text:
Talk:2004 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Covering future events
Why don't we stop talking about the future? Future release album, future election, future etc... -- Taku 08:13 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * This is actually the present. The U.S. "election season" for presidential elections is beginning in earnest now, with several announcements about who is (and isn't) running.  Election day is the end of a long public process that has already begun. - RobLa 08:33 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

-Hehe, getting ready are we. :)--Sv

"Self-centered" pages
There is no room for a waste of time with self-centered crap like this in an encyclopedia. Things like this are what make Wikipedia an unreliable joke by idiots with nothing more to do than create something of no real value.....DW

 * Self-centered? Has RobLa announced that he'll be running, then? ;) --Brion

 * Yay, me for President! Hmmm...have to add my announcement to the timeline...  :) -- RobLa

What ever happened to the fine art of procrastination? :) --mav --Xinoph 20:07, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * whaddya mean...working on Wikipedia is how I procrastinate. :)  Seriously though, I'm hoping that by getting an early start and tracking this election early, we'll have a really complete record of what transpired.

DW: What do you mean by self-centered? And you really think its things like this that are troubling? Read the nonsense under Fifth World and Micronation. -- Zoe

gotta go with Zoe on this. rofl.-Sv

---

Listing potential election issues
Although it's not possible to list potential issues in say the 2008 election, it is certainly possible to list potential issues cited by the candidates that motivate them to run in the next election. For instance Cynthia McKinney will certainly make an issue of the Iraq crisis, 2003 and oil imperialism. Gary Johnson will certainly make an issue of the War on Drugs. Ralph Nader will make an issue of the War on Terrorism and its civil rights impact. Issues mentioned by lots of potential candidates ought to be in an 'issues' section or separate article on "likely issues in the 2004 U.S. presidential election" just so people can bone up on them in one place.

This could get a *lot* of people reading Wikipedia, if the articles established a high reputation for quality and impartiality. It's worth doing for that reason if no other.

--

Parenthetical notes
Is there a reason for parenthetical italicized notes (this note is unnecessary)?
 * No, there isn't. I merged the info in one into the article, this is the other:

(Didn't Cheney say at some point during the 2000 Election that he would not run for a second term?)

... Questions like that go here, an answer, as a statement, goes there. -- Jake 08:01, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Considering" vs. "Announced"
Our distinction between "considering" and "announced" is problematic. What exactly do we mean by "announced"? There are two formal actions taken with the FEC: statement of organization of an exploratory committee and statement of candidacy. Perhaps we should have "considering," "formed exporatory committee," and "declared"? M Carling (03 March 2003 14:18 UTC)

 * No objection, though I'm not volunteering to fix this up :-)  -- RobLa 07:53 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes the formal FEC actions are the ones that count, it's the only neutral/objective basis for any such classification. Go for it.

Standard for inclusion
The standard we've been using for inclusion of a party has been that they were on the ballot in enough states to elect a president. I think we should stay with that, though this would be the place to discuss it. Clearly we need some standard, else we would have several dozen parties listed nearly all of which are completely irrelevent to the presidential election. The Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans are expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states. The Greens are expected to be on the ballot in about 45 or so states. Reform and Constitution have little hope of being on the ballot in more than about 10-15 states. Natural Law has a better chance, though still slim. -- Mcarling 08:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Even thought the parties may not be on enough ballots to win the election. This is an encyclopedia we can at least report who from this these parties are running. Are we sure that the Reform party or Constitution party will not be on enough ballots? The election is still a year away and perhaps between now and than one or more of those parties will be on say 40 ballots.

A person could make a similar argument that even thougt the Libert and Greens are on enough state ballots neither one has a "real" chance to win the election and should not be treated the same as Dems and Reps. Depending on what states your are on it would only take 12 states to win Of course you have to win all thoses states and thoses are the biggest states, but in "theory" you could do it. I think in the interest of being "inclusive" and giving people more information let's include other parties. We could add call them minor parties or regional parties, but they deserves as much of a platform as the greens and libitarians Just checking the 2000 election and the Reform party got more votes than the Libs, so one could make a case that base on the the last election the reform party should be included  on this last as as well as the libSmith03 22:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is no chance that Natural Law, Constitution, or Reform will be on the ballot in 40 states in 2004. As of the end of September, Libertarians are on the ballot in 27 states (expected 47 to 50), Greens are on in 20 (expected 40 to 47), Natural Law are on in 12 states (expected 20 to 30), Constitution are on in 10 (expected 15 to 18 including CA), and Reform are on in 7 (expected 10 to 12). Smith03 is correct that the Reform candidate Pat Buchanan received more votes in 2000 than did Harry Browne the Libertarian candidate, however, it was only about one twentieth the votes received by Ross Perot in 1996 and the Reform Party has continued to implode since then. If I recall correctly, the Reform Party fielded a total of 7 candidates nationwide in 2002, compared to several hundrend Greens and about 2000 Libertarians (partisan races only).

Smith03 has argued that we should have a more inclusive standard that the one we've been using, however, has not proposed a specific standard unless it was the suggestion that we include any party that's on the ballot in even just one state. The problem with that standard is that we would have to include several dozen parties about which information is scarce. I can't think of an objective standard higher than on the ballot in one state but lower than on the ballot in enough states to win that makes any sense. Perhaps someone else will. Until someone suggests a different standard and there is some consensus on it, I'm going to revert to the standard we've been using. -- Mcarling 01:26, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) How about this for a standard we list the partys that are listed on the US political party page? All I am looking for is basic info on the small parties, when and were they held their conventations/ who is their nomine for pres and veep that is all

but one quick note about again about ballots  if a party was on ballot in the 10 largest states they would have as good of chance to win as a small party on the lower 40 states. Who knows perhaps neither the ref/ cons or nl party will get on 25 or 30 or 40 states but we can at least state for the record the names of their nominees and were they held their conventions lets leave the partys on the page it does not hurt itSmith03 00:40, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) Who and when set the current "standards" ? Smith03 00:41, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As we have seen before, a small party in only one state with a relatively few number of votes can affect the electoral outcome. Such a small party might not be able to elect a President of their own party, but they can certainly spoil the election of a President from another. Don't know if they belong on this page, but they can be important.Ark30inf 00:47, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I would that we continue to use the test of whether a candidate is on the ballot in states with enough electoral voters to have a theoretical chance of winning. I can think of no other objective criteria that makes sense. - Mcarling 16:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, "theoretical chance of winning" is not easily defined. Technically, anyone for whom votes may be counted has a "theoretical" chance of winning.  Can we develop a more objective criteria? - Scooter 23:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * "theoretical chance of winning" is very easily defined as having a theoretical possibility of winning a majority of electoral votes. In most states, votes are counted only for those on the ballot and for registered write-in candidates.  In all states, both are few.  The set of candidates who are either on the ballot or registered write-in candidates in states with a majority of electoral votes is well defined and will typically be about five in number.  If you'd like to suggest an alternative criteria, then please suggest one. - Mcarling 07:31, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * In 2000, there were 16 Candidates on the various 51 ballots. If Wikipedia had been around in 2000, I would have listed the 16 candidates because they had the chance to win electoral votes. That's the rule of thumb. If a candidate is listed on at least one General Election ballot, then that candidate is on the list. (For the record, the 16 candidates were: Bush-R, Gore-D, Nader-GP, Browne-LP, Philips-CP, Hagelin-NLP, Buchanan-RF, Lane-GRP, McReynolds-Soc, Harris-SWP, Moorehead-WWP, Smith-AZLP, Dodge-Prot, Venson-Ind, CG Brown-Ind, Youngkeit-Ind) - iHoshie 18:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I think Hoshie's proposal is reasonable. I still prefer the standard of being on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretic chance of winning, but I could live with Hoshie's proposal if the consensus is that it's better.  Candidates who are definitely on the ballot in at least one state could be included. - Mcarling 19:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Mcarling, my standard is a two pronged standard. If you are on a state ballot with the ability to win EVs (dosen't matter if you are Bush/Gore, who could win 538 EVs or Denny Lane, who could win Vermont's three EVs), you get listed on this page. -- iHoshie 20:41, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I understood that. It's a reasonable standard.  The standard of being on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to win is also a reasonable standard.  I happen to prefer the latter.  These are the only two reasonable standards I've seen proposed here.  I don't mind putting this to a vote. - Mcarling 21:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry If I sounded a bit harsh in the above message. I forgot the second part in my first message. Mea Culpa. --iHoshie 08:23, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed new standards

Parties that are listed List of political parties in the United States should be included.

The smaller the party the less said ( that fine) but at least acknowledge that there are more than 2 big parties and two small parties ( that even though they may be on 40 state ballots have no more chance to win than the smaller parties).

just date/city of convention and nominee name and vice pres name. We don't need to go into any great details about any "party politics" within say the constitution party conventation. Just put the nominee name and vice pres name. Plus I think we should leave the other parties listed until we decided on a new standards.Smith03 00:50, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Most of the minor parties listed List of political parties in the United States don't have presidential nominees. Most of them don't even have national conventions. Even the Natural Law Party won't have a nominee for 2004, and it seems that the Reform Party won't either. Most of the minor parties are local or regional and have no relevance at all to presidential elections. I'm surprised that a standard has been proposed that's even lower than having a presidential candidate on the ballot in at least one state. I still think that being on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance of winning is the optimal standard. If someone wants to know about the smallest of parties, they can always click on the link to the List of political parties in the United States. Mcarling 21:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Moving Democrats to own page
I guess I don't understand why the Democratic candidates have been moved to their own page. Moreover, I don't know why anyone in the next few months would assume they could find info about candidates at an encyclopedic entry marked "Democratic Primary". I would be bold and change it, but I haven't been working on this page, and don't want to muck up the works if there's a good reason for how it's being run. My suggestion: couldn't we leave the candidates on this page for the time being...maybe say that more information is available on whatever party's primary page? Then, after the primaries start to thin things out, we move all the candidates to the primary page at that point (say, mid-March) with the assumption that people will know at that point that info on who's in and who's out will be on the primary page? If I'm missing something here, let me know. I just doubt the wisdom of forcing someone looking for the Democratic candidates to follow another link (which may confuse them at this juncture), but leaving independent and Green candidates on this page...I don't know why we're tossing in the roadblock. Please enlighten me: Jwrosenzweig 22:12, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We need to have one timeline for the Democrats. Either we maintain it as part of U.S. presidential election, 2004, or we maintain it as part of U.S. Democratic Party Presidential Primary, 2004. The problem is that there's significant literary license being taken with what gets included and what gets excluded from the main timeline, versus the Dem party timeline. Worse, there's inaccuracies being introduced in U.S. presidential election, 2004

I've never been thrilled with maintaining a separate page for the Dem party primary. My vote is that we merge these pages back together. -- RobLa 21:59, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RobLa that these should be merged. -- Mcarling 22:06, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FEC Filings
There's not a lot of clarity about what the various stages of a campaign are. My understanding is that for tax purposes, these are the stages:

 * Considering
 * Formed exploratory committee
 * Official campaign

In the spirit of trying to figure things out based on this information, I've started rooting around the FEC site to try to figure out how to come up with the dates. Here's the only useful query I have so far. Feel free to add more. -- RobLa 09:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

FEC filing queries:
 * Filings for Howard Dean

Endorsements
Should endorsements be listed in the timeline? Al Gore is expected to endorse Howard Dean today. UtherSRG 12:54, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I can imagine endorsements quickly getting out of hand. On the other hand, Gore's endorsement is significant. I'm neutral on this one. Mcarling 14:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For now I'm going to add it. If it gets messy, we can always remove it later. UtherSRG 15:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Iraq war references
Is it realy necessary to list major events of the Iraq war here? They don't strike me as in line with the rest of the listed events. - Seth Ilys 17:38, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Possible edit war over Howard Dean's Confederate flag comment
Here's the entry in the timeline in question:
 * November 1 - In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Howard Dean is quoted as saying "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."   This comment stirs strong controversy among Democratic contenders.

Here's the play-by-play:
 * User:ChrisDJackson: Revert, we don't have time or space to list all stupid quotes from Dean, Bush, Kerry, ect. Listed one inparticular would be NPOV. Revert
 * User:Salsa Shark: We _do_ have the space, and if you think the time is important, _you_ take it.
 * User:ChrisDJackson: How many other quotes are up there? None, therefore posting one in particular is irrevant and biased against Dean
 * User:RobLa: Adding Dean Confederate flag quote back in....this has proven to be a noteworthy quote in the campaign. Other quotes of equal gravitas to the overall contest should also be added.
 * User:ChrisDJackson: Good, add all the other candidates quotes that are noteworthy, until then it is being reverted.
 * User:Salsa Shark: It's accurate. It's apposite. It stays.

I'm hoping this is the end of the debate....it seems to have died down. However, I'm not planning on monitoring this 24x7, so I'm documenting this here for future reference. I feel pretty strongly that this is an important entry in the timeline -- RobLa 09:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since the edit war continues to revert/unrevert other edits (Havenworks, monies) as well as the quote, I took the quote back out, removed Havenworks (yet again) and add the monies back in. If y'all get more quotes, piece them together and agree here in the talk first so that the edit war doesn't hurt other edits. Sheesh!!! - UtherSRG 19:57, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I haven't yet documented Kerry's "regime change" quote, but the other quotes that have stirred the most dust have been Dean quotes by virtue of him being the frontrunner since July. I'm not terribly motivated to do that now because I'm having to spend all of this time defending a perfectly valid edit - I'm wondering what other edits I make will fall on the cutting room floor. -- RobLa 05:09, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here's the proposed wording for Kerry's comment.

 * April 2: Speaking before an audience in Peterborough, New Hampshire, John Kerry says “We need a regime change not just in Iraq. We need a regime change here in the United States.”  Republicans criticize Kerry for speaking out against a wartime president.

Regardless of ones politics, it's quite obvious that both Kerry's Apr 2 quote and Dean's Nov 1 quote are very important to the history of the campaign. They framed the political debate for many weeks following their utterance. I personally don't feel that either quote significantly changed my feeling about the candidates, but its clear from the hubbub surrounding the quotes that they were noteworthy occurances.

I plan to add this soon, and readding the Dean quote, unless there's a reasonable objection. -- RobLa 07:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Timeline
Personally, I think the timeline should stick to events that directly affect the election process (announcements, fundraising totals, etc.). "Mission Accomplished", the capture of Saddam Hussein, etc., will only indirectly affect the election. They will be important campaign topics, no doubt, but deciding which of these indirect events to list is troublesome. Already some Bush quotes about Iraq have been added. We could endlessly add quotes from other Bush speeches, the State of the Union, and so on. Is there some way we could list important events that may affect the election in a separate timeline or list? --Minesweeper 10:00, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * In working on this article, I've always tried to put myself in the shoes of a 20-year old reading this 20 years from now. I think there's a minimal amount of current events coverage necessary in order to have enough context to understand this campaign as a story.  The war, "mission accomplished", the post-war looting, the ongoing violence, and the capture of Saddam Hussein have all really had a profound impact on the election.  In particular, in explaining Howard Dean's rise, one can't ignore the role of the troubled peacekeeping operations in Iraq.

 * However, in looking at the timeline now, I realize it has many of the facts, but doesn't tell the story. That may be the best we can do until the election is over...it may be that we're too close to tell the story.  Nonetheless, I feel that now is the time to gather the facts, so that when this is all over, it's much easier to tell the story. -- RobLa 02:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Important Future dates
This is silly -- why not list important dates in the process. To remove one by one each as they occur is like wiping the record. -戴&#30505sv 23:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Future dates that expire should be put into a historic timeline. Kingturtle 00:03, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About the top table
Should Bush and Cheney be listed in the top table without vote figures since it's a near certainity that they will be reselected by the GOP? -- iHoshie 00:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I was just about to add all of the announced and filed candidates that were listed further down on the page, and make the "Presidential Candidate" heading black, but leave the other headings grey. How 'bout that? —Mulad 04:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd oppose putting any entries into the table until the party conventions. Factual accuracy. - Seth Ilys 05:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I also oppose putting entries in the table at this moment. It's already repeated towards the bottom of the article. The table is supposed to be a summary of results, not a listing of declared candidates. --Jiang 05:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

 * I also oppose putting entries in the table at least until the conventions. Even after the conventions, the candidates could change.  It's probably best to leave the table empty until the election. Mcarling 06:10, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Leaving the table empty is an immediate indication to any visitors that the election has not taken place yet, and I think it should stay that way until we have some results to report. --Minesweeper 08:45, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Aaron Russo
Hollywood film and music producer Aaron Russo has recently announced his candidacy for president in 2004 as a Libertarian. His campaign web site is www.russoforpresident.com.

LaRouche deleted
I have deleted Lyndon Larouche as a "Democrat" candidate. He has been disowned by the DNC and if he got 15%>, he would not get delegates. [I wrote this originally the day before, when I was really tired, so it didn't come out right.]

iHoshie 11:56, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * He may not be considered a Democrat, but the Democratic primaries are what he's running in.

James Anatidae 13:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * James, you have a point. He is running in the primaries. I'm voting on 10 Feb in Virginia, and he's on the ballot. In 2000, he won 22% in the Arkansas primary. Being over 15%, LaRouche should have gotten delegates. He was refused. Ballot Access News says about the case:

 * On June 23, state Judge John Ward ruled that the Arkansas Democratic Party need not seat delegates to the state convention pledged to Lyndon LaRouche, even though state law says, "The Delegates to the national party convention shall be apportioned to the presidential candidates whose names were on the ballot at the primary, in the proportion that the votes cast for each candidate bear to the total votes cast." LaRouche polled 22% of the May presidential primary vote, so under state law, he should have been entitled to seven delegates to the national convention.

 * The Democratic Party has a national rule that candidates for president who aren't registered to vote may not receive delegates. LaRouche is not a registered voter because his state of residence, Virginia, does not permit ex-felons to register.  The judge ruled that the national rule takes precedence over state law. LaRouche v Democratic Party of Arkansas, civ 00-5429, Pulaski County Circuit Court.

 * Because of this, LaRouche is not a Democratic candidate for President.

 * --iHoshie 07:27, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * LaRouche is a Democrat. That the leadership of the Democratic party consider him an embarrassment and wish he were not a Democrat doesn't change that.  That his beliefs are divergent from most of the party doesn't change that. Mcarling 13:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * LaRouche has been listed as a Democratic candidate in the D.C. "preference" primary, and the Rhode Island primary. He is a Democratic candidate for President.  Whether the Party decides to give him any delegates is not the subject of this article. - Scooter 20:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Scooter, I don't dispute he's a "Democrat". He isn't a "Democratic" Presidental candidate that can win delegates. In the primaries that's what matters.
 * Christine Hall wrote an article on LaRouche's "Democratic" status:
 * But Democratic consultant Mark Mellman didn't hesitate to offer an explanation.

 * "He has his own [political] party," said Mellman. "And they have on occasion tried to use the Democratic Party, to take over the Democratic Party, to further their own interests.

 * "The formal Democratic parties have disavowed" LaRouche and his surrogate candidates, said Mellman.

 * "We're a pretty big tent, but the tent doesn't include lunatics and criminals," Mellman said.

 * To add to the fuel of LaRouche not being a "Democrat" Presidental candidate, we have the case of Nancy Spannaus. Spannaus is one of LaRouche's people. She contested the 2002 VA Senate race as an Independent, but claimed to be the "Democratic" candidate.

 * According to Jonathan Last:

 * She announced her current campaign in March 2001 and a month later wrote to the Virginia Democratic party saying that she "would like to become the Democratic Party nominee." The Virginia Democrats rebuffed her and then decided not to field a candidate in the Senate race. Spannaus collected 14,000 signatures and got herself on the ballot--as an Independent.

 * ''The Democrats are aghast that Spannaus is trying to capture votes by passing herself off as one of them. In August a state party spokeswoman told one local paper quite pointedly, "There is no LaRouche wing to the Democratic party."

 * If the Democrats don't recognize LaRouche's *Candidates* as "Democrats", then LaRouche is not a Democratic candidate for President.

 * --iHoshie 03:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hoshie: I'd argue for his inclusion on the list of candidates for the sake of comprehensiveness and accuracy... he will and has appeared on state ballots, and people will and have voted for him. He's raised several million dollars for his campaign. When someone comes to this page, looking for information on "Democratic" candidate Lyndon LaRouche, they'll presently find nothing, which isn't very useful to them. I suggest that we include him on the list with a brief note about his disownment by the DNC. That sounds like a fair compromise position to me... - Seth Ilys 05:16, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds good! I'll write a quality blurb when I get a chance. -- iHoshie 13:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * While I have no objections to what's been put in the article now, it might be worth noting that LaRouche isn't the only non-viable candidate in the race - there are lists here (about twenty Republicans and about thirty Democrats). If we include LaRouche, should we include any of the others? Personally, I would say that we shouldn't, because LaRouche is far better known than the other non-viable candidates. But should we perhaps work out the exact criteria for inclusion? I don't think we can really aim for completeness, given the number of them, but how exactly do we go about determining who gets put on our list and who doesn't? -- Vardion 14:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The key issue here is that LaRouche has won delegates in Democratic Primaries, and that the decision by the DNC to refuse to certify them, or to confiscate them and award them to Gore as was done in Arkansas 2004, is an issue of greatest importance, because it is a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act. Reynquist and co. gave the DNC their blessing -- for the simple reason, that they have been waiting for years, for an opportunity to nullify the VRA. User:Herschelkrustofsky

Cobb info deleted
I've just deleted an entry on David Cobb that was added by User:Mcarling which read as follows:

''February 9 - David Cobb, the leading Green Party candidate, announces that in order to avoid costing the Democrats another election the Greens will pursue a "safe state" strategy of running only in states in which the winner is certain. Many Green activists decry the lost of ballot status that will surely ensue. ''

My reasons were:
 * It was not cited;
 * It automatically assumes the Greens "cost the Democrats" the 2000 election, which is far from NPOV;
 * Cobb has advocated a sort of attention to "safe states", but he announced it well before Feb 9, and has refused to rule out any state as of yet; and,
 * Cobb will be campaigning in Iowa tomorrow, specifically to help retain ballot access for the Green Party in that state.

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'll replace it if there is a copy of the announcement somewhere. - Scooter 21:59, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I found it at www.politics1.com

It does not assume the Greens "cost the Democrats" the 2000 election. It asserts that Cobb acknowledged costing the Democrats the 2000 election, which I believe is correct.

I accidentally put it back while reverting the Socialist Equality Party which is not on the ballot in any state. Feel free to have a look at the post at www.politics1.com and then rewrite it as seems NPOV to you.

I think the essence should stay, but certainly open to different wording. - Mcarling 22:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Cobb hasn't acknowledged that it happened, but has acknowledged only that people perceive it that way - which he is taking steps to avoid in 2004. (My source is personal contact with the candidate.)  And certainly, saying "...costing the Democrats another election..." does in fact assume that the Greens cost them the first one.

 * Additionally, this has always been his stance from the moment he entered the race, so I'm not sure what date one might put on it.

 * This might be something to add to the David Cobb article rather than this one. - Scooter 05:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * First, it is conceivable that Nader didn't cost Gore the 2000 election. Second, as written it does not assume that Nader cost Gore the election, but rather than Cobb used words to that effect (which he may or may not have).  Third, I'm still open to changing the wording.

 * As for a date, what's the earliest date you can find (you seem to be closer to this) that Cobb said this publically.

 * I think this is more relevent to this article than to the Cobb article. - Mcarling 08:10, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Cobb announced his candidacy at the 2003 Green Party National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 18.  He mentioned this part of strategy then, during a press conference.  Other candidates, such as Lorna Salzman and Carol Miller, announced at the same time, and laid out some of their strategies and issues as well.  Cobb did not use words to the effect that you describe; you're right in that I'm involved with the effort, which is why I'm checking with you in order to maintain as much NPOV as possible.  Again, I still believe that this has more to do with Cobb directly than the election in general, but if you believe it belongs here, then perhaps this could be the wording:

 * July 18 - David Cobb announces his candidacy for the Green Party nomination in Washington, D.C. As part of a "genuine effort to reach progressives across party lines", he announces that part of his strategy includes a "Strategic States Plan", concentrating efforts where Electoral College votes are not "in play".  Some Greens decry the lack of an "all-out" strategy from Cobb.

 * Is this acceptable? - Scooter 20:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Since I haven't seen anyone suggesting that I should not do it, I will "be bold in editing", and make the change. - Scooter 23:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the ballot?
It was stated that "Dozens of people say they're running for president. Only those who do the work to get on the ballot should be included here." I think this qualification should be relaxed slightly to include registered write-in candidates. Anthony DiPierro 21:53, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * If someone is on the ballot or a registered write-in in states with enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance of winning, then I would agree that they should be included. - Mcarling 22:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Minor Candidates
Why is there the extensive list of Republican candidates, while the only minor candidate to be listed on the Democratic side is Lyndon LaRouche, who is not, as one user has already pointed out, technically a Democrat? Should Wikipedia list all candidates who file for every election? Let's be honest and be willing to say in this article that President George W. Bush will be the Republican nominee. None of these people have any chance of being the nominee even were something to happen to Mr. Bush; there is a process for that as well that doesn't involve minor candidates.

--Xinoph 05:37, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * For the sake of completeness, though, we should somewhere, list all candidates who have filed, especially for the U.S. Presidential race. Ideally, we should have at least stubs on each of them. But Xinoph has a very good point that they aren't really germane to the main presidential election article. Also: in searching the FEC's website, I haven't been able to find a full filing list. Anybody know where this list might be found? -- Seth Ilys 15:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Bush could still be caught with the proverbial live boy or dead girl. He could also die of a heart attack or something else.  Of course, even if Bush were to not be the nominee, none of the other Republicans now officially running would be the nominee.  So, while I don't agree that we can definitively say that Bush will be the nominee, the others listed will definitively not be the nominee, so I agree that we needn't list them.  BTW, I don't think it's fair to uniquely equate LaRouche with the minor Republicans running.  He's closer to Sharpton or Kucinich in terms of seriousness of candidacy. -- Mcarling 17:28, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * If they're non-notable, they dont deserve articles. Finishing top ten in New Hampshire doesn't cut it. The split off was improperly named so I have undone that. I suggest that most of the failed republicans be removed. --Jiang 06:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of List
Since John Kerry is the presumptive nominee, I think it makes sense at this point to remove the full list of Democratic candidates from this page and leave it as a historical article in U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004

 * The list of candidates who remain in the race should be left on this main page so that people don't have to click on the link to the U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004 in order to see who is still in the race. This is consistent with the list of Republican, Libertarian, and Green candidates.

 * Perhaps the minor candidates who dropped out and those who declined should be left off the page, but surely John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and Howard Dean should still be listed as they have all played significant roles in the election.

 * Acegikmo1 06:27, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I see you've removed the list of Republican candidates. I think this should be discussed, as the list was based on criteria established through exchanges on this page and individual talk pages (see User_talk:Acegikmo1 or User_talk:Jiang).

Thanks

Acegikmo1 06:38, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove any list of candidates entirely - I moved both the Republican and Democratic lists to their individual primary entries, since for all intents and purposes (without being disrespectful to Rev. Sharpton or Congressman Kucinich) these are now historical events, as I noted above. While both of these candidates certainly made important contributions to the race, and are still officially campaigning, it is entirely accurate to say that Senator Kerry is the presumptive nominee. I think the criteria for listing candidates was great, but this election has entered the "general election" phase, and I think it's fair for us to recognize that. --Xinoph 12:28, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess that the problem I see is that people like Dean and Clark are mentioned in the timeline without any proper introduction before that. Even if we don't list the major figures who were or still are running under "Candidates", I think we should briefly discuss them early on the page.

 * Acegikmo1 01:41, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I actually don't see why that would be a problem; he is first mentioned with his announcement in the timeline, which tells who he is (Vermont Governor) and links to his bio page for further information.
 * --Xinoph 20:07, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Vote!
I seek your input at WikiProject POTUS Campaigns. Please come weigh in. jengod 23:06, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Advantage to Kerry and Bush
Near the top of the page you have

"For the individual presidential campaigns, see George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004"

with links to these campaigns. This makes it sound like these are the only two candidates running and gives them an unfair advantage (someone coming to this entry for information may only read the top of the page and only check out those two campaigns). Of course it may not be possible to include every candidate's campaign/webpage at the top, so I suggest removing the comment about Bush and Kerry's campaigns all together and listing where to find more information later on in the entry for each candidate.

Reform party endorses Nader
Nothing on the Reform party on the page, but I noticed they endorsed Nader, although he's still an independent. --Tomruen 04:49, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Anyone wants to update the page, here's the info:

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=32  Nader Receives Endorsement of Reform Party USA  Washington, DC: The Independent Presidential Campaign of Ralph Nader welcomed the endorsement of the Reform Party USA saying: "This endorsement shows that our independent campaign is receiving support from across the political spectrum from people upset with President Bush and looking to shift the power back to the people so a solution revolution can take hold and solve many of the nagging problems and injustices in our society." It also continues to build a coalition to challenge the corporate political duopoly and give the voters more choices in November.  The Reform Party’s endorsement will bring more civic activists to the campaign to help get Nader on the ballot throughout the United States. Reform Party members can help spread the message that there is an alternative to the two corporate parties as their history demonstrates. The Reform Party, whose presidential candidate Ross Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992 and nearly 9% in 1996, claims over one million active members.  The most immediate priority is to overcome the deliberately obstructive ballot access barriers installed by the Democratic and Republican duopoly. In many states these barriers prevent political competition, blocking more choices and voices from third parties and independent candidates from national to local elections all over the country.  Ralph Nader will continue to run as an Independent candidate for President. He welcomes the endorsement of the Green Party if they decide not to run a candidate. "We need to join together to present a strong challenge to the corporate duopoly and show the American people there is an independent candidate with a strong record of fighting for the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people," said Nader. Nader was the Green Party nominee in 2000 and in 1996.

Probability
As of May 25, 2004, what is the probability that Kerry will win?? 66.245.119.206 00:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There's obviously no real way to determine that. I suppose that looking at recent polls asking people which candidate they would vote for could provide a rough estimate.  According to U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline, a 15 May poll determined, "John Kerry is chosen by 46 percent versus Bush at 45 percent."  I guess that means he has a roughly 50% chance of winning.

 * Acegikmo1 00:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * For what its worth, several online gaming sites are offering odds on the election. The one I just checked gives Bush 13/20 odds, Kerry 1/1 odds, and Nader 1000/1 odds.  ElBenevolente 00:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Mdp~enwiki

Hello Mdp, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to join the community. Drop us a note at New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Newcomers' Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. Enjoy! --Ronaldo Guevara

Are you a student of DLSU? If you are, great, I am an alumnus! I have made some revisions on the article on DLSU and some of your posted material were impacted. If you want to know the reasons for this, check out: --Ronaldo Guevara 17:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Votes_for_deletion/Rice.mag
 * Votes_for_deletion/De_La_Salle_University-College_of_Liberal_Arts

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Mdp. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Mdp~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Mdp~enwiki


text:
Chillicothe Gazette

The Chillicothe Gazette is Ohio's oldest newspaper. The daily newspaper is based in Chillicothe, Ohio, the seat of Ross County, and is owned by Gannett. A complete file is in the library of the Ohio Historical Society in Cincinnati.

History
On November 9, 1793, William Maxwell published the first edition of The Centinel of the Northwest Territory, a weekly newspaper in Cincinnati. It was the first paper published in the Northwest Territory.

Subscription was "250 cents" per annum, and 7 cents a single copy. The motto of the Centinel: "Open to all Parties -- but influenced by none," expressed the publisher's aims: to afford an isolated community a medium to make known its varied wants and to record local happenings, as well as those of the outside world.

The newspaper was published weekly until June 1796 when it was sold to Edmund Freeman who merged it with Freeman's Journal. Around 1800, the paper moved to Chillicothe, Ohio, when the government of the Northwest Territory relocated to that city

The paper eventually assumed the name The Chillicothe Gazette. Gannett sold the paper in the 1990s to Community Newspaper Holdings, who in turn sold to The Thomson Corporation. When Thomson exited the newspaper business in the late 1990s, Gannett bought it back.

title: Chillicothe Gazette


text:
Talk:Subtraction

Problems?
This article needs to be fixed. The way it's written a and c are points while b is a distance. This is not a proper geometric analogy to the way subtraction is carried out, and the original writer is subtracting two different classes of objects.

Perhaps you've heard it mentioned that you can't add or subtract apples and oranges 1) Start with 3 apples

2) Take away 2 oranges from those 3 apples

3) One shouldn't expect to have 1 apple left, as subtraction in this way just doesn't make sense.

Points are quite different than distances, and just as in the case with apples and oranges, one should not expect to be able to subtract distances from points. Instead a, b, and c should all be distances from the origin, a point who's numerical value is zero. In this way the distance to c minus the distance to a is the distance b.

Could somebody who posesses both the tools to generate decent images as well as a strong math background fix this article? -User:AlfredR

 * I'm responsible for the ambiguity in the article. I was adding and subtracting vectors but I did not make it clear. When I wrote the article, people were discussing the need for a simple explanation of subtraction for those with little or no math background. My best attempt was to use two position vectors (a,c) and a displacement vector (b) to illustrate addition and subtraction on a number line.  I hid the details since those who wanted an explanation of subtraction would not appreciate them.

 * For example, if vector a = (1, 1), b = (2, 0), c = (3, 1) then

 * a + b = c

 * c − b = a

 * We need to determine a simple (but obviously rigorous) subtraction explanation or decide that a simple explanation is not needed. The Addition page does not offer a simple explanation so we could ignore simple explanations on the Subtraction page as well.

 * I removed the "Basic subtraction" section that I wrote since it is ambiguous.

 * jaredwf 02:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

AlfredR is misinformed, and I'm going to restore jaredwf's Basic subtraction section. I'm also going to give a lengthy argument here on the talk page, because the good name of mathematics itself is at stake, and becuase I have nothing better to do.

Geometric vectors (in our case, signed distances) are equivalence classes of "differences of points"; they are exactly the correct objects to add to, or subtract from, points. We need not summon the chimeras that are "position vectors". In some sense, it is more fundamental to subtract a vector from a point than from another vector.

On a more general note, the apples-and-oranges analogy is worse than wrong. Teenagers don't even blink if you subtract the number 2 from the letter x. No one complains if I multiply a matrix with a column vector or an algebraic number with a spinor field. Half the fun of geometric algebra is adding quantities with different dimensions, and hang the taboos. Some of the most interesting mathematics arises when fundamentally different objects interact and when familiar concepts are revealed to tolerate a whole lot more ambiguity than they let you know about in school. Moral: mathematicians are clever. If you think something is meaningless, they will give it meaning.

(By the way, if we make the usual assumption that apples and oranges are unrelated, then 3 apples minus 2 oranges is an element in the free abelian group over apples and oranges. If, for some application, we later find it useful to equate apples and oranges, we can pass to the quotient group by this equivalence through the canonical projection and, yes Virginia, we will have one apple left.)

Now that I'm done ranting, I should comment that the section in question is a little unencyclopedic in tone. It should be condensed or rewritten, but not deleted. Melchoir 10:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Your ranting aside, I stand by my previous statement. Your notion of "differences of points" requires that "subtraction of points" is already defined in a manner consistent with the formation of a vector space in which each point labels a vector. With this in mind, it is an obvious tautology to say that these are "exactly" the correct objects to add to or subtract from "points" because you've already assumed that "points' behave like vectors under subtraction.

 * Now since we're doing vector like addition and subtraction the obvious geometric interpretation is to treat each point like a geometric vector. A mixed interpretation is unclear without further information on how to pass between or identify one space with the other. for instance, a point + a vector might be intuitive, but what's intuition tell you about a vector plus a point? (assuming you know nothing about commutativity - just looking at a picture).

 * There's no reason to, geometrically, expect it to be anything in particular. for instance you may think it places a point at the end of a vector, but where should that vector start? why should one starting point be better than any other?

 * Thus my original point, that the geometric interpretation of subtraction employed in this article is not proper, stands. I did not claim, however, that it was incorrect. Once we build the appropriate, trivial, isomorphism we can identify the spaces and go about abusing notation however you see fit.

AlfredR 21:37, 3 October 2006

 * I argue that points and distance are not apples and oranges but rather naval and Florida oranges. In vector math the difference between a point and a direction are an interpretation. In video games (2d or 3d) I subtract my velocity from my origin and come up with an origin which is my new position. I could then subtract my two points, original and new origins, to find a distance. I can now move another object by subtracting this distance from it's origin. In physics there would be a definite difference, in math they are just synonyms. Is there a semantics label that can be placed on articles? LOL Cabbruzz (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If there are 3 apples and you take away 2, you have 2 because you took them. --116.14.26.124 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Algorithms for subtraction section
Please explain this. It starts out as 100-11, then jumps to 90-11=79, which in no way answers 100-11=(89). I may be completely confused. Oh yeah, and please don't go into vectors, I mean this is a Subtraction page, and while that is possible, the page links to Arithmetic and Elementary School! Chrishy man  02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, this gives an algorithm by example, which is not the way to do it. The correct way would be to give the algorithm first, then an example of how it works.  The algorithm would involve m and n digit numbers c_m...c_1 and b_n...b_1 (where n<=m perhaps) and a look-up-table that gives the answer for c-b where c is a one or two digit number >= b and b is a one digit number. InformationSpace 06:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a substantial edit. Apologies if I stepped on anyone's toes. My motivation is that a lot of parents need to know about the differences in American-style and European-style carries. This is a major problem for parents when their kids come home from school with a subtraction style different than the one the parents know. I also wanted to document the history of the subtraction methods. I am sure that the education literature is full of comments here. Thanks for everyone's patience. -- Ozga 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

more complex subtraction
Currently this article has nothing at all about subtraction of objects other than numbers. Perhaps links to other things (on wikipedia) that have subtraction operators defined could be added. InformationSpace 06:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

X out
Usually when teachers teach their class, there are several items. The student usually Xs out the apples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkkao (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 July 2007

Negative Difference
In this article, difference is described as "the restult of subtraction". Is it actually the result of subtraction, or the positive result? Take for example The difference of 2 and 3 = 3 - 2 = 1, then The diference of 3 and 2 = 2 - 3 = -1 or |2 - 3| = 1 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.234.90 (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. Does "difference between a and b" mean b - a, a - b, or |a - b|? -- memset (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple meanings of "difference" can be annoying or confusing and maybe ought to be pointed out by someone more mathematical than me however as I understand it this is not "negative difference" but instead the difference between the "difference as comparison" and the "difference as subtraction result" where the difference (comparison) between {5, 14} as well as {14, 5} are equivalent and 9 (the comparison in this case is in each set the gap on the number line and they give the same result in both directions from one to the other) and the difference (result of subtraction) where the difference of 5-14 = -9 (14 places less than 5 on the number line) in the first set or in the second set 14-5 = 9 (5 places less than 14) and where both sets give different results and one of them is the same result as the comparative difference. One might have to take extra care to avoid ambiguity when writing descriptive verbose math explanations such as "two even factors produce an even product, and subtracting two from the product leaves an even difference" (for those interested this is part of my (possibly wrong or poorly written) answer to question 7 in Exercises 1.1. in "An Introduction to Combinatorics and Graph Theory" which is a CC by-nc-sa licensed maths textbook).90.149.36.98 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many mathematical concepts are named by a word that has a different meaning in common language. This may produce an ambiguity. Usually, the context makes clear whether it is the common-language or the mathematical meaning that is used. Here, "difference as comparison" is the common-language meaning; in mathematics, the meaning of "difference" is "result of a subtraction". This was not clearly said in the article, and I have fixed this. D.Lazard (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Unambiguous definition for subtraction needed
Subtraction simply reverses movement on the line of real numbers, does it not? This is especially comprehendable when subtraction is viewed as addition (as in algebra.) Consider:

5-3=2 backward movement of |3| on the number line.

5-(-3)=8 forward movement of |3) on the number line; that is to say, the "-" immediately proceeding "5" is reversing the operation that would otherwise be done if it was only "-3": addition. Children in junior-high often say this as "minus a minus."

What I am saying is very obvious, but subtraction defined as "reversing movement on the line of real numbers" is an all-encompassing definition that would cover both the algebraic and arithmetic understanding of subtraction. This has probably been said and proven somewhere in academia, but perhaps we could place it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CPRdave (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article should state that subtraction is the inverse of addition. The subtraction of a number from itself gives 0, the identity element for addition. For a given element a of an additive group, the inverse -a is unique. This should also be in the article IMHO. John (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Line Segments
I applaud the work of the person who took the time to carefully explain how subtraction works despite there being no one who can read this article and not subtract. :) -- MQ Duck 07:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed
Is that "citation needed" tag after the explanation of the terms minuend and subtrahend really necessary? It is surely common sense to assume that these particular words are seldom used in mathematical parlance. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Subscript text 224,940-175,000= to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.54 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Subtraction and Precision
It would be nice if a section on the problem of precision loss in limited-precision subtraction (if numbers are subtracted that are much larger than their difference) and on common workarounds could be added. As this is probably the most important source of precision loss in real-world algorithms. -- 92.229.180.109 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Minuend and Subtrahend archaic? A single, opinionated, reference footnote on the article about subtraction?
I take some issue with this article. "Minuend" and "subtrahend" are commonly used in computer science as well as discussion of arithmetic. However, some editor of this article has made the effort to elevate the assertion:
 * "The words "minuend" and "subtrahend" are uncommon in modern usage."

While this point is arguable, I question that it should appear:
 * 1) In the first paragraph of the article or even the lede section.
 * 2) As the only referenced assertion of the entire article.
 * 3) As an assertion of objective fact based on a reference with an opinionated title.
 * 4) As an assertion made without qualification in a technical article, subject is a mathematical operation.  Consider this possibility:
 * "The words "minuend" and "subtrahend" are uncommon other than in technical writing."

Heathhunnicutt (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Subtrahend  is certainly not an archaic term. (I'm in agreement with Heathhunnicutt.) "Subtrahend" is a specific entity that refers to the value (or item that contains the value) by which another value will be decreased. It's taught in Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics courses. Even 2nd grade Math (where U.S. students are generally about 8 years old) are taught the meaning of "subtrahend". And to cite a satirical work as a reference suggests that the poster is having fun, or on a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentOlsen (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I teach math in New York. Kids at all grades (2-9) are unfamiliar with subtrahend and minuend, and they cannot reliably say which is which. Ditto for dividend and divisor. The know (or can guess that two addends form a sum) and that the answers to multiplication and division problems are products and quotients, but that's about it.

 * Whether this means the terms are archaic or simply that our schools aren't doing a good job on math vocabulary is an open question. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 * I am 61 years-old, a Berkeley graduate, a teacher since 1999, and today, while reading about the Mayan number system, is the first time I learned the words minuend and substrahend -and spellcheck thinks they are both misspellings. And so, even though I like them and think they are groovy and useful, I'd also be fine with assigning them the label 'archaic'. 2601:648:C180:E10:ADCD:434:7A09:C7B6 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Labeling terms as "archaic" would imply that they've been superseded by others, which isn't the case here. "Minuend" and "subtrahend" are the equivalents of similar latinate designations in more common use, such as "divisor", "multiplicand" (and "latinate" is the only word, of those I've just written, that's flagged by my spellchecker). Dhtwiki (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that "minuend" and "substrahend" could not be obsolete, if there was no terms to replace them. But we have "first term" and "second term" (of the substraction), which are unambiguous, very commonly used, and clearly less pedantic. The fact that many teachers do not even know these terms shows clearly that they are indeed obsolete and pedantic.
 * The situation is different with "dividend" and "divisor", because the various presentations of divisions (inline, as fractions, as ab^{-1}, etc.) make the use of "first" and "second" ambiguous. D.Lazard (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * May I recommend the excellent word obsolescent? It recognises the status of a word or technology in the real world without need for a mathematical proof. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good description. Technically the words aren't quite disused, but I think the proportion of English speakers who know even their rough meanings is low, and most of us even in that group don't remember which is which. Certes (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I myself can't find "minuend" and "substrahend" used in math books outside of my math dictionary, which is possibly due to the fact that advanced math treats subtraction as the addition of negative numbers. But I also don't see the terms marked as obsolete in any English dictionary that I've checked. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And that is a great illustration of obsolescent. Not provably obsolete but not used in current literature. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

borrowing
The article currently states that "some" American schools teach the borrowing method. As far as I know it is virtually universal in American schools. Can any-one find a citation so we can beef up the statement to reflect reality?Kdammers (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

counter-intuitive
"In mathematics, it is often useful to view or even define subtraction as a kind of addition, the addition of the additive inverse. We can view 7 − 3 = 4 as the sum of two terms: 7 and -3. This perspective allows us to apply to subtraction all of the familiar rules and nomenclature of addition. Subtraction is not associative or commutative—in fact, it is anticommutative and left-associative—but addition of signed numbers is both." the first part makes the "naive" reader think that subtraction should be associative ("allows us to apply to subtraction all of the familiar rules ... of addition"), but this is followed -- with-out a "however" and only a delayed "in fact"-- by a sentence that says "Subtraction is not associative...." This makes for unnecessarily tough reading. Kdammers (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Brownell did not invent crutches
The article states that "… crutches are apparently the invention of William A. Brownell who used them in a study in November 1937." This is clearly false. See ref 1, which I just added for "crutches" and the Austrian method. You can read it on google books, click on the link. This is a book published in 1916 by an American, Paul Klapper. He talks about crutches and their usage in subtraction algorithms at least 21 years before Brownell's article. John (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I went to the library and looked up the article by Brownell by looking in the comprehensive index of the journal, The Mathematics Teacher. The text is wrong, his essay appears in vol. 37, year 1945 (not 1937) of The Mathematics Teacher. There is no mention of crutches. So the statement about Brownell has two errors. I'm rewriting the paragraph. John (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction: it was the wrong article. Brownell conducted his study in 1937. It was apparently published in 1949, according to Susan C. Ross and Mary Pratt-Cotter, Subtraction From a Historical Perspective, published in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Palkovic (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Partial method
+ 300 − 40 + 2 = 262. This begs the question. Using this method, how is one supposed to know that 300-40=260? It seems at least one step is missing. Kdammers (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Anticommutativity
"Subtraction is anti-commutative, meaning that one can reverse the terms in a difference left-to-right, and the result is the negative of the original result. Symbolically, if a and b are any two numbers, then    a - b = b - a. " Have I forgotten all my math or is old age dementia clouding my understanding? Or maybe it's my vision. This looks patently wrong to me. The text says the value of the two differences is opposite in sign (i.e., |a-b| = |b-a|. Right, that's clear.  But  then it continues with an example that shows to my eyes some-thing quite different, .i.e., that the differences not only have the same absolute value but the same value, which is only true for a few special cases, i.e., where a=b.  Since this part of the article seems to have been around for some time, I am loathe to change it even though I just cannot at all see how it can be correct. E.g., let a=5 and b=2.  Then a-b=5-2=3 and b-a=2-5=-3, 3NOT=-3. Hence a-bNOT [necessarily]=b-a. Or am I blind or crazy????? Kdammers (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 * It looks as though the example should be written "a-b = -(b-a)", to match the text. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

rows of zeros?
Try subtracting this:

1005

-928

Notice that you are left with only 7. You cannot barrow after you turn the 5 into a 15, as the "1" in 1005 is consumed. On a calculator, it would be 77. Is there a way around this stuck? Joeleoj123 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 * The phrasing in the article continuing the borrow leftwards until there is a non-zero digit from which to borrow should mean that you take from the tens, making -1, then from the hundreds, making the tens column 9, but the hundreds now -1, which is immediately made up by taking the 1 from the thousands. For the subtraction above, you should have something like this, based on the article explanation, if it isn't too confusing:

 * Dhtwiki (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed for claim about "general" treatment in advanced algebra
Wcherowi has reverted the that I associated with the claim that "In advanced algebra ... an expression involving subtraction like A − B is generally treated as a shorthand notation for the addition A + (−B)." Minimally, a claim that a usage is "general" implies that it is used more than half the time. This is an empirical claim; why should it not need a citation? The edit summary says this usage is "standard", but this term is open to the same problem as "generally". Subtraction can be taken as primitive and −x defined as the result of subtracting x from the additive identity. What is the source for the implication that this is nonstandard? If there is one, it should be included in a citation. Peter Brown (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What we have here is yet another example of the conflict between "school mathematics" and "advanced mathematics". Subtraction is considered a primitive operation in elementary treatments and it certainly can be made a primitive operation in advanced mathematics, but these days no one does this. The ruse of subtraction is dropped as soon one starts to consider abstract mathematical systems and the same is true of division. This is due to the importance of the concept of inverses in such systems, which overpowers the plethora of operations that are taught at the school level. Since the article is being written for a variety of readers and the passage is clearly marked as being for advanced mathematical areas, I felt that BLUESKY would come into play. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, the text under consideration is

 * In advanced algebra ... an expression involving subtraction like A − B is generally treated as a shorthand notation for the addition A + (−B).

 * No claim involving the term "generally", however, is a candidate for BLUESKY. As the Collins dictionary notes, "You use generally to say that something happens or is used on most occasions but not on every occasion." BLUESKY is inapplicable to claims that explicitly refrain from asserting universality.

 * The edit summary directs attention to Field (mathematics). That article presents an alternative definition in terms, inter alia, of subtraction rather than the additive inverse.  In admitting an alternative, does the article betray the tenets of advanced algebra?

 * Peter Brown (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody asserts that one cannot use subtraction as a primitive operation. The fact is that the use of subtraction as a primitive operation is possible, but rare; this is the exact meaning of "generally". However, for being more accurate, one would need a study of all textbooks for counting how many define subtraction as a primitive operation. As such a study clearly not exists, it is impossible to provide a citation, and making this study would be WP:Original synthesis. So the claim for which you want a citation cannot be sourced. As this claim can be clearly useful for many readers (giving them indications to what is the current trend in mathematics), it must be kept, although no source can be provided. IMO, this is a case of WP:IAR. D.Lazard (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 * It is surely not "impossible to provide a citation". If the claim is indeed as useful as D. Lazard asserts, surely there are reliable sources somewhere that do make the claim, perhaps even using terms like "generally" or "rare".  Why not leave my  alone until someone acquainted with such a source provides it? Peter Brown (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Should compound subtraction be on this page? Or in a separate page?
A century ago, it was common to teach compound subtraction as an explicit method during arithmetic. Examples of this include taking measurements in cups, tablespoons, and teaspoons and subtract, or to take an age at death and the date of death and work out the age it birth. Efficient methods for hand calculation were taught, and there are also some subtleties: for instance, the inferred age at birth from compound subtraction depends on the order in which the subtract is done, i.e., whether the days, months, and years are subtracted first, second, or third. There are numerous (old) books and articles on the subject, plenty enough that it should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. My question: should it be a subtopic of this page, or should it have its own page? Barryriedsmith (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Related to Subtrahend and Minuend usage
Subtrahend derived from 'subtrahendus' means 'to be taken away. Minuend derived from 'minuendus' means 'to be lessed/reduced'. Minus means 'less' These are given in wikipedia and other websites. For example 10 - 3 = 7, here - 3 in words minus 3 which means less 3. It means 3 is 'to be lessed'. It means 3 is the minuend by the meaning. Considering another example a boy is expected to be taken 10 marks. But he takes 7 marks, in other words the boy took '3 marks less'. This means '3 less' to 10. It means 3 is the number 'to be lessed'. So 3 is the 'minuend' by the meaning. Here expected 10 'to be taken'. So by the meaning 10 is the 'subtrahend'. Inkartumac (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Where did you obtain such information? - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 * You have stated the opposite of what the article says, what my mathematics dictionary (James & James) tells me, and even by your own linguistic analysis in the beginning of your post. 10 is the minuend, the number 'to be lessed/reduced', 3 is the subtrahend, the number 'to be taken away'. The result is the remainder or difference. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As the article says, minuend − subtrahend = difference. That matches the language above: the minuend 10 is reduced as the subtrahend 3 is taken away from it. Certes (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No I mean the etymology. Sorry if I didn't clarify. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Minuendus" and "subtrahendus" are the future passive participles, or gerundive, of the Latin 3rd-conjugation verbs "minuere" and "subtrahere", respectively. Is that what you're asking? Dhtwiki (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't saying much about what you're specifically looking for. According to the OED, "minuend" was first used by William Jones in his 1706 book Synopsis Palmariorum Matheseos: Or, A New Introduction to the Mathematics, which may well contain "subtrahend" for the first time (I didn't confirm that). The book also contains the first occurrance of 'π' in print, according to Jones's Wikipedia article and its references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhtwiki (talk • contribs) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)  (edited 03:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC) and 04:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC))

"Restar" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Restar and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

What needs citations?
Are there any specific claims that need citations? At least give me 3. - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 * The template more citation needed that is used is not the right one, and should be replaced by templates at the beginning ot sections,  and . For the other sections, there are enough citations, even if many of them are not WP:reliable sources and could be tagged with better source needed. D.Lazard (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Subtraction


text:
Cox Enterprises

Cox Enterprises, Inc., is an American privately held global conglomerate headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, United States, with approximately 55,000 employees and $21 billion in total revenue. Its major operating subsidiaries are Cox Media Group, Cox Communications, and Cox Automotive. The company's major national brands include AutoTrader, Kelley Blue Book, Manheim Auctions and more.

Through Cox Automotive, the company's international operations stretch across Asia, Australia, Europe and Latin America. Cox Enterprises is currently led by Alexander C. Taylor, a fourth-generation Cox family member and great-grandson of founder James M. Cox. James M. Cox's grandson, James C. Kennedy, and other members of the Cox family are on the company's board of directors.

On March 2, 2020, the sale of Cox Media Group's Ohio newspapers was finalized back to Cox Enterprises, and subsequently formed Cox First Media. This move was to ensure the publications would remain daily newspapers serving the southwest Ohio region.

Founding
The company was founded in Dayton, Ohio, by James M. Cox, who purchased the Dayton Daily News in 1898. Cox became a member of Ohio's delegation to the United States House of Representatives and then the governor of Ohio. He was the Democratic Party candidate for president of the United States in the presidential election of 1920, running unsuccessfully on a ticket that included Franklin D. Roosevelt as the vice presidential candidate.

Telecommunications
In 1935, at the urging of Governor Cox's son James M. Cox Jr., Cox entered the radio business starting with WHIO in Dayton. Governor Cox purchased The Atlanta Journal in 1939 as well as radio station WSB. On September 29, 1948, Cox's WSB-TV, later referred to as the "Eyes of the South", aired the first television broadcast in Atlanta. WHIO-TV in Ohio's Miami Valley soon followed, airing its first broadcasts on February 23, 1949.

In 1950, Governor Cox purchased The Atlanta Constitution, and in 1962 his son purchased three cable television systems in central Pennsylvania with a total of 11,800 subscribers. The two combined their broadcasting and cable businesses into the publicly-traded Cox Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in 1964, though the newspaper business remained independent as Cox Enterprises.

In 1966, Cox expanded its holdings to purchase television syndicator Walter Schwimmer, followed in 1967, by the purchase of television production company Bing Crosby Productions. Cox subsequently sold off its syndication unit to a new production company Telecom Productions in 1970. Cox would reenter the television syndication business, when Cox's subsidiary TeleRep, established Television Program Enterprises in the late 1970s, before merging with Rysher Entertainment in 1993.

As the cable business expanded, it was eventually consolidated and spun off into the new privately-owned Cox Cable Communications (CCC) in 1968, which quickly became the second-largest cable TV company. Upon Jim Cox Jr.'s death in 1974, he left his two sisters, Anne Cox Chambers and Barbara Cox, in control of 95% of the privately-owned company.

In 1982, CBC moved its headquarters to the Atlanta area and changed its name to Cox Communications, Inc. The company was eventually consolidated into Cox Enterprises. In 1988 then-Executive Vice President Jim Kennedy, grandson of Governor Cox, was promoted to CEO and chairman of Cox Enterprises.

In 1986, Cox Enterprises launched a new subsidiary Cox Video, which lined up eleven commitments for original video programs, four of them came from Media Home Entertainment, which are comedy-based tapes and seven of them came from Fox Hills Video, which are reality-based tapes, both subsidiaries of Heron Communications, and co-production budgets involve a total of $1.5 million, and the Cox Video unit has also acquired the rights to produce video adaptations of the magazines and exercise regulations of Joe Weider, which included Muscle & Fitness, Flex and Men's Fitness & Shape, and Peter Bieler acting as executive producer on tapes produced by Cox Video, which also served as executive vice president of the studio, and the company is planning on to do regular releases that sometimes make use of the magazine's names and will be positioned as companions to Wieder's widely-distributed equipment, and the MHE comedies ranked at the $100,000 range and the Fox Hills tapes ranked at the $100,000 range.

Over the ensuing decades, Cox made pioneering investments and became the first company to bundle telephone, highspeed internet and digital cable television over a single broadband network.

Automotive
Cox entered the automotive industry in 1965 with the purchase of Black Book. Three years later, Manheim was purchased by Cox as well. In the 1980s, Manheim acquired its first non-U.S. auction in Toronto, Canada, making Cox an international company. In 1999, Autotrader.com was founded revolutionizing the way people buy and sell used cars. In 2014, Cox Enterprises brought its automotive-related businesses (which by then included and NextGear Capital) together under the Cox Automotive name.

Cox Communications
Cox Communications is the third-largest U.S. cable company, serving approximately 6 million residences and businesses. It provides advanced digital video, Internet, telephone and home security and automation services over its own nationwide IP network.

Cox Communications formed an alliance with the Cleveland Clinic to take Healthcare to the home in February 2015. The company has also been deploying residential gigabit internet service.

In 2019, Cox Communications earned the No. 11 spot on the 2019 DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity list. This marks the fourteenth time the company has been recognized among the nation's corporate diversity leaders.

Cox Automotive
Cox Automotive is a provider of "vehicle remarketing services and digital marketing and software for automotive dealers and consumers." Cox Automotive brands include Manheim, Clutch Technologies, Dealer-Auction Ltd, AutoTrader, Kelley Blue Book,, Dealer.com, Dealertrack, NextGear Capital, Xtime, Vinsolutions, Dickinson Fleet Services, FleetNet America, and a host of global businesses and brands serving auto dealers, manufacturers and financial institutions.

Cox Media Group

Cox Media Group (CMG) is an integrated broadcasting, publishing, direct marketing and digital media company.

In 2019, Cox Enterprises reached an agreement with Apollo Global Management to sell a majority interest in Cox Media Group's broadcast television stations, including the company's radio, newspaper, and TV properties in Ohio, and its local OTT advertising subsidiary – Gamut. Smart Media from Cox. based in New York. On February 10, 2020, Cox Enterprises bought back the Ohio newspapers it sold to Apollo Global Management after the FCC required Apollo to reduce the daily newspapers to 3-day publication or sell them. Cox announced the newspapers would continue 7-day publication.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in addition to the media agency Ideabar, will continue to be part of Cox Enterprises.

Cox Conserves
Cox Conserves is the company's national sustainability program that focuses on alternative energy, community investment, employee engagement, energy conservation, waste diversion, recycling, and water conservation.

Since its launch in 2007, Cox Enterprises has invested more than $120 million in over 400 sustainability and conservation projects through Cox Conserves to drive positive environmental change within the organization, among stakeholders, and within the communities being served. According to its public statements, its primary focus areas include:
 * Energy and water conservation
 * Waste diversion & recycling
 * Community engagement

Investments
In September 2019, Cox Automotive's Mobility Division entered into an agreement with Rivian, the company developing the first luxury all-electric truck. In the deal, Cox will invest $350 million into Rivian, with the two companies exploring partnership opportunities in service operations, logistics, and digital retailing.

In August 2022, Cox Enterprises agreed to acquire Axios Media, with the deal being valued at $525 million.

In February 2024, Cox agreed to buy out government software company OpenGov, in which it already holds minority interest, with the deal valuing the company at $1.8billion.

title: Cox Enterprises


text:
USS Bainbridge (1842)

The first USS Bainbridge was a brig in the United States Navy during the American Civil War. She was named for Commodore William Bainbridge, U.S. Naval Commissioner 1824–1827.

Bainbridge was launched on April 26, 1842, by Boston Navy Yard and commissioned on December 16, 1842, Commander Z. F. Johnston in command.

Sailing from Boston on January 26, 1843, Bainbridge served with the Home Squadron until returning to New York on May 3, 1844. From June 26, 1844 – October 10, 1847, she served with the Brazil Squadron. She laid up for most of the next year, and from 10 April 1848 – 2 July 1850 was with the Africa Squadron. She departed New York on November 2 and until September 1856 cruised with both the African and Brazil Squadrons. She returned to Norfolk on September 10, 1856.

Laid up at Norfolk Naval Shipyard from September 18, 1856 – April 28, 1858, she departed Hampton Roads, Virginia on May 18, 1858, to join Commodore William B. Shubrick's Paraguay expedition for operations against Paraguay in retaliation for the attack on USS Water Witch (1851) in 1855. Bainbridge arrived at Asunción, Paraguay, in company with the squadron in January 1859 and after the matter had been peacefully settled remained with the Brazil and African Squadrons until departing Rio de Janeiro on September 17, 1860. She arrived at Boston on November 9 and was placed out of commission.

Recommissioned on May 1, 1861, Bainbridge sailed for the Gulf of Mexico on 21 May and cruised there until June 1862. While in the area she captured two schooners and assisted in the capture of one steamer. On August 3, 1862, she sailed from New York to join the East Gulf Blockading Squadron at Key West, Florida.

In September 1862, she was ordered to Aspinwall, Granadine Confederation, where — from November 22–24 — a severe storm forced her to jettison all spars, sails, gun carriages, howitzers, shot, powder, provisions, and water. After extensive repairs she sailed for New York, arriving in May 1863. On August 21, 1863, while proceeding to her station with the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, she capsized off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, with the loss of all but one of her crew.

title: USS Bainbridge (1842)


text:
User talk:AlfredR

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

title: User talk:AlfredR


text:
Talk:Vico Consorti

Untitled
instead of putting it for deletion, at least look it up and see if it's worth saving. just try to write a sentence about it. Mattingly23 18:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vico Consorti


text:
Paul Slovic

Paul Slovic (born 1938 in Chicago) is a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and the president of Decision Research. Decision Research is a collection of scientists from all over the nation and in other countries that study decision-making in times when risks are involved. He was also the president for the Society of Risk Analysis until 1984. He earned his undergraduate degree at Stanford University in 1959 and his PhD in psychology at the University of Michigan in 1964 and has received honorary doctorates from the Stockholm School of Economics and the University of East Anglia. He is past president of the Society for Risk Analysis and in 1991 received its Distinguished Contribution Award. In 1993, he received the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the American Psychological Association, and in 1995 he received the Outstanding Contribution to Science Award from the Oregon Academy of Science. In 2016 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

Slovic studies human judgment, decision making, and risk perception, and has published extensively on these topics. He is considered, with Baruch Fischhoff and Sarah Lichtenstein, a leading theorist and researcher in the risk perception field (the psychometric paradigm, the affect heuristic, and "risk as feeling" ).

His most recent work examines “psychic numbing” and the failure to respond to mass human tragedies.

Major theories
Affect Heuristic - This is the ability to make a quick emotional decision in time of crisis. Slovic says that even if there is a bad situation, if we have positive feelings toward something it lowers people's perception of risks but enhances their perception of benefits.

Slovic contributed towards the psychometric paradigm of risk perception. He found that people usually perceived most activities as having a high risk. He also found that if someone gained pleasure from something they saw the risk level being low. This shows that risk levels can depend on the individual's personal belief and emotions of a specific risk.

Psychophysical Numbing - This is the idea that people are not as affected by the loss of life depending on how it is presented. Slovic says that people cannot connect on an emotional level when being presented with large numbers.

Important publications
"Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events" - In this publication Slovic discusses what research says about people's perceived risk when associated with extreme events. The way people think action should take place is based on their perceptions. These perceptions can vary from people's status, background, education, biology, etc. The different perceptions decide how risky a choice of action is in extreme events over another. Risk perceptions are connected between emotions and reason, which creates rational behavior. Slovic explains what risk actually is. He says it is a hazard, probability, it has consequences, and threat. Since it has so many subjective meanings tied to it, it often causes communication failure. Risk perceptions are studied in three major ways: axiomatic measurement paradigm, socio-cultural paradigm, and psychometric paradigm. The axiomatic measurement looks at how people view consequences of a risky choice and how it might impact their lives. The Socio-cultural looks at the “effect of group and culture level variable on risk perception”. Psychometric paradigm looks at how people react emotionally to a risky situation that “affects judgments of the riskiness of physical, environmental and material risk”. When public officials overreact to a new/unknown danger it is likely because they overestimate its true danger or for reassurance for the public.

“If I Look at the Mass I will Never Act” - This article discusses how most people are caring individuals and they are willing to help those in need. The problem is when those in need are part of a mass group of people. The question that Slovic asks is why do people ignore genocide? He uses psychological research to show how mass murders do not connect in people's minds as being bad as they are. He discusses the lessons that is learned from past genocide. He talks about how we said “’Never again’ after liberation of Nazi death camps” but we have continued to have instances of genocide all over the world. America has reacted poorly to genocide. There are no ramifications to political figures if they choose to stay out of the conflict. He also looks at how the media does not do a great job of reporting the news. They are focused on other issues that are emphasizing the bigger problems. When discussing his psychological research he says how all other factors do not matter without “affect”. Affect is what tells us if something is right or wrong. “If activated feelings are pleasant, they motivate actions to reproduce the feelings. If the feelings are unpleasant, they motivate actions and thoughts anticipated to avoid the feelings” The experience of affect is what guides peoples “judgments, decisions and actions” Slovic also discusses “Attention” as being an important factor. It is necessary for the feelings. It is good for people to see the vast numbers of those murdered but it does not have the same effect as images. Slovic says, “We quickly grow numb to the facts and the math” He uses statistics to show the relationship between the numbers of people presented and our level of contributions to help them. When it was one victim it was a full ten on the scale. For eight victims the contribution dropped down to a five. What seemed to work was when the media would cover individual stories of victims. People became more willing to the help/donate in these instances. Several changes need to be made to combat this perception of mass murder. International law needs to be changed to accommodate this problem of numbness of numbers. The approach of reporting genocide also needs to change because our feelings alone do not give enough drive to stop genocide.

"Facts and Fears: Societal Perception of Risk" - There is statistical data for many hazards that people can perceive such as smoking, car wrecks, etc. But without interpretation of the statistics they are just numbers and they have to be given relevance in their respective context. Slovic looks at the psychology of risk assessment when managing hazards. He says that experts as general publics are needed in the assessment process and “that understanding public perceptions is crucial to effective decision making”. Through his study he looked at how people view as a perceived risk and what determines risk perception. By the end of his research he concluded that “perceived risk is quantifiable and predictable”. Not only is there a difference in perception between experts and public but also the people within the public differ as well. He found that when there is a higher perceived risk it causes higher desired reduction of that risk.

title: Paul Slovic