text:
User talk:Nateji77

Speedy deletion nomination of Mizuho Takasugi
A tag has been placed on Mizuho Takasugi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. HJMitchell   You rang?   00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shenzhenfc2009logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Shenzhenfc2009logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Nateji77! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 11 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

 * 1) Li Xiaolu -
 * 2) Atsuko Kawada -
 * 3) Fubuki Takane -
 * 4) Doug Lascody -
 * 5) Yoko Matsumoto -
 * 6) Ma Dongbo -
 * 7) Yumi Endo -
 * 8) Yōko Nogiwa -
 * 9) Chu Jinling -
 * 10) Show Aikawa -

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire

The article List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The character articles for a song and fire are already excessive and cover all important characters and hunderds of unimportant ones. A complete list with all the unimportant nobodies is not needed.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yoenit (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yoko Matsumoto

The article Yoko Matsumoto has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * WP:N/V Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this animator/tweener.  Additional sources welcomed, of course.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. joe deckertalk to me 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Doug Lascody for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doug Lascody is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Doug Lascody (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mikemor92 (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Nanami Sano for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nanami Sano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nanami Sano until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Ayumi Oka (actress) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ayumi Oka (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ayumi Oka (actress) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hiroko Mita for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hiroko Mita is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hiroko Mita & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Rickon Stark for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rickon Stark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rickon Stark & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Sandstein  19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ayumi Oka (actress) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ayumi Oka (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ayumi Oka (actress)& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. » Shadowowl  |  talk  19:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kaori Takahashi (actress) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kaori Takahashi (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kaori Takahashi (actress) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tyrosian (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sachiko Katsumata

The article Sachiko Katsumata has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "A one sentence stub. No refs in the article and tagged with notability since 2016. Before showing little and she has just 5 acting credits on imdb. Few edits since creation, fails gng."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Szzuk (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mayumi Hidaka

The article Mayumi Hidaka has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Oberyn Martell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oberyn Martell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Oberyn Martell& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mayumi Hidaka

A tag has been placed on Mayumi Hidaka requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sennenbi

The article Sennenbi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 4 years."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Seika Kuze

The article Seika Kuze has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "BLP since 2005 only with Imdb and Jmdb Sources, quick search did not display sources"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Clint Hallam for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clint Hallam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Clint Hallam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yukiko Okamoto (actress)

The article Yukiko Okamoto (actress) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. RoostTC (please ping me when replying) 14:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rio Akisada

The article Rio Akisada has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "This biography one sentence article lacks sufficient in-depth sources to establish notability. After searching, I found promotional and social media websites, but no comprehensive biographical coverage of the person. Created on 10 January 2005"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kotono Shibuya

The article Kotono Shibuya has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "This one sentnence biography article has zero references, and is not sufficient to establish notability. After searching, found social media, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of the person. Article was created on 22 January 2005"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Noriko Higashide

A tag has been placed on Noriko Higashide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nateji77


text:
Perry Christie

Perry Gladstone Christie PC, MP (born 21 August 1943) is a Bahamian former politician who served as prime minister of the Bahamas from 2002 to 2007 and from 2012 to 2017. He is the second longest-serving Bahamian elected parliamentarian (behind Sir Roland Symonette who was first elected to parliament in 1925 and served until 1977), representing the Centreville constituency from 1977 to 2017. He is also a former athlete. His Progressive Liberal Party is the oldest Bahamian political party, holding solid majorities in the Bahamian Parliament several times in its long history.

Political career
Christie is believed to have been the youngest Bahamian ever appointed to the Senate. Named as a Senator by Prime Minister Lynden Pindling in November 1974, Christie served in that capacity until June 1977. In January 1977 he was appointed chairman of the Gaming Board, which regulates casinos in The Bahamas.

Receiving the PLP's nomination for the Centreville constituency in the 1977 general election, Christie was elected Member of Parliament for that constituency, and shortly afterward appointed Minister of Health and National Insurance, and held that position until 1982. During the June 1982 general election, he was re-elected Member of Parliament for Centreville, and was once again appointed to the Prime Minister's Cabinet, but as Minister of Tourism.

A dynamic minister, Christie moved tourism in The Bahamas to new heights. In 1984, however, he was dismissed from the cabinet, and during the 1987 general election ran as an independent candidate. He retained his seat in the Centreville constituency. Three years later – in March 1990 – Christie returned to the fold of the Progressive Liberal Party, and was appointed minister of agriculture, trade and industry by the prime minister. Christie's ministerial responsibilities included the ministry of agriculture, trade and industry; mining, geological surveys, petroleum, fuel, oils and petrochemicals, industries encouragement, manufacturing, relations with The Bahamas Agricultural and Industrial Corporation, relations with The Bahamas National Trust, Andros reef and blue holes, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Co-operatives.

In January 1993, following the PLP's defeat in the August 1992 general election, Christie was elected co-deputy leader of the PLP with responsibility for party activities outside parliament. Victorious in the newly created Farm Road constituency in the general election, he was elected leader of the PLP at a special convention on 5 April 1997 and appointed as leader of the opposition by the Governor-General on 7 April. Christie thus succeeded Lynden Pindling, who had led the PLP since 1956.

Perry held the additional portfolio of Minister of Finance from 2002 to 2007, and from 2012 to 2017.

Events since 2007
Christie's party, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), was defeated in the May 2007 general election, taking 18 seats against 23 for the Free National Movement (FNM), and Christie conceded defeat in a phone call to FNM leader Hubert Ingraham. After the new FNM government was sworn in, Christie was sworn in as leader of the opposition.

In November 2009, Christie was overwhelmingly elected, and returned as Leader of the PLP at its Annual General Convention, garnering more than 80% of the vote over Dr. Bernard Nottage.

Christie was re-elected as Prime Minister of the Bahamas on 7 May 2012.

Christie has brought programmes like Urban Renewal.

Christie also introduced Value Added Tax at a rate of 7.5%. The money raised from VAT was slated to pay off National Debt.

No Freedom of Information Act has even been implemented under his government, although while in opposition he pushed for it.

Multiple human rights violations have been investigated under his leadership, none of which have been solved.

10 May 2017 General Elections
In a landslide defeat by the Free National Movement (FNM), the PLP was defeated in the 10 May 2017 general elections with the FNM winning 35 seats, and the PLP winning only 4 seats. The historic win also resulted in the unseating of Perry Christie from his Centerville seat by a mere four votes, a constituency which he had represented for 40 consecutive years.

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

title: Perry Christie


text:
Owen Arthur

Owen Seymour Arthur (17 October 1949 –27 July 2020)  was a Barbadian politician who served as the fifth prime minister of Barbados from 6 September 1994 to 15 January 2008. He is the longest-serving Barbadian prime minister to date. He also served as Leader of the Opposition from 1 August 1993 to 6 September 1994 and from 23 October 2010 to 21 February 2013.

Arthur was a firm advocate for regional integration and cooperation among the countries of the Caribbean. He was described by CARICOM as the chief architect of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy. He argued in favour of making the Caribbean Court of Justice the final court of appeal for countries of the Caribbean, and he advocated for the University of the West Indies regional airline LIAT, and projection of resistance against infringement on sovereignty by large nations.

Early life and education
Arthur studied at All Saints Boys’ School, Coleridge and Parry Boys' School, and Harrison College. He earned a BA degree in economics and history in 1971 at the University of the West Indies – Cave Hill, Barbados, and an MSc degree in economics in 1974 at the University of the West Indies – Mona, Jamaica. After graduating, he joined Jamaica's National Planning Agency as an Assistant Economic Planner and later served as Director of Economics at the Jamaica Bauxite Institute between 1979 and 1981. In 1981, he returned to Barbados and worked for the Barbadian Ministry of Finance and Planning (1981–1983, 1985–1986) and also served as a Research Fellow at the UWI's Institute of Social and Economics Research [now the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES)] from 1983 to 1985.

Member of Parliament
Arthur was appointed to the Senate of Barbados in 1983, and won a by-election to the House of Assembly in 1984 for the constituency of Saint Peter. In 1985 he was appointed to be parliamentary secretary at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, a position he held until 1986. Arthur served concurrently as a part-time lecturer in management at UWI Cave Hill until he was chosen to be the leader of the Barbados Labour Party in 1993, making him the parliamentary Leader of the Opposition.

Fifth Prime Minister of Barbados (1994–2008)
In September 1994, the Labour Party won the general elections, making Arthur Prime Minister. He also acted as Minister of National Security, Minister of Finance, and Minister of Information, and appointed four female ministers, including all three female BLP MPs. The youngest of the four, 29 year-old Mia Mottley, eventually succeeded him as party leader in 2008 and was elected Prime Minister in 2018.

In 1995, Arthur devised the formation of a parliamentary law reform commission led by Henry Forde to advise on constitutional and institutional reform of Barbados Government., and Arthur would also that year become appointed a Privy Counsellor, giving him the title of "Right Honourable." As part of Arthur government's agenda he dedicated much of his work as Prime Minister towards advancing Caribbean regional integration, including by spearheading the creation of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy in 2001 with the signing of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

Arthur sought for Barbados to host several international community events including the UN Global Conference on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) which led to the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States, also referred to as the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA), and further served as a principle negotiator in the 1997 Partnership for Prosperity and Security in the Caribbean also known as the "Bridgetown Declaration" between the West Indian nations and the United States.

After completing a popular first term, the BLP won a record-breaking 26 of 28 seats in the 1999 general election. A national plan for beautification of major business and community centres including Bridgetown, Holetown, Oistins, Speightstown, Warrens, and Wildey were devised and put into motion along with plans to greatly liberalise the Barbados economy and expand cultural industries. Plans for Double Taxation Agreements to spur international financial sector trade linkages, and for airport and seaport modernisation were also a focus.

The BLP kept a dominant majority by winning 23 of 28 seats in the 2003 general election, ensuring him a third term. A prominent plank of Arthur's platform for the 2003 elections was his promise to transform the country into a parliamentary republic, replacing Queen Elizabeth II with a Barbadian President as Head of State. Arthur planned to hold a national referendum on this proposition in 2005.

However, this timeline was pushed back due to other pressing developments, such as the implementation of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy and leading complex and difficult negotiations of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM- and European Union bloc of countries along with the resulting joint Parliament.

Closer to home, Arthur took genuine interest in advancing plans for the regional hosting of the Cricket World Cup 2007. On 18 June 2007, Arthur gave an address at the U.S. Library of Congress to American and CARICOM country officials that outlined his plan for the CSME.

On 25 March 2007, on the bicentennial anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire, Parliament passed a resolution acknowledging that slavery was a crime against humanity. On this occasion, Arthur expressed support for slavery reparations; he felt that educational exchanges and technology transfers would be more appropriate than financial payments.

Leader of Opposition
In the general election held on 15 January 2008, the Barbados Labour Party was defeated by the Democratic Labour Party, winning ten seats against 20 for the DLP. DLP Chairman David Thompson was sworn in as prime minister on 16 January, succeeding Arthur. Despite the party's defeat, Arthur was re-elected to his own seat from St. Peter constituency with 65% of the vote. He also maintained that he could still contribute to CARICOM. On 19 January, Arthur stepped down as BLP leader, saying that an immediate leadership transition would be in the best interests of both the party and Barbadian democracy; former Deputy Prime Minister Mia Mottley was elected as the new party leader over former Attorney-General of Barbados Dale Marshall. Arthur said that he intended to serve out his parliamentary term.

In 2010, Arthur was given a vote of confidence by four of his parliamentary colleagues to return as Leader of the BLP after they expressed dissatisfaction with Mottley. A Barbados Labour Party leadership election was held on 16 October 2010 and Arthur defeated Mottley. Arthur was sworn in as Barbados' new Opposition Leader on 18 October 2010.

In the February 2013 general election, the BLP was narrowly defeated, obtaining 14 seats against 16 for the DLP. Arthur was re-elected to his seat. A few days after the election, on 26 February 2013, the BLP parliamentary group held a leadership election and elected Mottley as Leader of the Opposition, replacing Arthur. According to the party, Arthur was not present at the election in order to "give the members of the parliamentary grouping the freedom to choose the future of the Barbados Labour Party".

On 25 July 2014, Arthur submitted his resignation from the Barbados Labour Party, citing disagreements with Mottley, and served the rest of his term as an independent M.P. He did not stand in the 2018 Barbadian general election, and BLP member Colin Jordan was elected as the new M.P. for Saint Peter. After leaving the House of Assembly, Arthur retired from politics.

Later career
Arthur was appointed professor of practice in Economics of Development at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, on 1 November 2018. He was the third professor of practice at the UWI Cave Hill Campus.

In January 2020, Arthur was appointed as Chairman of regional airline LIAT to supervise its financial recovery. He had been a staunch supporter of LIAT during his premiership.

Arthur was Chairman of the Commonwealth Observer Group during the 2020 Guyanese general election; he confirmed that the election had been orderly. He later criticized the incumbent APNU+AFC alliance for their months-long attempts to delay finalizing the election results.

Death
Arthur was hospitalized with heart complications in July 2020. He died in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Bridgetown at 12:26 a.m on 27 July. The late prime minister was accorded a state funeral through which he was brought to the Barbados House of Assembly to lay in state from August 12–13. Tributes followed from peers across the Americas and also from Commonwealth Secretary-General, The Baroness Scotland of Asthal.

Honours and awards
Arthur was a 1999 recipient of the Order of José Martí of Cuba.

title: Owen Arthur


text:
Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning is any of various methods of reasoning in which broad generalizations or principles are derived from a body of observations. This article is concerned with the inductive reasoning other than deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain given the premises are correct; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is at best probable, based upon the evidence given.

Types
The types of inductive reasoning include generalization, prediction, statistical syllogism, argument from analogy, and causal inference. There are also differences in how their results are regarded.

Inductive generalization
A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization) proceeds from premises about a sample to a conclusion about the population. The observation obtained from this sample is projected onto the broader population.

 * The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
 * Therefore, the proportion Q of the population has attribute A.

For example, if there are 20 balls—either black or white—in an urn, to estimate their respective numbers, a sample of four balls is drawn, three are black and one is white. An inductive generalization is that there are 15 black and five white balls in the urn.

How much the premises support the conclusion depends upon the number in the sample group, the number in the population, and the degree to which the sample represents the population (which, for a static population, may be achieved by taking a random sample). The greater the sample size relative to the population and the more closely the sample represents the population, the stronger the generalization is. The hasty generalization and the biased sample are generalization fallacies.

Statistical generalization
A statistical generalization is a type of inductive argument in which a conclusion about a population is inferred using a statistically representative sample. For example:

 * Of a sizeable random sample of voters surveyed, 66% support Measure Z.
 * Therefore, approximately 66% of voters support Measure Z.

The measure is highly reliable within a well-defined margin of error provided that the selection process was genuinely random and that the numbers of items in the sample having the properties considered are large. It is readily quantifiable. Compare the preceding argument with the following. "Six of the ten people in my book club are Libertarians. Therefore, about 60% of people are Libertarians." The argument is weak because the sample is non-random and the sample size is very small.

Statistical generalizations are also called statistical projections and sample projections.

Anecdotal generalization
An anecdotal generalization is a type of inductive argument in which a conclusion about a population is inferred using a non-statistical sample. In other words, the generalization is based on anecdotal evidence. For example:

 * So far, this year his son's Little League team has won 6 of 10 games.
 * Therefore, by season's end, they will have won about 60% of the games.

This inference is less reliable (and thus more likely to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization) than a statistical generalization, first, because the sample events are non-random, and second because it is not reducible to a mathematical expression. Statistically speaking, there is simply no way to know, measure and calculate the circumstances affecting performance that will occur in the future. On a philosophical level, the argument relies on the presupposition that the operation of future events will mirror the past. In other words, it takes for granted a uniformity of nature, an unproven principle that cannot be derived from the empirical data itself. Arguments that tacitly presuppose this uniformity are sometimes called Humean after the philosopher who was first to subject them to philosophical scrutiny.

Prediction
An inductive prediction draws a conclusion about a future, current, or past instance from a sample of other instances. Like an inductive generalization, an inductive prediction relies on a data set consisting of specific instances of a phenomenon. But rather than conclude with a general statement, the inductive prediction concludes with a specific statement about the probability that a single instance will (or will not) have an attribute shared (or not shared) by the other instances.

 * Proportion Q of observed members of group G have had attribute A.
 * Therefore, there is a probability corresponding to Q that other members of group G will have attribute A when next observed.

Statistical syllogism
A statistical syllogism proceeds from a generalization about a group to a conclusion about an individual.

 * Proportion Q of the known instances of population P has attribute A.
 * Individual I is another member of P.
 * Therefore, there is a probability corresponding to Q that I has A.

For example:
 * 90% of graduates from Excelsior Preparatory school go on to university.
 * Bob is a graduate of Excelsior Preparatory school.
 * Therefore, Bob will probably go on to university.

This is a statistical syllogism. Even though one cannot be sure Bob will attend university, the exact probability of this outcome is fully assured (given no further information). Two dicto simpliciter fallacies can occur in statistical syllogisms: "accident" and "converse accident".

Argument from analogy
The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property:

 * P and Q are similar with respect to properties a, b, and c.
 * Object P has been observed to have further property x.
 * Therefore, Q probably has property x also.

Analogical reasoning is very frequent in common sense, science, philosophy, law, and the humanities, but sometimes it is accepted only as an auxiliary method. A refined approach is case-based reasoning.

 * Mineral A and Mineral B are both igneous rocks often containing veins of quartz and are most commonly found in South America in areas of ancient volcanic activity.
 * Mineral A is also a soft stone suitable for carving into jewelry.
 * Therefore, mineral B is probably a soft stone suitable for carving into jewelry.

This is analogical induction, according to which things alike in certain ways are more prone to be alike in other ways. This form of induction was explored in detail by philosopher John Stuart Mill in his System of Logic, where he states, "[t]here can be no doubt that every resemblance [not known to be irrelevant] affords some degree of probability, beyond what would otherwise exist, in favor of the conclusion." See Mill's Methods.

Some thinkers contend that analogical induction is a subcategory of inductive generalization because it assumes a pre-established uniformity governing events. Analogical induction requires an auxiliary examination of the relevancy of the characteristics cited as common to the pair. In the preceding example, if a premise were added stating that both stones were mentioned in the records of early Spanish explorers, this common attribute is extraneous to the stones and does not contribute to their probable affinity.

A pitfall of analogy is that features can be cherry-picked: while objects may show striking similarities, two things juxtaposed may respectively possess other characteristics not identified in the analogy that are characteristics sharply dissimilar. Thus, analogy can mislead if not all relevant comparisons are made.

Causal inference
A causal inference draws a conclusion about a possible or probable causal connection based on the conditions of the occurrence of an effect. Premises about the correlation of two things can indicate a causal relationship between them, but additional factors must be confirmed to establish the exact form of the causal relationship.

Methods
The two principal methods used to reach inductive generalizations are enumerative induction and eliminative induction.

Enumerative induction
Enumerative induction is an inductive method in which a generalization is constructed based on the number of instances that support it. The more supporting instances, the stronger the conclusion.

The most basic form of enumerative induction reasons from particular instances to all instances and is thus an unrestricted generalization. If one observes 100 swans, and all 100 were white, one might infer a probable universal categorical proposition of the form All swans are white. As this reasoning form's premises, even if true, do not entail the conclusion's truth, this is a form of inductive inference. The conclusion might be true, and might be thought probably true, yet it can be false. Questions regarding the justification and form of enumerative inductions have been central in philosophy of science, as enumerative induction has a pivotal role in the traditional model of the scientific method.

 * All life forms so far discovered are composed of cells.
 * Therefore, all life forms are composed of cells.

This is enumerative induction, also known as simple induction or simple predictive induction. It is a subcategory of inductive generalization. In everyday practice, this is perhaps the most common form of induction. For the preceding argument, the conclusion is tempting but makes a prediction well in excess of the evidence. First, it assumes that life forms observed until now can tell us how future cases will be: an appeal to uniformity. Second, the conclusion All is a bold assertion. A single contrary instance foils the argument. And last, quantifying the level of probability in any mathematical form is problematic. By what standard do we measure our Earthly sample of known life against all (possible) life? Suppose we do discover some new organism—such as some microorganism floating in the mesosphere or an asteroid—and it is cellular. Does the addition of this corroborating evidence oblige us to raise our probability assessment for the subject proposition? It is generally deemed reasonable to answer this question "yes", and for a good many this "yes" is not only reasonable but incontrovertible. So then just how much should this new data change our probability assessment? Here, consensus melts away, and in its place arises a question about whether we can talk of probability coherently at all with or without numerical quantification.

 * All life forms so far discovered have been composed of cells.
 * Therefore, the next life form discovered will be composed of cells.

This is enumerative induction in its weak form. It truncates "all" to a mere single instance and, by making a far weaker claim, considerably strengthens the probability of its conclusion. Otherwise, it has the same shortcomings as the strong form: its sample population is non-random, and quantification methods are elusive.

Eliminative induction
Eliminative induction, also called variative induction, is an inductive method in which a generalization is constructed based on the variety of instances that support it. Unlike enumerative induction, eliminative induction reasons based on the various kinds of instances that support a conclusion, rather than the number of instances that support it. As the variety of instances increases, the more possible conclusions based on those instances can be identified as incompatible and eliminated. This, in turn, increases the strength of any conclusion that remains consistent with the various instances. This type of induction may use different methodologies such as quasi-experimentation, which tests and, where possible, eliminates rival hypotheses. Different evidential tests may also be employed to eliminate possibilities that are entertained.

Eliminative induction is crucial to the scientific method and is used to eliminate hypotheses that are inconsistent with observations and experiments. It focuses on possible causes instead of observed actual instances of causal connections.

Ancient philosophy
For a move from particular to universal, Aristotle in the 300s BCE used the Greek word epagogé, which Cicero translated into the Latin word inductio.

Aristotle and the Peripatetic School
Aristotle's Posterior Analytics covers the methods of inductive proof in natural philosophy and in the social sciences. The first book of Posterior Analytics describes the nature and science of demonstration and its elements: including definition, division, intuitive reason of first principles, particular and universal demonstration, affirmative and negative demonstration, the difference between science and opinion, etc.

Pyrrhonism
The ancient Pyrrhonists were the first Western philosophers to point out the Problem of induction: that induction cannot, according to them, justify the acceptance of universal statements as true.

Ancient medicine
The Empiric school of ancient Greek medicine employed epilogism as a method of inference. 'Epilogism' is a theory-free method that looks at history through the accumulation of facts without major generalization and with consideration of the consequences of making causal claims. Epilogism is an inference which moves entirely within the domain of visible and evident things, it tries not to invoke unobservables.

The Dogmatic school of ancient Greek medicine employed analogismos as a method of inference. This method used analogy to reason from what was observed to unobservable forces.

Early modern philosophy
In 1620, early modern philosopher Francis Bacon repudiated the value of mere experience and enumerative induction alone. His method of inductivism required that minute and many-varied observations that uncovered the natural world's structure and causal relations needed to be coupled with enumerative induction in order to have knowledge beyond the present scope of experience. Inductivism therefore required enumerative induction as a component.

David Hume
The empiricist David Hume's 1740 stance found enumerative induction to have no rational, let alone logical, basis; instead, induction was the product of instinct rather than reason, a custom of the mind and an everyday requirement to live. While observations, such as the motion of the sun, could be coupled with the principle of the uniformity of nature to produce conclusions that seemed to be certain, the problem of induction arose from the fact that the uniformity of nature was not a logically valid principle, therefore it could not be defended as deductively rational, but also could not be defended as inductively rational by appealing to the fact that the uniformity of nature has accurately described the past and therefore, will likely accurately describe the future because that is an inductive argument and therefore circular since induction is what needs to be justified.

Since Hume first wrote about the dilemma between the invalidity of deductive arguments and the circularity of inductive arguments in support of the uniformity of nature, this supposed dichotomy between merely two modes of inference, deduction and induction, has been contested with the discovery of a third mode of inference known as abduction, or abductive reasoning, which was first formulated and advanced by Charles Sanders Peirce, in 1886, where he referred to it as "reasoning by hypothesis." Inference to the best explanation is often, yet arguably, treated as synonymous to abduction as it was first identified by Gilbert Harman in 1965 where he referred to it as "abductive reasoning," yet his definition of abduction slightly differs from Pierce's definition. Regardless, if abduction is in fact a third mode of inference rationally independent from the other two, then either the uniformity of nature can be rationally justified through abduction, or Hume's dilemma is more of a trilemma. Hume was also skeptical of the application of enumerative induction and reason to reach certainty about unobservables and especially the inference of causality from the fact that modifying an aspect of a relationship prevents or produces a particular outcome.

Immanuel Kant
Awakened from "dogmatic slumber" by a German translation of Hume's work, Kant sought to explain the possibility of metaphysics. In 1781, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason introduced rationalism as a path toward knowledge distinct from empiricism. Kant sorted statements into two types. Analytic statements are true by virtue of the arrangement of their terms and meanings, thus analytic statements are tautologies, merely logical truths, true by necessity. Whereas synthetic statements hold meanings to refer to states of facts, contingencies. Against both rationalist philosophers like Descartes and Leibniz as well as against empiricist philosophers like Locke and Hume, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a sustained argument that in order to have knowledge we need both a contribution of our mind (concepts) as well as a contribution of our senses (intuitions). Knowledge proper is for Kant thus restricted to what we can possibly perceive (phenomena), whereas objects of mere thought ("things in themselves") are in principle unknowable due to the impossibility of ever perceiving them.

Reasoning that the mind must contain its own categories for organizing sense data, making experience of objects in space and time (phenomena) possible, Kant concluded that the uniformity of nature was an a priori truth. A class of synthetic statements that was not contingent but true by necessity, was then synthetic a priori. Kant thus saved both metaphysics and Newton's law of universal gravitation. On the basis of the argument that what goes beyond our knowledge is "nothing to us," he discarded scientific realism. Kant's position that knowledge comes about by a cooperation of perception and our capacity to think (transcendental idealism) gave birth to the movement of German idealism. Hegel's absolute idealism subsequently flourished across continental Europe and England.

Late modern philosophy
Positivism, developed by Henri de Saint-Simon and promulgated in the 1830s by his former student Auguste Comte, was the first late modern philosophy of science. In the aftermath of the French Revolution, fearing society's ruin, Comte opposed metaphysics. Human knowledge had evolved from religion to metaphysics to science, said Comte, which had flowed from mathematics to astronomy to physics to chemistry to biology to sociology—in that order—describing increasingly intricate domains. All of society's knowledge had become scientific, with questions of theology and of metaphysics being unanswerable. Comte found enumerative induction reliable as a consequence of its grounding in available experience. He asserted the use of science, rather than metaphysical truth, as the correct method for the improvement of human society.

According to Comte, scientific method frames predictions, confirms them, and states laws—positive statements—irrefutable by theology or by metaphysics. Regarding experience as justifying enumerative induction by demonstrating the uniformity of nature, the British philosopher John Stuart Mill welcomed Comte's positivism, but thought scientific laws susceptible to recall or revision and Mill also withheld from Comte's Religion of Humanity. Comte was confident in treating scientific law as an irrefutable foundation for all knowledge, and believed that churches, honouring eminent scientists, ought to focus public mindset on altruism—a term Comte coined—to apply science for humankind's social welfare via sociology, Comte's leading science.

During the 1830s and 1840s, while Comte and Mill were the leading philosophers of science, William Whewell found enumerative induction not nearly as convincing, and, despite the dominance of inductivism, formulated "superinduction". Whewell argued that "the peculiar import of the term Induction" should be recognised: "there is some Conception superinduced upon the facts", that is, "the Invention of a new Conception in every inductive inference". The creation of Conceptions is easily overlooked and prior to Whewell was rarely recognised. Whewell explained:

"'Although we bind together facts by superinducing upon them a new Conception, this Conception, once introduced and applied, is looked upon as inseparably connected with the facts, and necessarily implied in them. Having once had the phenomena bound together in their minds in virtue of the Conception, men can no longer easily restore them back to detached and incoherent condition in which they were before they were thus combined.'"

These "superinduced" explanations may well be flawed, but their accuracy is suggested when they exhibit what Whewell termed consilience—that is, simultaneously predicting the inductive generalizations in multiple areas—a feat that, according to Whewell, can establish their truth. Perhaps to accommodate the prevailing view of science as inductivist method, Whewell devoted several chapters to "methods of induction" and sometimes used the phrase "logic of induction", despite the fact that induction lacks rules and cannot be trained.

In the 1870s, the originator of pragmatism, C S Peirce performed vast investigations that clarified the basis of deductive inference as a mathematical proof (as, independently, did Gottlob Frege). Peirce recognized induction but always insisted on a third type of inference that Peirce variously termed abduction or retroduction or hypothesis or presumption. Later philosophers termed Peirce's abduction, etc., Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE).

Bertrand Russell
Having highlighted Hume's problem of induction, John Maynard Keynes posed logical probability as its answer, or as near a solution as he could arrive at. Bertrand Russell found Keynes's Treatise on Probability the best examination of induction, and believed that if read with Jean Nicod's Le Probleme logique de l'induction as well as R B Braithwaite's review of Keynes's work in the October 1925 issue of Mind, that would cover "most of what is known about induction", although the "subject is technical and difficult, involving a good deal of mathematics". Two decades later, Russell followed Keynes in regarding enumerative induction as an "independent logical principle". Russell found:

"'Hume's skepticism rests entirely upon his rejection of the principle of induction. The principle of induction, as applied to causation, says that, if A has been found very often accompanied or followed by B, then it is probable that on the next occasion on which A is observed, it will be accompanied or followed by B. If the principle is to be adequate, a sufficient number of instances must make the probability not far short of certainty. If this principle, or any other from which it can be deduced, is true, then the casual inferences which Hume rejects are valid, not indeed as giving certainty, but as giving a sufficient probability for practical purposes. If this principle is not true, every attempt to arrive at general scientific laws from particular observations is fallacious, and Hume's skepticism is inescapable for an empiricist.  The principle itself cannot, of course, without circularity, be inferred from observed uniformities, since it is required to justify any such inference. It must, therefore, be, or be deduced from, an independent principle not based on experience. To this extent, Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a sufficient basis for science. But if this one principle is admitted, everything else can proceed in accordance with the theory that all our knowledge is based on experience. It must be granted that this is a serious departure from pure empiricism, and that those who are not empiricists may ask why, if one departure is allowed, others are forbidden. These, however, are not questions directly raised by Hume's arguments. What these arguments prove—and I do not think the proof can be controverted—is that induction is an independent logical principle, incapable of being inferred either from experience or from other logical principles, and that without this principle, science is impossible.'"

Gilbert Harman
In a 1965 paper, Gilbert Harman explained that enumerative induction is not an autonomous phenomenon, but is simply a disguised consequence of Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE). IBE is otherwise synonymous with C S Peirce's abduction. Many philosophers of science espousing scientific realism have maintained that IBE is the way that scientists develop approximately true scientific theories about nature.

Comparison with deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning is a form of argument that—in contrast to deductive reasoning—allows for the possibility that a conclusion can be false, even if all of the premises are true. This difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is reflected in the terminology used to describe deductive and inductive arguments. In deductive reasoning, an argument is "valid" when, assuming the argument's premises are true, the conclusion must be true. If the argument is valid and the premises are true, then the argument is "sound". In contrast, in inductive reasoning, an argument's premises can never guarantee that the conclusion must be true. Instead, an argument is "strong" when, assuming the argument's premises are true, the conclusion is probably true. If the argument is strong and the premises are thought to be true, then the argument is said to be "cogent". Less formally, the conclusion of an inductive argument may be called "probable", "plausible", "likely", "reasonable", or "justified", but never "certain" or "necessary". Logic affords no bridge from the probable to the certain.

The futility of attaining certainty through some critical mass of probability can be illustrated with a coin-toss exercise. Suppose someone tests whether a coin is either a fair one or two-headed. They flip the coin ten times, and ten times it comes up heads. At this point, there is a strong reason to believe it is two-headed. After all, the chance of ten heads in a row is .000976: less than one in one thousand. Then, after 100 flips, every toss has come up heads. Now there is “virtual” certainty that the coin is two-headed, and one can regard it as 'true' that the coin is probably two-headed. Still, one can neither logically nor empirically rule out that the next toss will produce tails. No matter how many times in a row it comes up heads, this remains the case. If one programmed a machine to flip a coin over and over continuously, at some point the result would be a string of 100 heads. In the fullness of time, all combinations will appear.

As for the slim prospect of getting ten out of ten heads from a fair coin—the outcome that made the coin appear biased—many may be surprised to learn that the chance of any sequence of heads or tails is equally unlikely (e.g., H-H-T-T-H-T-H-H-H-T) and yet it occurs in every trial of ten tosses. That means all results for ten tosses have the same probability as getting ten out of ten heads, which is 0.000976. If one records the heads-tails sequences, for whatever result, that exact sequence had a chance of 0.000976.

An argument is deductive when the conclusion is necessary given the premises. That is, the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. For example, after getting 10 heads in a row one might deduce that the coin had met some statistical criterion to be regarded as 'probably two-sided, a conclusion that would not be falsified even if the next toss yielded 'tails'.

If a deductive conclusion follows duly from its premises, then it is valid; otherwise, it is invalid (that an argument is invalid is not to say its conclusions are false; it may have a true conclusion, just not on account of the premises). An examination of the following examples will show that the relationship between premises and conclusion is such that the truth of the conclusion is already implicit in the premises. Bachelors are unmarried because we say they are; we have defined them so. Socrates is mortal because we have included him in a set of beings that are mortal. The conclusion for a valid deductive argument is already contained in the premises since its truth is strictly a matter of logical relations. It cannot say more than its premises. Inductive premises, on the other hand, draw their substance from fact and evidence, and the conclusion accordingly makes a factual claim or prediction. Its reliability varies proportionally with the evidence. Induction wants to reveal something new about the world. One could say that induction wants to say more than is contained in the premises.

To better see the difference between inductive and deductive arguments, consider that it would not make sense to say: "all rectangles so far examined have four right angles, so the next one I see will have four right angles." This would treat logical relations as something factual and discoverable, and thus variable and uncertain. Likewise, speaking deductively we may permissibly say. "All unicorns can fly; I have a unicorn named Charlie; thus Charlie can fly." This deductive argument is valid because the logical relations hold; we are not interested in their factual soundness.

The conclusions of inductive reasoning are inherently uncertain. It only deals with the extent to which, given the premises, the conclusion is credible according to some theory of evidence. Examples include a many-valued logic, Dempster–Shafer theory, or probability theory with rules for inference such as Bayes' rule. Unlike deductive reasoning, it does not rely on universals holding over a closed domain of discourse to draw conclusions, so it can be applicable even in cases of epistemic uncertainty (technical issues with this may arise however; for example, the second axiom of probability is a closed-world assumption).

Another crucial difference between these two types of argument is that deductive certainty is impossible in non-axiomatic or empirical systems such as reality, leaving inductive reasoning as the primary route to (probabilistic) knowledge of such systems.

Given that "if A is true then that would cause B, C, and D to be true", an example of deduction would be "A is true therefore we can deduce that B, C, and D are true". An example of induction would be "B, C, and D are observed to be true therefore A might be true". A is a reasonable explanation for B, C, and D being true.

For example:

 * A large enough asteroid impact would create a very large crater and cause a severe impact winter that could drive the non-avian dinosaurs to extinction.
 * We observe that there is a very large crater in the Gulf of Mexico dating to very near the time of the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs.
 * Therefore, it is possible that this impact could explain why the non-avian dinosaurs became extinct.

Note, however, that the asteroid explanation for the mass extinction is not necessarily correct. Other events with the potential to affect global climate also coincide with the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. For example, the release of volcanic gases (particularly sulfur dioxide) during the formation of the Deccan Traps in India.

Another example of an inductive argument:

 * All biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.
 * Therefore, if we discover a new biological life form, it will probably depend on liquid water to exist.

This argument could have been made every time a new biological life form was found, and would have had a correct conclusion every time; however, it is still possible that in the future a biological life form not requiring liquid water could be discovered. As a result, the argument may be stated as:

 * All biological life forms that we know of depend on liquid water to exist.
 * Therefore, all biological life probably depends on liquid water to exist.

A classical example of an incorrect statistical syllogism was presented by John Vickers:

 * All of the swans we have seen are white.
 * Therefore, we know that all swans are white.

The conclusion fails because the population of swans then known was not actually representative of all swans. A more reasonable conclusion would be: in line with applicable conventions, we might reasonably expect all swans in England to be white, at least in the short-term.

Succinctly put: deduction is about certainty/necessity; induction is about probability. Any single assertion will answer to one of these two criteria. Another approach to the analysis of reasoning is that of modal logic, which deals with the distinction between the necessary and the possible in a way not concerned with probabilities among things deemed possible.

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than a simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms).

Note that the definition of inductive reasoning described here differs from mathematical induction, which, in fact, is a form of deductive reasoning. Mathematical induction is used to provide strict proofs of the properties of recursively defined sets. The deductive nature of mathematical induction derives from its basis in a non-finite number of cases, in contrast with the finite number of cases involved in an enumerative induction procedure like proof by exhaustion. Both mathematical induction and proof by exhaustion are examples of complete induction. Complete induction is a masked type of deductive reasoning.

Problem of induction
Although philosophers at least as far back as the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus have pointed out the unsoundness of inductive reasoning, the classic philosophical critique of the problem of induction was given by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Although the use of inductive reasoning demonstrates considerable success, the justification for its application has been questionable. Recognizing this, Hume highlighted the fact that our mind often draws conclusions from relatively limited experiences that appear correct but which are actually far from certain. In deduction, the truth value of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premise. In induction, however, the dependence of the conclusion on the premise is always uncertain. For example, let us assume that all ravens are black. The fact that there are numerous black ravens supports the assumption. Our assumption, however, becomes invalid once it is discovered that there are white ravens. Therefore, the general rule "all ravens are black" is not the kind of statement that can ever be certain. Hume further argued that it is impossible to justify inductive reasoning: this is because it cannot be justified deductively, so our only option is to justify it inductively. Since this argument is circular, with the help of Hume's fork he concluded that our use of induction is not logically justifiable.

Hume nevertheless stated that even if induction were proved unreliable, we would still have to rely on it. So instead of a position of severe skepticism, Hume advocated a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted. Bertrand Russell illustrated Hume's skepticism in a story about a chicken who, fed every morning without fail and following the laws of induction, concluded that this feeding would always continue, until his throat was eventually cut by the farmer.

In 1963, Karl Popper wrote, "Induction, i.e. inference based on many observations, is a myth. It is neither a psychological fact, nor a fact of ordinary life, nor one of scientific procedure." Popper's 1972 book Objective Knowledge—whose first chapter is devoted to the problem of induction—opens, "I think I have solved a major philosophical problem: the problem of induction". In Popper's schema, enumerative induction is "a kind of optical illusion" cast by the steps of conjecture and refutation during a problem shift. An imaginative leap, the tentative solution is improvised, lacking inductive rules to guide it. The resulting, unrestricted generalization is deductive, an entailed consequence of all explanatory considerations. Controversy continued, however, with Popper's putative solution not generally accepted.

Donald A. Gillies argues that rules of inferences related to inductive reasoning are overwhelmingly absent from science, and describes most scientific inferences as "involv[ing] conjectures thought up by human ingenuity and creativity, and by no means inferred in any mechanical fashion, or according to precisely specified rules." Gillies also provides a rare counterexample "in the machine learning programs of AI."

Biases
Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on current knowledge and predictions. As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.

The availability heuristic is regarded as causing the reasoner to depend primarily upon information that is readily available. People have a tendency to rely on information that is easily accessible in the world around them. For example, in surveys, when people are asked to estimate the percentage of people who died from various causes, most respondents choose the causes that have been most prevalent in the media such as terrorism, murders, and airplane accidents, rather than causes such as disease and traffic accidents, which have been technically "less accessible" to the individual since they are not emphasized as heavily in the world around them.

Confirmation bias is based on the natural tendency to confirm rather than deny a hypothesis. Research has demonstrated that people are inclined to seek solutions to problems that are more consistent with known hypotheses rather than attempt to refute those hypotheses. Often, in experiments, subjects will ask questions that seek answers that fit established hypotheses, thus confirming these hypotheses. For example, if it is hypothesized that Sally is a sociable individual, subjects will naturally seek to confirm the premise by asking questions that would produce answers confirming that Sally is, in fact, a sociable individual.

The predictable-world bias revolves around the inclination to perceive order where it has not been proved to exist, either at all or at a particular level of abstraction. Gambling, for example, is one of the most popular examples of predictable-world bias. Gamblers often begin to think that they see simple and obvious patterns in the outcomes and therefore believe that they are able to predict outcomes based on what they have witnessed. In reality, however, the outcomes of these games are difficult to predict and highly complex in nature. In general, people tend to seek some type of simplistic order to explain or justify their beliefs and experiences, and it is often difficult for them to realise that their perceptions of order may be entirely different from the truth.

Bayesian inference
As a logic of induction rather than a theory of belief, Bayesian inference does not determine which beliefs are a priori rational, but rather determines how we should rationally change the beliefs we have when presented with evidence. We begin by considering an exhaustive list of possibilities, a definite probabilistic characterisation of each of them (in terms of likelihoods) and precise prior probabilities for them (e.g. based on logic or induction from previous experience) and, when faced with evidence, we adjust the strength of our belief in the given hypotheses in a precise manner using Bayesian logic to yield candidate 'a posteriori probabilities', taking no account of the extent to which the new evidence may happen to give us specific reasons to doubt our assumptions. Otherwise it is advisable to review and repeat as necessary the consideration of possibilities and their characterisation until, perhaps, a stable situation is reached.

Inductive inference
Around 1960, Ray Solomonoff founded the theory of universal inductive inference, a theory of prediction based on observations, for example, predicting the next symbol based upon a given series of symbols. This is a formal inductive framework that combines algorithmic information theory with the Bayesian framework. Universal inductive inference is based on solid philosophical foundations and 'seems to be an inadequate tool for dealing with any reasonably complex or real-world environment', and can be considered as a mathematically formalized Occam's razor. Fundamental ingredients of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity.

title: Inductive reasoning


text:
Keith Mitchell

Keith Claudius Mitchell (born 12 November 1946) is a Grenadian politician who served as Prime Minister of Grenada from 1995 to 2008 and from 2013 to 2022. He is the longest-serving Prime Minister in Grenadian history, holding the office for more than 22 years. He is currently leader of the New National Party (NNP) and has been the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of Grenada from 2008 to 2013, and again since 2022.

Education and personal life
Keith Claudius Mitchell was born in the community of Brizan, Saint George. Mitchell graduated from The University of the West Indies with a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics and chemistry in 1971. He gained a master's degree from Howard University in 1975 and a doctorate in mathematics and statistics from American University in 1979. He then worked as a statistician at Applied Management Sciences, providing statistical support to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In 1984, Mitchell gave up his professional activities to return home to Grenada after the U.S. invasion.

Cricket career
Mitchell was a cricketer, a spin bowler who captained the Grenada team in 1973. He has since been a prominent cricket administrator in the West Indies alongside his political career.

Political career
In the December 1984 general election, Mitchell was elected to a seat in the House of Representatives from St. George North West constituency and he has held the seat in each subsequent election. Mitchell was elected as leader of the NNP in January 1989, defeating Prime Minister Herbert Blaize. Blaize then dismissed Mitchell from his position as Minister of Communications and Works on 21 July 1989.

After the NNP was victorious in the general election held on 20 June 1995, winning eight out of 15 seats in the House of Representatives, Mitchell took office as Prime Minister, along with his Cabinet, on 22 June. Under Mitchell's leadership, the party won all 15 seats in the early election held in January 1999, and the NNP narrowly won a third term in power in the November 2003 election, reduced to a one-seat parliamentary majority. Mitchell held the additional portfolio of Minister of Finance for three periods.

The New National Party was defeated in the general election held on 8 July 2008 by the National Democratic Congress (NDC), winning only four seats against 11 for the NDC. Mitchell himself was re-elected to his seat from St. George North West. NDC leader Tillman Thomas succeeded Mitchell as Prime Minister on 9 July. Mitchell said that the people voted for change and congratulated Thomas. Following the election, he continued as NNP leader and was sworn in as Leader of the Opposition on 16 July 2008.

In the February 2013 general election, the NNP again won all 15 parliamentary seats. After this resounding victory, Mitchell was sworn in as Prime Minister on 20 February 2013. Looking ahead to the next election, Mitchell predicted that his party could win all 15 seats in parliament for a third time. Mitchell and his New National Party created history by retaining all 15 seats in the Grenada General Election of 13 March 2018. It is the first time any political party regionally or otherwise has achieved such a feat. Mitchell held the additional portfolio of Minister of Finance until 2020.

In June 2022, Mitchell called a snap general election. His New National Party was defeated by the National Democratic Congress under Dickon Mitchell, winning just 6 seats to the NDC's 9. Mitchell subsequently became Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of Grenada.

Foreign policy
In 1997, Mitchell became the first prime minister since Maurice Bishop to visit Cuba, signing an economic cooperation agreement. He re-established relations with the People's Republic of China in 2005.

Mitchell approved 1996 plans by the United States Coast Guard to build a base on Petite Martinique. He allowed medical visits from USNS Comfort (T-AH-20).

title: Keith Mitchell


text:
Charles Francis Adams

Charles Francis Adams may refer to:

 * Charles Francis Adams Sr. (1807–1886), grandson of John Adams, son of John Quincy Adams, U.S. congressman, ambassador
 * Charles Francis Adams Jr. (1835–1915), son of above, American Civil War general and president of the Union Pacific Railroad
 * Charles Francis Adams III (1866–1954), nephew of above, U.S. Navy secretary
 * Charles Francis Adams IV (1910–1999), son of above, president of Raytheon
 * Charles Adams (ice hockey) (1876–1947), grocery magnate and founder of the Boston Bruins

title: Charles Francis Adams


text:
Denzil Douglas

Denzil Llewellyn Douglas (born 14 January 1953) is a Saint Kittitian and Nevisian politician and the longest-serving prime minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis, in office from 1995 to 2015. He was the leader of the Saint Kitts and Nevis Labour Party (SKNLP) from 1989 to 2021. He was the leader of the parliamentary opposition from 1989 to 1995 and from 2015 to 2022.

Early life and pre-political career
Born on 14 January 1953 in the village of St. Pauls, Douglas studied medicine as a young man. He obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in 1977 and a Degree in Medicine in 1984 from the University of the West Indies at Cave Hill. In 1986 he established a private medical practice as a family physician and served as President of the St. Kitts-Nevis Medical Association in the late 1980s.

Political life
Douglas was elected M.P. for St. Christopher (No.6) ward (Newton Ground, St. Paul's, Dieppe Bay, Saddlers, and Harris) in the National Assembly of Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1989 and appointed leader of the opposition. That year he was also elected leader of the Saint Kitts and Nevis Labour Party after some internal wrangling for the leadership between himself and the then incumbent political leader Sir Lee L Moore. This internal feud surfaced after Sir Lee L Moore had lost his seat in constituency number 4.

He restructured the party in preparation for its 1995 electoral victory. He was appointed Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1995, re-appointed Prime Minister in March 2000 and again in October 2004 after the Labour Party won a third term with seven of the eight seats on St. Kitts. The Labour Party won its fourth consecutive term in office on 25 January 2010, winning six of the eight seats on St Kitts in the eleven-member National Assembly.

In 2011, Douglas was responsible for the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) program, which provided 2,000 free laptops per year from Taiwan to high school students.

Political Controversies
In 2014, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an Advisory to alert financial institutions that certain foreign individuals were abusing the Citizenship by Investment program sponsored by the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis (SKN) led by the Denzil Douglas Administration to obtain SKN passports for the purpose of engaging in illicit financial activity. As a result of these lax controls, illicit actors, including individuals intending to use the secondary citizenship to evade sanctions, can obtain an SKN passport with relative ease. These events led to the United States revoking his visa.

Detainment at Gatwick Airport London
On 16 November 2019, The Mail on Sunday reported Douglas was detained at Gatwick Airport by the UK's Border Force. The Officers seized the equivalent of more than £70,000 – in sterling, US dollars and eastern Caribbean dollars – from him when he could not explain why he was attempting to leave the country with the cash. It was said he was the subject of a probe by the National Crime Agency.

Appeal court ruled that Denzil Douglas must vacate seat in Parliament
On Thursday 12 March 2020, the Government of St Kitts-Nevis Information Services SKNIS reported in a Press release that The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) of Appeal in Castries, Saint Lucia, in a judgment handed down on, March 12, 2020, ruled that Dr. Denzil Douglas, Leader of the St. Kitts and Nevis Opposition Labour Party and Parliamentary Representative for St. Christopher Six, must VACATE his seat in the National Assembly with immediate effect over the issue of a Dominican diplomatic passport that had been granted to him by Dominica. Chief Justice, the Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, made the following conclusion:

"The cumulative effect of my conclusions is that Dr. Douglas, by his application for, receipt and use of a Dominican diplomatic passport, placed him in clear breach of section 28(1)(a) of the Constitution. As a matter of law, the consequence in the terms of section 33(3)(c) follows. That consequence is that, Dr. Douglas is required to vacate his seat in the National Assembly in Saint Christopher and Nevis,”

Post-premiership
After losing the 2015 general election he remained active in politics as leader of the opposition. Prior to the 2020 general election, Douglas had not put in place a succession plan for new leadership of the SKNLP despite calls to resign.

In 2021, Douglas decided to step down as leader of the SKNLP, while remaining the parliamentary leader of the opposition. At the national SKNLP convention on 28 November 2021, party chairman Terrance Drew was elected as his successor.

On 15 August 2022 he joined the Drew ministry as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Honours

 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
 * Appointed to Her Majesty’s Privy Council, with the prefix "Right Honourable" added to his name (2011)
 * 🇹🇼 Taiwan:
 * TWN Order of Propitious Clouds 1Class BAR.svg Special Grand Cordon of the Order of Propitious Clouds (2011)

title: Denzil Douglas