or fieldwork by bicultural anthropologists on a culture to which they partially belong.

Ethical concerns
As with any form of research dealing with human subjects, the researcher must ensure the ethical boundaries are never crossed by those conducting the subjects of study. The researcher must have clearly established boundaries before the onset of the study, and have guidelines in place should any issues cross the line of ethical behavior. One of the issues would be if the researcher is studying a population where illegal activities may occur or when working with minor children. In participant observation, the ethical concern that is most salient is that of informed consent and voluntary participation. There is the issue of deciding to obtain informed consent from every individual in the group of study, obtain the informed consent for participant observation from the person of leadership, or not inform anyone of one's true purpose in fear of influencing the attitudes of members, thus skewing the observations recorded.

The decision is based on the nature of the study and the researcher's own personal thoughts on the cost-benefit ratio of the situation. Participant observation also brings up the issue of voluntary participation in events the researcher observes and records. There may be instances when members do not want to be a part of the study and request that all data collected pertinent to them be removed. In this case, the researcher is obligated to relinquish data that may identify the members in any way. Above anything else, it is the researcher's responsibility that the participants of the study do not suffer any ill effects directly or indirectly from the study, participants are informed of their rights as subjects of the study, and that the group was justly chosen for study.

The American Anthropological Association (AAA) and American Sociological Association (ASA) both have comprehensive statements concerning the code of conduct for research. The AAA has developed a code of ethics to guide this practice.

title: Participant observation


text:
Tensor algebra

In mathematics, the tensor algebra of a vector space V, denoted T(V) or T(V), is the algebra of tensors on V (of any rank) with multiplication being the tensor product. It is the free algebra on V, in the sense of being left adjoint to the forgetful functor from algebras to vector spaces: it is the "most general" algebra containing V, in the sense of the corresponding universal property (see below).

The tensor algebra is important because many other algebras arise as quotient algebras of T(V). These include the exterior algebra, the symmetric algebra, Clifford algebras, the Weyl algebra and universal enveloping algebras.

The tensor algebra also has two coalgebra structures; one simple one, which does not make it a bialgebra, but does lead to the concept of a cofree coalgebra, and a more complicated one, which yields a bialgebra, and can be extended by giving an antipode to create a Hopf algebra structure.

Note: In this article, all algebras are assumed to be unital and associative. The unit is explicitly required to define the coproduct.

Construction
Let V be a vector space over a field K. For any nonnegative integer k, we define the kth tensor power of V to be the tensor product of V with itself k times:
 * $$T^kV = V^{\otimes k} = V\otimes V \otimes \cdots \otimes V.$$

That is, TkV consists of all tensors on V of order k. By convention T0V is the ground field K (as a one-dimensional vector space over itself).

We then construct T(V) as the direct sum of TkV for k = 0,1,2,…
 * $$T(V)= \bigoplus_{k=0}^\infty T^kV = K\oplus V \oplus (V\otimes V) \oplus (V\otimes V\otimes V) \oplus \cdots.$$

The multiplication in T(V) is determined by the canonical isomorphism
 * $$T^kV \otimes T^\ell V \to T^{k + \ell}V$$

given by the tensor product, which is then extended by linearity to all of T(V). This multiplication rule implies that the tensor algebra T(V) is naturally a graded algebra with TkV serving as the grade-k subspace. This grading can be extended to a Z-grading by appending subspaces $$T^{k}V=\{0\}$$ for negative integers k.

The construction generalizes in a straightforward manner to the tensor algebra of any module M over a commutative ring. If R is a non-commutative ring, one can still perform the construction for any R-R bimodule M. (It does not work for ordinary R-modules because the iterated tensor products cannot be formed.)

Adjunction and universal property
The tensor algebra $T(V)$ is also called the free algebra on the vector space $V$, and is functorial; this means that the map $$V\mapsto T(V)$$ extends to linear maps for forming a functor from the category of $K$-vector spaces to the category of associative algebras. Similarly with other free constructions, the functor $T$ is left adjoint to the forgetful functor that sends each associative $K$-algebra to its underlying vector space.

Explicitly, the tensor algebra satisfies the following universal property, which formally expresses the statement that it is the most general algebra containing V:
 * Any linear map $$f:V \to A$$ from $V$ to an associative algebra $A$ over $K$ can be uniquely extended to an algebra homomorphism from $T(V)$ to $A$ as indicated by the following commutative diagram:

Here $i$ is the canonical inclusion of $V$ into $T(V)$. As for other universal properties, the tensor algebra $T(V)$ can be defined as the unique algebra satisfying this property (specifically, it is unique up to a unique isomorphism), but this definition requires to prove that an object satisfying this property exists.

The above universal property implies that $T$ is a functor from  the category of vector spaces over $K$, to the category of $K$-algebras. This means that any linear map between $K$-vector spaces $U$ and $W$ extends uniquely to a $K$-algebra homomorphism from $T(U)$ to $T(W)$.

Non-commutative polynomials
If V has finite dimension n, another way of looking at the tensor algebra is as the "algebra of polynomials over K in n non-commuting variables". If we take basis vectors for V, those become non-commuting variables (or indeterminates) in T(V), subject to no constraints beyond associativity, the distributive law and K-linearity.

Note that the algebra of polynomials on V is not $$T(V)$$, but rather $$T(V^*)$$: a (homogeneous) linear function on V is an element of $$V^*,$$ for example coordinates $$x^1,\dots,x^n$$ on a vector space are covectors, as they take in a vector and give out a scalar (the given coordinate of the vector).

Quotients
Because of the generality of the tensor algebra, many other algebras of interest can be constructed by starting with the tensor algebra and then imposing certain relations on the generators, i.e. by constructing certain quotient algebras of T(V). Examples of this are the exterior algebra, the symmetric algebra, Clifford algebras, the Weyl algebra and universal enveloping algebras.

Coalgebra
The tensor algebra has two different coalgebra structures. One is compatible with the tensor product, and thus can be extended to a bialgebra, and can be further be extended with an antipode to a Hopf algebra structure. The other structure, although simpler, cannot be extended to a bialgebra. The first structure is developed immediately below; the second structure is given in the section on the cofree coalgebra, further down.

The development provided below can be equally well applied to the exterior algebra, using the wedge symbol $$\wedge$$ in place of the tensor symbol $$\otimes$$; a sign must also be kept track of, when permuting elements of the exterior algebra. This correspondence also lasts through the definition of the bialgebra, and on to the definition of a Hopf algebra. That is, the exterior algebra can also be given a Hopf algebra structure.

Similarly, the symmetric algebra can also be given the structure of a Hopf algebra, in exactly the same fashion, by replacing everywhere the tensor product $$\otimes$$ by the symmetrized tensor product $$\otimes_\mathrm{Sym}$$, i.e. that product where $$v\otimes_\mathrm{Sym} w = w\otimes_\mathrm{Sym} v.$$

In each case, this is possible because the alternating product $$\wedge$$ and the symmetric product $$\otimes_\mathrm{Sym}$$ obey the required consistency conditions for the definition of a bialgebra and Hopf algebra; this can be explicitly checked in the manner below. Whenever one has a product obeying these consistency conditions, the construction goes through; insofar as such a product gave rise to a quotient space, the quotient space inherits the Hopf algebra structure.

In the language of category theory, one says that there is a functor $T$ from the category of $K$-vector spaces to the category of $K$-associative algebras. But there is also a functor $Λ$ taking vector spaces to the category of exterior algebras, and a functor $Sym$ taking vector spaces to symmetric algebras. There is a natural map from $T$ to each of these. Verifying that quotienting preserves the Hopf algebra structure is the same as verifying that the maps are indeed natural.

Coproduct
The coalgebra is obtained by defining a coproduct or diagonal operator

 * $$\Delta: TV\to TV\boxtimes TV$$

Here, $$TV$$ is used as a short-hand for $$T(V)$$ to avoid an explosion of parentheses. The $$\boxtimes$$ symbol is used to denote the "external" tensor product, needed for the definition of a coalgebra. It is being used to distinguish it from the "internal" tensor product $$\otimes$$, which is already being used to denote multiplication in the tensor algebra (see the section Multiplication, below, for further clarification on this issue). In order to avoid confusion between these two symbols, most texts will replace $$\otimes$$ by a plain dot, or even drop it altogether, with the understanding that it is implied from context. This then allows the $$\otimes$$ symbol to be used in place of the $$\boxtimes$$ symbol. This is not done below, and the two symbols are used independently and explicitly, so as to show the proper location of each. The result is a bit more verbose, but should be easier to comprehend.

The definition of the operator $$\Delta$$ is most easily built up in stages, first by defining it for elements $$v\in V\subset TV$$ and then by homomorphically extending it to the whole algebra. A suitable choice for the coproduct is then

 * $$\Delta: v \mapsto v\boxtimes 1 + 1\boxtimes v$$

and
 * $$\Delta: 1 \mapsto 1 \boxtimes 1$$

where $$1\in K=T^0V\subset TV$$ is the unit of the field $$K$$. By linearity, one obviously has
 * $$\Delta(k)=k(1\boxtimes 1)=k\boxtimes 1=1\boxtimes k$$

for all $$k\in K.$$ It is straightforward to verify that this definition satisfies the axioms of a coalgebra: that is, that
 * $$(\mathrm{id}_{TV} \boxtimes \Delta) \circ \Delta = (\Delta \boxtimes \mathrm{id}_{TV}) \circ \Delta$$

where $$\mathrm{id}_{TV}: x\mapsto x$$ is the identity map on $$TV$$. Indeed, one gets
 * $$((\mathrm{id}_{TV} \boxtimes \Delta) \circ \Delta)(v) =

v\boxtimes 1 \boxtimes 1 + 1\boxtimes v \boxtimes 1 + 1 \boxtimes 1 \boxtimes v$$ and likewise for the other side. At this point, one could invoke a lemma, and say that $$\Delta$$ extends trivially, by linearity, to all of $$TV$$, because $$TV$$ is a free object and $$V$$ is a generator of the free algebra, and $$\Delta$$ is a homomorphism. However, it is insightful to provide explicit expressions. So, for $$v\otimes w \in T^2V$$, one has (by definition) the homomorphism

 * $$\Delta: v\otimes w \mapsto \Delta(v)\otimes \Delta(w)$$

Expanding, one has
 * $$\begin{align} \Delta (v\otimes w) &= (v\boxtimes 1 + 1\boxtimes v) \otimes (w\boxtimes 1 + 1\boxtimes w) \\

&= (v\otimes w) \boxtimes 1 + v\boxtimes w + w\boxtimes v + 1 \boxtimes (v\otimes w) \end{align}$$

In the above expansion, there is no need to ever write $$1\otimes v$$ as this is just plain-old scalar multiplication in the algebra; that is, one trivially has that $$1\otimes v = 1\cdot v = v.$$

The extension above preserves the algebra grading. That is,
 * $$\Delta: T^2V \to \bigoplus_{k=0}^2 T^kV \boxtimes T^{2-k}V$$

Continuing in this fashion, one can obtain an explicit expression for the coproduct acting on a homogenous element of order m:
 * $$\begin{align}

\Delta(v_1\otimes\cdots\otimes v_m) &= \Delta(v_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes\Delta(v_m) \\ &= \sum_{p=0}^m \left(v_1\otimes \cdots \otimes v_p\right) \;\omega \; \left(v_{p+1}\otimes \cdots \otimes v_m\right) \\ &= \sum_{p=0}^m \; \sum_{\sigma\in\mathrm{Sh}(p,m-p)} \; \left(v_{\sigma(1)}\otimes\dots\otimes v_{\sigma(p)}\right) \boxtimes \left(v_{\sigma(p+1)}\otimes\dots\otimes v_{\sigma(m)}\right) \end{align}$$ where the $$\omega$$ symbol, which should appear as ш, the sha, denotes the shuffle product. This is expressed in the second summation, which is taken over all (p, m − p)-shuffles. The shuffle is

 * $$\begin{aligned}

\operatorname{Sh}(p,q) = \{\sigma:\{1,\dots,p+q\}\to\{1,\dots,p+q\}\;\mid \;&\sigma \text{ is bijective},\;\sigma(1)<\sigma(2)< \cdots < \sigma(p),\\ &\text{and }\;\sigma(p+1) <\sigma(p+2)<\cdots < \sigma(m)\}. \end{aligned}$$

By convention, one takes that Sh(m,0) and Sh(0,m) equals {id: {1, ..., m} → {1, ..., m }}. It is also convenient to take the pure tensor products $$v_{\sigma(1)}\otimes\dots\otimes v_{\sigma(p)}$$ and $$v_{\sigma(p+1)}\otimes\dots\otimes v_{\sigma(m)}$$ to equal 1 for p = 0 and p = m, respectively (the empty product in $$TV$$). The shuffle follows directly from the first axiom of a co-algebra: the relative order of the elements $$v_k$$ is preserved in the riffle shuffle: the riffle shuffle merely splits the ordered sequence into two ordered sequences, one on the left, and one on the right.

Equivalently,

 * $$\Delta(v_1\otimes\cdots\otimes v_n)

= \sum_{S\subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}} \left(\prod_{k=1 \atop k \in S}^n v_k\right) \boxtimes \left(\prod_{k=1 \atop k \notin S}^n v_k\right)\!,$$

where the products are in $$TV$$, and where the sum is over all subsets of $$\{1,\dots,n\}$$.

As before, the algebra grading is preserved:
 * $$\Delta: T^mV \to \bigoplus_{k=0}^m T^kV \boxtimes T^{(m-k)}V$$

Counit
The counit $$\epsilon : TV \to K$$ is given by the projection of the field component out from the algebra. This can be written as $$\epsilon: v\mapsto 0 $$ for $$v\in V$$ and $$\epsilon: k\mapsto k $$ for $$k\in K=T^0V$$. By homomorphism under the tensor product $$\otimes$$, this extends to
 * $$\epsilon: x\mapsto 0 $$

for all $$x\in T^1V \oplus T^2V\oplus \cdots$$ It is a straightforward matter to verify that this counit satisfies the needed axiom for the coalgebra:
 * $$(\mathrm{id} \boxtimes \epsilon) \circ \Delta = \mathrm{id} = (\epsilon \boxtimes \mathrm{id}) \circ \Delta.$$

Working this explicitly, one has
 * $$\begin{align}

((\mathrm{id} \boxtimes \epsilon) \circ \Delta)(x) &=(\mathrm{id} \boxtimes \epsilon)(1\boxtimes x + x \boxtimes 1) \\ &=1\boxtimes \epsilon(x) + x \boxtimes  \epsilon(1) \\ &=0 + x \boxtimes 1 \\ &\cong x \end{align}$$ where, for the last step, one has made use of the isomorphism $$TV\boxtimes K \cong TV$$, as is appropriate for the defining axiom of the counit.

Bialgebra
A bialgebra defines both multiplication, and comultiplication, and requires them to be compatible.

Multiplication
Multiplication is given by an operator
 * $$\nabla: TV\boxtimes TV\to TV$$

which, in this case, was already given as the "internal" tensor product. That is,
 * $$\nabla: x\boxtimes y\mapsto x \otimes y$$

That is, $$\nabla(x\boxtimes y) = x \otimes y.$$ The above should make it clear why the $$\boxtimes$$ symbol needs to be used: the $$\otimes$$ was actually one and the same thing as $$\nabla$$; and notational sloppiness here would lead to utter chaos. To strengthen this: the tensor product $$\otimes$$ of the tensor algebra corresponds to the multiplication $$\nabla$$ used in the definition of an algebra, whereas the tensor product $$\boxtimes$$ is the one required in the definition of comultiplication in a coalgebra. These two tensor products are not the same thing!

Unit
The unit for the algebra
 * $$\eta: K\to TV$$

is just the embedding, so that
 * $$\eta: k\mapsto k$$

That the unit is compatible with the tensor product $$\otimes$$ is "trivial": it is just part of the standard definition of the tensor product of vector spaces. That is, $$k\otimes x = kx$$ for field element k and any $$x\in TV.$$ More verbosely, the axioms for an associative algebra require the two homomorphisms (or commuting diagrams):
 * $$\nabla\circ(\eta \boxtimes\mathrm{id}_{TV}) = \eta\otimes \mathrm{id}_{TV} = \eta\cdot \mathrm{id}_{TV}$$

on $$K\boxtimes TV$$, and that symmetrically, on $$TV\boxtimes K$$, that
 * $$\nabla\circ(\mathrm{id}_{TV}\boxtimes\eta) = \mathrm{id}_{TV}\otimes\eta = \mathrm{id}_{TV}\cdot\eta$$

where the right-hand side of these equations should be understood as the scalar product.

Compatibility
The unit and counit, and multiplication and comultiplication, all have to satisfy compatibility conditions. It is straightforward to see that
 * $$\epsilon \circ \eta = \mathrm{id}_K.$$

Similarly, the unit is compatible with comultiplication:
 * $$\Delta \circ \eta = \eta \boxtimes \eta \cong \eta$$

The above requires the use of the isomorphism $$K\boxtimes K \cong K$$ in order to work; without this, one loses linearity. Component-wise,
 * $$(\Delta \circ \eta)(k) = \Delta(k) = k(1 \boxtimes 1) \cong k $$

with the right-hand side making use of the isomorphism.

Multiplication and the counit are compatible:
 * $$(\epsilon \circ \nabla)(x\boxtimes y) = \epsilon(x\otimes y) = 0$$

whenever x or y are not elements of $$K$$, and otherwise, one has scalar multiplication on the field: $$k_1\otimes k_2=k_1 k_2.$$ The most difficult to verify is the compatibility of multiplication and comultiplication:
 * $$\Delta \circ\nabla = (\nabla \boxtimes \nabla)

\circ (\mathrm{id} \boxtimes \tau \boxtimes \mathrm{id}) \circ (\Delta \boxtimes \Delta)$$ where $$\tau(x\boxtimes y)= y \boxtimes x$$ exchanges elements. The compatibility condition only needs to be verified on $$V\subset TV$$; the full compatibility follows as a homomorphic extension to all of $$TV.$$ The verification is verbose but straightforward; it is not given here, except for the final result:
 * $$(\Delta \circ\nabla)(v\boxtimes w) = \Delta(v\otimes w)$$

For $$v,w\in V,$$ an explicit expression for this was given in the coalgebra section, above.

Hopf algebra
The Hopf algebra adds an antipode to the bialgebra axioms. The antipode $$S$$ on $$k\in K=T^0V$$ is given by
 * $$S(k)=k$$

This is sometimes called the "anti-identity". The antipode on $$v\in V=T^1V$$ is given by
 * $$S(v)=-v$$

and on $$v \otimes w\in T^2V$$ by
 * $$S(v \otimes w) = S(w) \otimes S(v) = w\otimes v$$

This extends homomorphically to

\begin{align} S(v_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes v_m) &= S(v_m) \otimes\cdots\otimes S(v_1) \\ &= (-1)^m v_m \otimes\cdots\otimes v_1 \end{align}$$

Compatibility
Compatibility of the antipode with multiplication and comultiplication requires that
 * $$\nabla \circ (S \boxtimes \mathrm{id}) \circ \Delta

= \eta \circ \epsilon = \nabla \circ (\mathrm{id} \boxtimes S) \circ \Delta$$ This is straightforward to verify componentwise on $$k\in K$$:

\begin{align} (\nabla \circ (S \boxtimes \mathrm{id}) \circ \Delta)(k) &= (\nabla \circ (S \boxtimes \mathrm{id})) (1\boxtimes k) \\ &= \nabla(1 \boxtimes k) \\ &= 1 \otimes k \\ &= k \end{align}$$ Similarly, on $$v\in V$$:

\begin{align} (\nabla \circ (S \boxtimes \mathrm{id}) \circ \Delta)(v) &= (\nabla \circ (S \boxtimes \mathrm{id})) (v\boxtimes 1 + 1 \boxtimes v) \\ &= \nabla(-v \boxtimes 1 + 1 \boxtimes v) \\ &= -v \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes v \\ &= -v + v\\ &= 0 \end{align}$$ Recall that
 * $$(\eta \circ \epsilon)(k)=\eta(k)=k$$

and that
 * $$(\eta \circ \epsilon)(x)=\eta(0)=0$$

for any $$x\in TV$$ that is not in $$K.$$

One may proceed in a similar manner, by homomorphism, verifying that the antipode inserts the appropriate cancellative signs in the shuffle, starting with the compatibility condition on $$T^2V$$ and proceeding by induction.

Cofree cocomplete coalgebra
One may define a different coproduct on the tensor algebra, simpler than the one given above. It is given by
 * $$\Delta(v_1 \otimes \dots \otimes v_k) := \sum_{j=0}^{k} (v_0 \otimes \dots \otimes v_j) \boxtimes (v_{j+1} \otimes \dots \otimes v_{k+1})$$

Here, as before, one uses the notational trick $$v_0=v_{k+1}=1\in K$$ (recalling that $$v\otimes 1=v$$ trivially).

This coproduct gives rise to a coalgebra. It describes a coalgebra that is dual to the algebra structure on T(V∗), where V∗ denotes the dual vector space of linear maps V → F. In the same way that the tensor algebra is a free algebra, the corresponding coalgebra is termed cocomplete co-free. With the usual product this is not a bialgebra. It can be turned into a bialgebra with the product $$v_i\cdot v_j=(i,j)v_{i+j}$$ where (i,j) denotes the binomial coefficient for $$\tbinom{i+j}{i}$$. This bialgebra is known as the divided power Hopf algebra.

The difference between this, and the other coalgebra is most easily seen in the $$T^2V$$ term. Here, one has that
 * $$\Delta(v\otimes w) = 1\boxtimes (v\otimes w) + v \boxtimes w + (v\otimes w) \boxtimes 1$$

for $$v,w\in V$$, which is clearly missing a shuffled term, as compared to before.

title: Tensor algebra