text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (0th nomination)

Star Trek versus Star Wars
Star Trek versus Star Wars was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was was a consensus to keep the article.

I am probably opening a big, ugly can of worms by bringing this up, but is this kind of self-indulgent nerdiness really necessary in an encyclopedia? (Note: I am myself a "nerd" and a fan of both series) Indrian 23:54, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. OMG U SUK ENTERPRIZE CULD OWN ALL TEH JEDIZ AND UR JUST HATIN. Also, this is a relatively major Internet/Usenet/BBS debate spanning almost the entire history of online life. Article needs some cleanup, but it should exist. Lord Bob 23:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and seriously clean it up; perhaps even stubbify it. It's an odd, notable phenomenon indeed, but nerdy fancruft abounds (describing canon and individual flame wars gets to be a little much). On the other hand of this issue, a Kirk versus Picard article would probably do well to hit the chopping block. Ian Pugh 00:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Stubbify? This is a Wiki.  Any attempt to shorten the article would last about 12 seconds.  I vote to keep.  We have a plethora of articles on every single character and event in the Star Wars and Star Trek universes (not to mention all the Simpsons and Tolkien articles).  Frivolous as it is, this one deserves to live just as much as those.  Fishal 16:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm all for that. But there's a lot of junk in that article. Maybe stubbify is too strong a word, but cleanup is imperative. Ian Pugh 17:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment—this has already survived one VfD debate (see article talk page). Postdlf 00:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, Indrian, no, it is not necessary. "The Value of this debate had often been doubted by non-participants." Had it? I am flabbergasted! Anyway, perhaps this is deserves some mention as an "internet phenomenon", but I really don't see this article being encyclopedia-caliber material. Opens itself up to becoming part of the debate rather than reporting it. Could it be mentioned on a page about this sort of thing? There must be one that more generally covers this sort of geekiness that has permeated the internet. Also, too many external links. -R. fiend 00:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you write about it? Ick.  At no time in my life would I have found such a debate anything other than a confirmation that some people really need a hobby.  I've always heard of this as a joke told about science fiction fans.  I think it could be a paragraph in some other article, frankly.  I'm abstaining, closing my eyes, covering my ears, humming loudly, and wishing (like Charlie) that it would go away. Geogre 03:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Damn. I guess that I don't have to bother finishing my Lord of the Rings versus Harry Potter article then... Fire Star 04:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I HOPE you ain't suggestin' that Ron Weasley could last a freakin' nanosecond against Glorfindel or Radagast the Brown. Them's fightin' words! -R. fiend 04:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thing about Harry is that he's a damn superball. Nobody can kill him, but he doesn't do anything on his own.  He seems to work best when thrown at someone.  Then again, does Gandalf ever actually do any magic?  And besides, what are Hogswart's students except hobbits with socks? -- Anonymous Coward.
 * If everybody jumped off a cliff? Well...then it would be notable... Lord Bob 04:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, Bob, but then who would write about it? Ian Pugh 05:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I would, because I'd have gotten the word late. Geogre 17:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep and clean up a bit to get a more neutral point of view. Like I said in late March when this article came up on vfd before (as Postdlf notes) this is a 21st century version of the European literary wars of the 19th century.  In addition to the formal academic battles there was a tremendous amount of juvenile debate back then, which brought strong emotions in a very interesting ways.  Unless of course you happened to be an innocent caught in the middle of their screaming nonsense sessions, in the middle of a public square or in a theatre.  This time I am going to try to put in a little bit of NPOV in the article myself, along to a referecne to the 19th century lit battles. --AlainV 04:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "The debate sheds light on the profound social emotions underlying popular literary activities in the 21st century." Is this a fancy way of saying that fans enjoy fanwanking? A lot of text to say nothing more profound than "Fans furiously debate this issue" and "Hey, they fought about other stuff in the 19th century too". Delete. Gamaliel 05:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Improv 06:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I started trying to read this to make a judgment, but didn't have the fortitude. So dull, on such a trivial subject, but apparently someone cares. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm leaning toward suggesting articles like this be Transwikied to Wikibooks as modules in a book entitled, The Sociology of Popular Culture Fandom. D AVODD  [[User_talk:Davodd|« TALK »]] 09:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep with some cleanup. This debate is basically continuous, and a very notable part of fandom.  This topic can yeild an encyclopedic article, as is quite evident from the current near-encyclopedic attempt.  — siro  χ  o  11:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for two reasons. First, keep on principle because it's a relisting and the relister has not given any good reason to expect a different outcome. And it's not just any relisting, but one which Angela un-VfDed with a comment "(unvfd: many votes to keep)". And looking at the discussion I see 8 clear "keeps" and one probable "keep" and, at most, 3 deletes (counting RickK's "nonsense" comment as a delete, and counting one unsigned "delete"). This wasn't even close. This was a rough consensus to keep. Second, what we have here is an encyclopedic-quality article on a trivial, silly topic. My current flaky personal behavior, for which I am not sure I can articulate a rationale, is that I am a qualitarian. If there is a cadre of people who are willing to write a fairly good article, exercise a fairly responsible degree of scholarship, and generally keep an article up to encyclopedic standards, I'll accept it. I like thoughtful, thorough documentation of pop-cultural phenomena and fads, e.g. Frederick Lewis Allen's Only Yesterday. If I have two different reasons to keep can I cast two votes? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Just say the word and I'll chime in! You're my idol! Dpbsmith002 14:46, 1 Apr 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV/Undecided There are sections that are neutral, but there are others that are biased, one way or the other. And I've noticed a shift between a more neutral view and more heavily "pro-wars" view recently that might have shifted every day. It could have even shifted hourly, for all I know. From what I've read of the latest "version" of this quickly edited page, the section on the "debate declining" and the text of the two external links for "st-v-sw.net" and "StarDestroyer.Net" is biased to the "pro-wars". The text of the section "value of the debate" mentions "StarDestroyer.Net", which I just mentioned has biased text in its description, and continues with a biased view for those of the site's board members. I don't think this belongs either. This page IS becoming part of the debate, it seems. Perhaps a third party from the wikipedia staff could come in and remove any and all biased text and leave it with the "bare bones". There could be a warning at the top about refraining from adding bias to the page, to make it clear to those that want to edit the page. And that if the adding of biased text continues, the page will be deleted. This would be fair, to give those that are changing it constantly a chance to "clean up their act" and start being mature. The wikipedia is for everyone, not to be dragged into the debate as propaganda.
 * Keep, but maybe a session on cleanup would be appropriate. It is a major debate on the Internet (though it seems that for most fans who have been around for a while, this is approximately equivalent to the discussion of the Balrog's wings—i.e. we really don't want to go down that road again). However, it should discuss the debate itself from a more historically-aware perspective: I was involved in these discussions before we had even heard of the prequels, so the implication that anything related to Attack of the Clo'nes is of primary importance is highly misleading. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Star Trek v. Star Wars is a debate that just never seems to die.  It's really something quite spectacular/sad, it's attracted some of the most passionate/embarrassing fans in existence, and it's probably going to outlive us all.  That's worthy of a wikipedia article. - Lifefeed 19:15, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep personally I think the ST v SW debate is extremely sad, but its article-worthy for sure (although it would be nice if the article was less... well... crap than it is now --Cynical 21:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has significant point-and-laugh value, if nothing else. —No-One Jones (m) 22:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe with some Clean Up. Well known Usenet/Internet debate. The article is written from in relatively NPOV, just a little work needed. Besides, eveyone knows how much Star Trek rocks while Star Wars blows. ;-) func(talk) 22:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. NeoJustin 23:58, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's to be kept (and I guess it is), I think it should be moved to Star Wars versus Star Trek debate, to make it clear its about the debate itself, and not an article on which is better, which is what the titles makes it seem like it is. Anyone object? -R. fiend 00:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, with appropriate redirects, of course. func(talk) 00:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. This page would be deleted then, right?
 * The title itself would likely be kept as a (my vote) redirect with most if not all of the content cleaned up a bit. Fire Star 04:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds clear this way. --AlainV 06:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * redirect with some clean up if someone knows how --Blkshrt 01:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep It's a noteable debate/fight/yelling match thingy. As such it does deserve an entry in Wikipedia... just like Star Wars and Star Trek. However i recommend this is watched for POV things and kept realistic and objective. --Asmodai 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually interesting, and a noted issue too.  If you're going to keep the "creator of phrases like "asshat" by a 95% "keep" vote (Something Awful Forums), then this can keep.  Terrapin 14:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an intresting aspect of internet fandoms and cultures. ScottM 22:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and incorporate Egg Troll's post . That is all. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not too happy about the quality of the article, but it's certainly a valid topic with a long history. Keep. Psychonaut 14:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep--Josiah 05:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but for God's sake, why this, and not schools?! Intrigue 19:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up and delete some of the fancruft. I suppose it serves a purpose of some sort. Suntiger 20:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to JnanaBase. Npc 12:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User talk:Mrees1997

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page; Editing tutorial; Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article; Naming conventions; Manual of Style

Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criminal procedure
Greetings. I think, actually, that Criminal procedure should have its own template. Indeed, I've been planning to make one, which is exactly why I've added none of it to the Crim law template. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Have a look at the template now - it's growing well, I think. BD2412 T 19:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here: Template:CrimPro
 * I believe that there is enough stuff unique to crim pro to fill a template nicely (remember also that we're an international encyclopedia, so the template will eventually contain both common law and civil law concepts). By the way, welcome! Please feel welcome to add your name at WikiProject Law, and put yourself in Category:Lawyer Wikipedians. BD2412  T 23:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added Rights of the accused, Presumption of innocence, and Right to silence. Right now the template looks like something of a hodgepodge, but they often start like that. Let me know if you have any thoughts on how it should be ordered - maybe pre-arrest, arrest-to-conviction, and post conviction - (and of course, feel free to edit it). I have to step away for a bit, but will be back later. BD2412  T 00:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Tag status.
Good day,

About a year ago, you placed a merge tag on the Jury trial article. The document has since been overhauled, and may have made your merge proposal — for all intents and purposes — OBE.

Users who may be opposed to the merge effort have expressed their opinions on the talk page for the aformentioned article. You are invited to do likewise. Please submit all comments by March 10 2006.

Regards, Folajimi 19:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, my merge notice was from 20 Dec. 2005. There was another, unrelated merge notice about a year ago. Nothing has happened about my merge notice. No comments, no editing. Mrees1997 18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Pardon me. It turns out that I conflated two separate issues:

 * First, I managed to miss the removal of the unrelated merge notice (initially placed by David.Monniaux) to the Jury Trial article. That user had tagged multiple articles for extended periods of time without checking up on them. When I did contact him about the matter, his response was one of indifference.
 * Second, the tag of concern was attached to the "Jury" article, as opposed to the Jury trial article, which you had tagged about two months ago. Although I had contacted the editor who attached the tag to the non-trial article, Martg76, somehow, I ended up sending you a notice for the same issue.

 * Please accept my apologies for the oversight. I accidentally confused your username for one used by another editor — both of which happen to begin with the capital letter 'M', and end with numerical values. The merge requests — submitted against three different, but related articles — made it difficult to properly sort out who edited which article, and when they did so.

 * At any rate, thank you for taking the time to reply to my notice. Cheers. Folajimi 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Garbasail
I saw your comment at Talk:Garbasail, and wanted to let you know that I've nominated it for deletion. The discussion is here, if you want to contribute to the discussion. Joyous | Talk 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Law selections
Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anchoring Deletion
I'm not sure why you are deleting Manson Anchor references from an Anchor Page.

The Manson Supreme was a completely Original Anchor, no matter what other manufacturers might write about it. It has it's own legal copyrights and patents and I am confused as to why you would deleter references to the Manson products.

I would be interested to hear your comments on the above, especially your background in anchors and anchoring.

Thanks and regards Manson Representative.

Anchor Amendment
I have edited the references to be of a non commerical informative type as per the other anchor desciptions. I believe that the Lloyds reference to be of an informative type, any product that is the first to achieve such recognition should be regarded as informative.

Let me know if there are any other references you need amended or if this is fine.

Just so there is no misrepresentation here, Badmonkey is actually a salesman for Rocna anchors, Craig Smith.

Thanks and warm regards Manson Anchors Representative.

I think we need to have sales people just lay off of editing articles on their stock in trade. See Talk:Anchor. Mrees1997 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thistle photo
You uploaded a (rather nice) photo of a Thistle running under spinnaker, and claimed that it was CC 2.5 licensed, but I can't find any evidence on the original site that that's the case. Can you clarify? Susan Davis 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I talked to the photographer, Paul Nelson, personally. Mrees1997 04:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thistleclass.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Thistleclass.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Future plans for Cruising (Maritime)??
Mrees, having read your note about welcoming more writers/editors for the Cruising topic, I took the liberty of suggesting to the folks in the [Seas Cruising Association Discussion Board] that they join Wikipedia and help out. It seems to me that this article, while a good basis, could use some more hands to expand as you have suggested, adding related pages to expand subtopics. For example, I think there is room for separate pages regarding offshore cruising, day cruising, etc., and I think a Cruising Destinations page could provide some useful information in addition to the specific pages for Vanuatu, for example. One might almost say that Cruising could use a category of its own, to pull together all the pieces/pages that comprise the reference material that is relevant.

In any case, my assumption was that you and the others involved in this topic would welcome some assistance, so I hope that is the case. The members of SSCS's discussion boards tend to be easy to get along with, in general - unlike some other sailing forums I can think of! So I believe that if any of them participate as I hope they will, it will be all to the good. Here is the [posting], in the Education section of that board.(Gar37bic (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Mrees1997


text:
User talk:SecretAgentMan00

Image Tagging for Image:Red_Guards.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Red_Guards.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Mao.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Mao.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. John Smith's 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Torquemada picture
Dear SecretAgent, I see that you once uploaded the Torquemada picture. Could you provide some information on the picture (artist, time etc.) Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Lenin 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lenin 01.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Ball Lightning.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Ball Lightning.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Evil saltine 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mao_Krushchev.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mao_Krushchev.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vladmir_Lenin.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vladmir_Lenin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Pol Pot.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Pol Pot.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Zarqawi001.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Zarqawi001.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jake_LaMotta.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jake_LaMotta.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Che_Guevara.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Che_Guevara.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Manila Massacre01.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Manila Massacre01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Nanking Memorial.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Nanking Memorial.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Mao Krushchev.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mao Krushchev.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:SecretAgentMan00


text: User talk:81.154.71.3

title: User talk:81.154.71.3


text:
Neo-Mandaic

Neo-Mandaic, also known as Modern Mandaic, sometimes called the "ratna" (رطنة raṭna "jargon"), is the modern reflex of the Mandaic language, the liturgical language of the Mandaean religious community of Iraq and Iran. Although severely endangered, it survives today as the first language of a small number of Mandaeans (possibly as few as 100–200 speakers) in Iran and in the Mandaean diaspora. All Neo-Mandaic speakers are multilingual in the languages of their neighbors, Arabic and Persian, and the influence of these languages upon the grammar of Neo-Mandaic is considerable, particularly in the lexicon and the morphology of the noun. Nevertheless, Neo-Mandaic is more conservative even in these regards than most other Neo-Aramaic languages.

General information
Neo-Mandaic (ISO 639-3: mid) represents the latest stage of the development of Classical Mandaic, a language of the Middle East which was first attested during the period of Late Antiquity and which continues to be used to the present date by the Mandaean religious community of Iraq and Iran. While the members of this community, numbered at roughly 70,000 or fewer adherents throughout the world, are familiar with the classical dialect through their sacred literature and liturgy, only a few hundred Mandaeans, located primarily in Iran, speak Neo-Mandaic (known to them as the raṭnɔ) as a first language. Two surviving dialects of Neo-Mandaic have thus far been documented, those of Ahwāz (in Macuch 1965a, Macuch 1965b, Macuch 1989, and Macuch 1993 ) and Khorramshahr (in Häberl 2009 ). These dialects are mutually intelligible to the extent that speakers of either dialect will deny that there are any differences between the two.

Genetic affiliation
Neo-Mandaic is a dialect of Aramaic, a Northwest Semitic language that was formerly spoken throughout the Middle East. Already in antiquity, a split had developed between the Western dialects of Aramaic (spoken in primarily in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel), and the Eastern dialects (spoken primarily in Mesopotamia and Iran) to which Neo-Mandaic pertains. The bulk of scholarship on these modern reflexes of these dialects, collectively described as Neo-Aramaic, has focused primarily on Eastern Aramaic languages, particularly the Central Neo-Aramaic (Turoyo and Mlahsô) and Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects spoken by Jewish and Christian communities in Eastern Anatolia, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Iranian Azerbaijan. A smaller but still considerable volume of scholarship is dedicated to the more peripheral dialects such as the Western Neo-Aramaic dialects spoken by Christians and Muslims in three villages near Damascus, and Neo-Mandaic. Of all the dialects that have thus far been documented, only Neo-Mandaic can be described with any certainty as the modern reflex of any classical written form of Aramaic.

History of scholarship
The first attempt at documenting Neo-Mandaic, a polyglot glossary including a column of lexical items from the Neo-Mandaic dialect of Basra, was produced roughly 350 years ago by a Carmelite missionary whom Borghero has identified with the Discalced Carmelite Matteo di San Giuseppe. This Glossarium was to have a perennial influence upon subsequent generations of Mandaeologists; it was consulted by Theodor Nöldeke and Rudolf Macúch in the preparation of their grammars, and the contents of its Neo-Mandaic column were incorporated into Drower and Macuch's 1963 dictionary. No complete Neo-Mandaic text was published until the beginning of the twentieth century, when de Morgan published five documents collected in Iran (transliterated and translated by Macuch ). The last few decades have seen a marked increase in the number of Neo-Mandaic texts available to scholarship (Macuch 1965b, 1989, and 1993 ) and a descriptive grammar (Häberl 2009 ).

Writing system
Neo-Mandaic is generally unwritten. On the rare occasions on which it is written, in personal letters and in the colophons that are attached to manuscripts, it is rendered using a modified version of the classical script. With the exception of, all vowels are represented, but without any indication of length or quality. The letter ʕ consistently represents an epenthetic vowel, either or. Additionally, the Arabic letter ع has been borrowed to indicate the voiced pharyngeal fricative as well as the glottal stop. The letters b, g, k, p, and t may represent stops ( and ) or fricatives ( and ). Formerly the fricatives were not distinctive segments but merely allophones of the stops after a vowel; the sound rule governing this alternation is now defunct. Neo-Mandaic orthography differs from that of Classical Mandaic by using u to represent even when it is a reflex of Classical Mandaic b. As Neo-Mandaic contains several phonemes not found in Classical Mandaic, several letters from the original script have been modified with two dots placed below to represent these phonemes:  š  may represent,  d  represents , and  h  represents. Private Mandaic schools in Iran and Australia employ a version of this same script with a few further pedagogic modifications.

Phonology
There are 35 distinctive segments in Neo-Mandaic: 28 consonants and seven vowels. For most of these segments, there is a relatively wide degree of allophonic variation. The transcription system, which is phonemic, does not reflect this variation; nor does it reflect sporadic assimilations, deletions, and other features that are typical of allegro speech.

Consonants
Neo-Mandaic has 28 distinctive consonantal segments, including four loan-phonemes: the postalveolar affricates č and j  and the pharyngeal fricatives ʿ  and ḥ, which are found only in vocabulary of foreign origin, particularly Arabic and Persian. Two pharyngealized segments (a voiced alveolar stop ḍ and a voiced alveolar fricative ẓ ) are found in a few Arabic loan words. They have been excluded from the phonemic inventory of Neo-Mandaic due to their marginal status.

Voiceless stops are lightly aspirated.

Vowels
The vowel system in Neo-Mandaic is composed of seven distinct vowels, of which six (i, u , e , o , a , and ɔ ) are principal phonemes, and one (ə ) is marginal. The vowels are distinguished by quality rather than quantity. Three of the principal vowels, the "tense" vowels i, u, and ɔ, are lengthened in open accented syllables to, , and or. and are realized as  and  whenever they occur in closed syllables, either accented or unaccented (exceptions are Persian loanwords (e.g. gush "ear") and contextual forms such as asut, from asuta "health"). The other three principle vowels, the "lax" vowels o, e, and a, appear only exceptionally in open accented syllables. is realized as in open syllables and  in closed syllables. is realized as in open syllables and as  in closed syllables. is realized as in closed accented syllables, and as  or  elsewhere. Schwa has the widest allophonic variation of all the vowels. It is regularly fronted, backed, raised, or lowered in harmony with the vowel of the following syllable. When it is followed by, it is regularly raised and backed to. When the accent falls on a closed syllable containing schwa, it becomes fronted and raised to.

There are also five diphthongs, ey, ay , aw , ɔy , and ɔw. The diphthongs and, which had already collapsed in closed accented syllables to  and  in the classical language, have collapsed in all accented syllables in the dialects of Ahwāz  and Khorramshahr, apart from those in words of foreign origin. The collapse of diphthongs appears to be further advanced in the dialect of Ahvāz; compare Khorramshahr gɔw 'in' with Ahwāz  gu  id. Closely tied to the collapse of the diphthong in open accented syllables is the breaking of its outcome,  to  in the same environment. For example, classical baita 'house' has become bieṯɔ in Neo-Mandaic. This sound change is today typical of both the contemporary dialects of Ahwāz and Khorramshahr, but is not present in the unpublished texts from Iraq collected by Drower or in Macuch 1989.

Syllable structure
Neo-Mandaic words range in size from one to five syllables. Each syllable consists of an onset (which is optional in word-initial syllables) and a rime. The rime consists of a nucleus (usually a vowel or a syllabic consonant) with or without a coda. The onset and the coda which frame the nucleus consist of consonants; the onset is mandatory for all word-internal syllables, but the coda is optional in all environments. Whenever an enclitic pronominal suffix (see 3.3. below) lacking an onset is added to a closed accented syllable, the coda of the syllable is geminated to form the onset of the following syllable. Whenever the voiceless interdental fricative /θ/ is geminated in this environment, its outcome is the cluster [χt] rather than the expected [θθ]. For example, when the pronominal suffixes are appended directly to the existential particle *eṯ [ɛθ] (Classical ‘it), it regularly takes the form ext- [ɛχt]. This rule affects the conjugation of the verb meṯ ~ moṯ (mɔyeṯ) ‘to die,’ e.g. meṯ ‘he died’ but mextat ‘she died.’ It is also responsible for the modern form of the abstract ending uxtɔ (Classical -uta).

The syllable patterns V (ɔ [ɔ] ‘this’), VC (ax [ɑχ] ‘that’), CV (mu [mu] ‘what’), and CVC (tum [tum] ‘then’) are the most common. Slightly less common are syllables containing clusters of consonantal or vocalic segments, such as VCC (ahl [ahl] ‘family’), CCV (klɔṯɔ [ˈklɔː.θɔ] ‘three’), CCVC (ṣṭɔnye [ˈstɔn.je] ‘he is a boy’), CVCC (waxt [væχt] ‘time’), CVVC (bieṯ [biɛ̆θ] ‘house’), and even CVVCC (šieltxon [ˈʃiɛ̆lt.χon] ‘I asked you (pl.)’). Permissible consonant clusters in Neo-Mandaic fall into two categories: clusters that form at the beginning or the end of a syllable, and those that span syllable boundaries. The former are strictly limited to certain combination of segments. The latter are less restricted; with few exceptions, Neo-Mandaic tolerates most clusters of two or occasionally even three consonants across a syllable boundary. Consonant clusters consisting of a stop followed by a sonorant, a sibilant followed by a sonorant, or a sibilant followed by a stop, are tolerated in both syllable-final and syllable-initial environments. Consonant clusters consisting of a sonorant and a stop or a sonorant and a fricative are tolerated in word final environment alone. /ə/ is regularly inserted as an anaptyctic vowel to break up impermissible consonant clusters; whenever a sonorant is the second segment in a word-final consonant cluster, the cluster is eliminated by syllabifying the sonorant. Neo-Mandaic does not tolerate clusters of the bilabial nasal /m/ and the alveolar trill /r/ in any environment. The voiced bilabial stop /b/ regularly intervenes between these two segments, e.g. lákamri [ˈlɑ.kɑm.bri] ‘he didn’t return it.’ Clusters of the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ with another consonant are also not tolerated, even across a syllable boundary; /h/ is generally deleted in this environment.

Stress
The accent preferably falls upon a tense vowel within a closed syllable. The placement of the accent is determined from the final syllable. Any final syllable (or ultima) that is closed and contains a tense vowel automatically receives the accent, e.g. farwɔh [fær.ˈwɔh] ‘thanks.’ If the final is open or contains a lax vowel, the accent will fall upon the penultimate syllable, provided that it is closed or contains a tense vowel, e.g. gawrɔ [ˈgæv.rɔ] ‘man.’ Otherwise, the stress will fall on the final syllable, e.g. əxal [a.ˈχɑl] ‘he ate.’ In words of three or more syllables, if neither the ultima nor the penultima is closed and contains a tense vowel, then the accent recedes to the antepenultimate syllable, e.g. gaṭelnɔxon [ga.ˈtˤɛl.nɒ.ˌχon] ‘I will kill you.’ Several morphemes automatically take the accent, such as the negative morpheme lá-, which causes the accent to shift to the first syllable of the verb which is negated. As in Classical Mandaic and other Aramaic dialects, vowels in open pretonic syllables are regularly subject to reduction.

Nouns
The morphology of the noun has been greatly influenced by contact with Persian. The classical system of states has become obsolete, and only vestiges of it survive in some frozen forms and grammatical constructions. As a result, the most common inflectional morphemes associated with the states have been replaced by morphemes borrowed from Persian, such as the plural morphemes ɔn  (for native and nativized vocabulary) and -(h)ɔ (for words of foreign origin), the indefinite morpheme -i, and the ezɔfe. This last morpheme indicates a relationship between two nouns (substantive or adjective) corresponding to a variety of functions (generally attributive or genitive). In Neo-Mandaic, the attributes of both the Iranian ezɔfe and its Classical Mandaic analogue are reconciled. Whenever a noun bearing the nominal augment –ɔ is immediately followed by another noun or adjective expressing a genitive or attributive relationship, the augment is regularly apocopated, e.g. rabbɔ ‘leader’ but rab Mandayɔnɔ ‘leader of the Mandaeans’ and kədɔwɔ ‘book’ but kədɔw Mandɔyí ‘a Mandaic book.’

Gender and number
Despite the collapse of the system of states, and the obsolescence of the most common classical plural morpheme –ia, much of the morphology of the noun has been preserved. While most masculine and feminine nouns alike are marked with the plural morpheme -ɔn-, the grammar continues to mark a distinction between the two genders. The feminine plural morpheme -(w/y)ɔṯ- most commonly appears on nouns marked explicitly with the feminine singular morpheme -t-, although it can also be found on the plural forms of many feminine nouns not marked as such in the singular. Most loan words take the plural morpheme -(h)ɔ, although a few retain the plural forms of their source languages. Additionally, many of the heteroclite plurals attested in the classical language have been retained.

Identifiability and referentiality
The appearance of the indefinite and plural morphemes on the noun is determined primarily by its pragmatic status, such as the referentiality and identifiability of the referent. "Referentiality" concerns whether the speaker intends a particular, specific entity, which is thus referential, or whether the entity is designated as non-specific or generic, and thus non-referential. Referential nouns are explicitly marked when plural as well as when they serve as the object of a verb, in which case they are marked with the enclitic morpheme əl and anticipated by a pronominal suffix on the verb. The referent of an unmarked noun such as barnɔšɔ can either be specific (‘the person’) or generic (‘people’) but not non-specific (‘a person’). The "identifiability" of a referent reflects whether the speaker assumes that it is identifiable or unidentifiable to the addressee. The indefinite morpheme –i indicates that the referent is neither generic nor identifiable, but is ambiguous as to whether the referent is specific (‘a particular person’) or non-specific (‘some person’). Macuch (1965a, 207) has noted that this morpheme, originally borrowed from the Iranian languages, is attested already in the Classical Mandaic texts. Nouns and adjectives modified by the indefinite morpheme -i can serve as indefinite pronouns to indicate non-specific or indefinite referents (such as enši ‘someone’ and mendi ‘something’).

Pronouns
The independent personal pronouns are optionally employed to represent the subject of a transitive or intransitive verb. Whenever the singular forms appear before a verb, their final vowel is apocopated. The enclitic personal pronouns are in complementary distribution with them; they may represent the object of a transitive verb, a nominal or verbal complement or adjunct in a prepositional phase, or indicate possession on the noun. On nouns of foreign origin, they are affixed by means of the morpheme –d-. On the noun na p š- ‘self’ they also serve to form the reflexive pronouns. Neo-Mandaic also has two reciprocal pronouns, ham ‘each other’ and hədɔdɔ ‘one another.’

The interrogative pronouns are used to elicit specific information beyond a simple yes or no answer (which can be elicited simply by employing a rising intonation, as in English). Of these interrogative pronouns, only man ‘who’ and mu ‘what’ may substitute for either the subject or the object of a verb, obligatorily appearing at the beginning of the interrogative clause. Other interrogatives in Neo-Mandaic include elyɔ ‘where,’ hem ‘which,’ hemdɔ ‘when,’ kammɔ ‘how,’ kaṯkammɔ ‘how much/many,’ mojur ‘how, in what way,’ and qamu ‘why.’

Verbs
The Neo-Mandaic verb may appear in two aspects (perfective and imperfective), three moods (indicative, subjunctive, and imperative), and three voices (active, middle, and passive). As in other Semitic languages, the majority of verbs are built upon a triconsonantal root, each of which may yield one or more of six verbal stems: the G-stem or basic stem, the D-stem or transitivizing-denominative verbal stem, the C-stem or causative verbal stem, and the tG-, tD-, and tC-stems, to which a derivational morpheme, t-, was prefixed before the first root consonant. This morpheme has disappeared from all roots save for those possessing a sibilant as their initial radical, such as eṣṭəwɔ ~ eṣṭəwi (meṣṭəwi) ‘to be baptized’ in the G-stem or eštallam ~ eštallam (meštallam) in the C-stem, in which the stop and the sibilant are metathesized. A seventh stem, the Q-stem, is reserved exclusively for those verbs possessing four root consonants.

Verbs that begin with a vowel rather than a consonant are called I-weak. Verbs beginning with the approximants n and y, which were susceptible to assimilation in Classical Mandaic, have been reformed on the analogy of the strong verbs. When they appear as the second or third radical of a consonantal root, the liquids w and y are susceptible to the general collapse of diphthongs described above. The verbs that are thus affected are known as II-weak and III-weak verbs. Those roots in which the second and third radical consonants were identical have been reformed on the analogy of the II-weak verbs; this process had already begun in Classical Mandaic.

A very large and productive class of verbs in Neo-Mandaic consists of a verbal element and a non-verbal element, which form a single semantic and syntactic unit. The non-verbal element is most often a noun such as əwɔdɔ ‘deed’ in the compound əwɔdɔ əwad ~ əwod (ɔwed) ‘to work or to do something,’ or an adjective such as həyɔnɔ ‘alive’ in the compound həyɔnɔ tammɔ ‘to survive,’ although prepositions such as qɔr ‘at,’ in the compound qɔr tammɔ ‘to be born to s.o.,’ are attested. In many of these compounds, the verbal element is a "light" verb, which serves only to indicate verbal inflections such as person, tense, mood, and aspect; the meaning of these compounds is primarily derived from the non-verbal element, which always precedes the verbal element. The most common light verbs are əwad ~ əwod (ɔwed) ‘to do,’ əhaw ~ əhow (ɔhew) ‘to give,’ məhɔ ~ məhi (mɔhi) ‘to hit,’ and tammɔ ‘to become.’ Although phrasal verbs similar to these are attested in Classical Mandaic, most Neo-Mandaic phrasal verbs are calqued upon Persian phrasal verbs, and many non-verbal elements are Persian or Arabic loan words.

Principal parts of the verb
The principal parts upon which all inflected forms of the verb are built are the perfective base (represented by the third masculine singular form of the perfective), the imperative base (represented by the masculine singular form of the imperative), and the imperfective base (represented by the active participle in the absolute state). In the G-stem, the second syllable of the perfective base can have one of three thematic vowels: /a/, /e/, and /o/. Transitive verbs predominantly belong to the first, which is the most common of the three, whereas the latter two typically characterize intransitives and stative verbs. Transitive verbs also commonly yield a passive participle, which takes the form CəCil, e.g. gəṭil ‘killed (m.sg.),’ f.sg. gəṭilɔ and pl. gəṭilen. The D-stem is represented by one passive participle, əmšabbɔ ‘praised,’ which belongs to the III-weak root consonant class. The C-stem is also represented by a single III-weak passive participle, maḥwɔ ‘kept.’

Inflected forms of the verb
The inflected forms of the verbs are produced by adding personal suffixes to the principal parts. The forms given in parentheses were cited by Macuch,  who noted that they were infrequently found and not consistently used. The feminine plural forms were not present at all in the texts collected by Häberl, and it would appear that the paradigm is in the process of being leveled towards the masculine forms. Before personal morphemes beginning with a vowel, the vowel of the syllable immediately preceding the suffix is deleted and the former coda becomes the onset for the new syllable. The addition of the morpheme may also cause the accent to shift, resulting in the reduction of vowels in pretonic syllables noted in 2.4. Enclitic object suffixes, introduced above, also have the same effect upon preceding syllables, affecting the form of the personal morpheme. All third person imperfective forms take the enclitic object marker -l- before the object suffix. The final consonant of the third plural personal suffix -en regularly assimilates to this enclitic object marker, producing the form -el(l)-. Additionally, the second singular and first plural morphemes assume the forms -ɔt- and -nan(n)- respectively before object suffixes.

Tense, aspect, mood, and voice
Aspect is as basic to the Neo-Mandaic verbal system as tense; the inflected forms derived from the participle are imperfective, and as such indicate habitual actions, progressive or inchoative actions, and actions in the future from a past or present perspective. The perfective forms are not only preterite but also resultative-stative, which is most apparent from the verbs relating to a change of state, e.g. mextat eštɔ ‘she is dead now,’ using the perfective of meṯ ~ moṯ (mɔyeṯ) ‘to die.’

The indicative is used to make assertions or declarations about situations which the speaker holds to have happened (or, conversely, have not happened), or positions which he maintains to be true. It is also the mood used for questions and other interrogative statements. The perfective, by its very nature, refers to situations that the speaker holds to have happened or not to have happened, and thus pertains to the indicative, apart from explicitly counterfactual conditional clauses, e.g. agar an láhwit, lá-aṯṯat əl-yanqɔ ‘if I hadn’t been there, she wouldn’t have brought (=given birth to) the baby.’ The imperfective, on the other hand, is used to describe situations which are ongoing, have yet to happen, or about which there may exist some uncertainty or doubt. When marked by the morpheme qə-, it is used to express the indicative, but when it is not thus marked, it expresses the subjunctive. The subjunctive is most commonly used to indicate wishes, possibilities, obligations, and any other statements which may be contrary to present fact. As in the other Semitic languages, the subjunctive must be used in the place of the imperative for all negative commands and prohibitions.

In Neo-Mandaic, the relationship of the action or state described by the verb to its arguments can be described by one of three voices: active, middle voice, and passive. When the action described by the verb is initiated by its grammatical subject, the verb is described as being in the active voice, and the grammatical subject is described as its agent. The t-stems introduced above express the middle voice. The agents of verbs in these stems, which are syntactically active and intransitive, experience the results of these actions as if they were also the patient; in many cases, the action of the verb appears to occur on its own. As a result, verbs in these stems are often translated as if they were agentless passives, or reflexive actions that the subject takes on its own behalf, e.g. etwer minni wuṣle ‘a piece broke off / was broken from it.’ In the passive voice, the grammatical subject of the verb is the recipient of the action described by it, namely the patient. There are two ways of forming the passive voice in Neo-Mandaic: the analytic passive, in which the passive participle is combined with the copula, and the much more common impersonal passive, in which an impersonal third plural form is used, e.g. əmaryon ‘it is said,’ literally ‘they said.’

Syntax
Neo-Mandaic preserves the SVO word order of Classical Mandaic, despite its longstanding contact with Persian (which follows SOV word order). Topic-fronting, which tends to obscure the word order, is typical of all three languages. Simple sentences consist of a subject, which may be implied in the verb, and a predicate, which is headed by a verb or the copula (see Table 9 below). The independent forms of the copula introduce predicate nominal and predicate locative constructions, and the enclitic forms introduce predicate adjectives. Much like other Semitic languages, Neo-Mandaic employs a predicate locative construction to express the notion of possession. In the simple present tense, this construction uses the independent form of the existential particle *eṯ and the preposition l- ‘to/for,’ which takes the enclitic suffixes introduced in Table 5. Before l-, the existential particle assumes the form eh-, yielding the forms ehli ‘he has’ (lit. ‘there is for him’), ehla ‘she has,’ and so forth. In tenses other than the simple present, the copular verb həwɔ ~ həwi (hɔwi) is used in the place of the existential particle, e.g. agar pərɔhɔ həwɔle, turti zawnit ‘if I had money, I would have bought a cow.’

Compound sentences combine two or more simple sentences with coordinating conjunctions such as u ‘and,’ ammɔ ‘but,’ lo ‘or,’ and the correlative conjunction -lo … -lo ‘either … or.’ Complex sentences consist of a main clause and one or more dependent clauses introduced by a relative pronoun, provided that the referent of the antecedent of the clause is definite—if it is indefinite, no relative pronoun is used. The Classical Mandaic relative pronoun  d - has not survived, having been replaced by elli, an Arabic loan that introduces non-restrictive relative clauses, and ke, a Persian loan that introduces restrictive relative clauses, both of which appear immediately following the antecedent of the clause. The antecedents of restrictive relative clauses are marked with the restrictive morpheme –i, which resembles the indefinite morpheme in form alone, e.g. ezgit dukkɔni ke həzitu awwál ‘I went to the places which I saw before.’ If the antecedent is the object of the relative clause, it will be represented within the relative clause by a resumptive relative pronoun, as in the example above (həzitu ‘I saw them’).

Variation among individual speakers
There is noticeable variation in pronunciation, lexicon, and morphology among individual speakers of Neo-Mandaic. For example, below are some words and phrases with different forms as noted by Häberl (2009).

Charles G. Häberl worked with Nasser Sobbi in 2003, while Rudolf Macúch worked with Salem Choheili in 1989 and Nasser Saburi in 1953.

Other fluent native speakers of Neo-Mandaic include Salah Choheili (the rishama or Mandaean head priest in Australia) and many of his family members.

Comparison
The ensemble of the features described above suggest that the grammar of Neo-Mandaic is remarkably conservative in comparison with that of Classical Mandaic, and that most of the features that distinguish the former from the latter (in particular, the restructuring of the nominal morphology and the verbal system) are the result of developments already attested in Classical and Postclassical Mandaic. Unlike the other Neo-Aramaic dialects (apart from Western Neo-Aramaic), Neo-Mandaic alone preserves the old Semitic suffix conjugation (the Neo-Mandaic perfective). Apart from the imperative forms, the prefix conjugation (the Classical Mandaic imperfect) has been replaced by the Neo-Mandaic imperfective, which was already anticipated in Classical Mandaic as well. Even the lexicon preserves the vocabulary of Classical Mandaic to a large degree; in a list of 207 of the most common terms in Neo-Mandaic collected by Häberl, over 85% were also attested in the classical language, the remaining 15% deriving primarily from Arabic and Persian. As the latest stage of a classical Aramaic dialect with a long and fairly continuous history of attestation, Neo-Mandaic is potentially of great value for elucidating the typology of the Aramaic dialects as well as the study of the Semitic languages in general.

title: Neo-Mandaic


text:
Talk:Independence of irrelevant alternatives

Makes sense?
Sorry if this just me being dumb, but does "if one candidate (X) wins the election, and a new alternative (Y) is added, only X or Y will win the election." make sense? Shouldn't it be "if one candidate (X) is running for election,..."? Or do I just not get it?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.138.193.74 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

 * You just don't get it. (No offense intended -- it's a tricky concept.) In the initial circumstance, X isn't the only candidate running; he's the winner.  The candidates might be A, B, C, and X.  X is currently winning.  The ieda of IIA is that if Y enters, that shouldn't change the winner to C.  If the choice among A, B, C, and X picked X as the best, adding Y shouldn't change that -- either X or Y should win the "new" election.  This seems intuitive, if you think that an election should produce a firm "ranking" of the candidates.  Except it turns out (as illustrated in the text) that while a single voter may have firm rankings in mind, society can collectively have cyclic rankings, saying "A is better than B, B is better than C, C is better than A." Auros 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Approval and range voting
Is this finally a demand were Approval Voting works better than any Condorcet method (besides simplicity)?

 * Yeah, Approval does satisfy IIA. Of course, it doesn't satisfy the Condorcet criterion -- Arrow showed that no method can satisfy both the Condorcet criterion and IIA.  This is easy enough to see.  If you have a race that includes a cycle of A > B > C > A, and your method currently selects A, then if B drops out, you'll now have C > A, and C will win.  So the race is between A and C, under the control of B (an "irrelevant alternative" -- he is not the winner in either case).  This is why many analysts consider the IIA criterion flawed, and instead say that meeting Condorcet is good, and meeting the local IIA criterion is good, but total IIA is not important as long as those other two are met.  I'm not clear why another editor considered the example of how the existence of cycles trivially implies IIA failure a "special pleading" for Condorcet.  It seems, to me, critical to understanding Arrow's theorem and IIA's role in it. Rmharman 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Local IIA is clearly special pleading since it is designed to say "Condorcet methods satisfy IIA (except when they do not in which case it doesn't really matter) ". The role I see of IIA in Arrow's theorem is to show that democracy is complicated, and is vulnerable to tactical behaviour, and that there is no objectively optimal solution to the questions which result.  I see nothing special about the Condorcet criterion compared with many other criteria, and if you do then that is your point of view. --Henrygb 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The point of LIIA is that there are some sets of preferences (cyclic ones) under which no method can satisfy IIA. Satisfying IIA under all possible scenarios in which it is possible to satisfy it is not meaningless.  Saying that it's "special pleading" is like saying that building a "divide by 0" exception into a programming language is special pleading -- "your math program can solve all divisions, except the ones it can't, which don't really matter."  Well, yes, exactly.  We don't need to provide an "answer" to a divide by 0 request, other than, "that's meaningless."  In the context of cyclic preferences, IIA is meaningless.  Saying that "democracy is complicated" and all systems are vulnerable to tactical manipulation under some circumstances, doesn't mean it's impossible to make meaningful comparisons about how vulnerable a given electoral system is -- under what conditions odd behaviors might emerge, and how likely those conditions are in the real world.  As for whether Condorcet is special -- that depends on whether you think that majoritarianism is, in general, a good thing; Condorcet/Smith is the clearest majoritarian criterion, though note that even the most basic version, "a candidate with a majority of first choice votes must win," is contradictory to IIA, as I showed in the example in the article.  The only way to satisfy IIA is to have an "election" that doesn't actually consider the will of the voters -- either have it be dictatorial, or random, or something silly like that.  In any case, I don't privilege Condorcet above all other concerns -- I'm fine with the variety of Condorcet failure that can occur under Approval Voting, for example, as long as voters have access to good polling information and can make choices with some understanding of the consequences -- but in general, a Condorcet-winner seems to have a pretty strong argument that they're the majority choice. Rmharman 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

 * There are plenty of methods that satisfy IIA. Not only are there  dictatorial methods, random methods, and others, but the cardinal methods (such as Approval voting and Range voting) have a particular attractiveness.  But they have other issues.    Condorcet methods and the criterion tend to presume one-dimensional politics and often lead to the election of inoffensive candidates rather than contraversial ones.  You may like that, but it is still a POV.  --Henrygb 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Approval and Range do not meaningfully "satisfy" IIA, they simply fail to provide the information that would allow you to determine that it has been violated. Given a description of voters' ordinal preferences, one can make guesses at how they will vote in Approval or Range, but the two systems don't map transparently to each other.  If you define the right sort of strategy for mapping ordinal preferences to cardinal ratings, you can recreate the example, where A wins with B in, but C wins with B out.  Dictatorial or random methods select a winner, but it's hard to justify calling either an election method.  As for your last line, it seems to be generally understood that Condorcet favors centrism somewhat less than Approval or Range, which, at least in theory, favor a "broad" strategy (aiming to provide middling utility for many people) over a "deep" one (providing high utility for few people).  Condorcet doesn't clearly favor either variety of strategy.  The notion that centrism is automatically equivalent to being "inoffensive" is simplistic, and probably wrong in many cases -- if one imagines a re-run of the 2000 US presidential election using AV amongst Bush, Gore, and McCain, it seems highly likely that McCain would win, precisely because he was (at the time) seen as being more bold than either candidate.  "Centrist champions" tend to get driven out by first-past-the-post and other Duvergerian methods. Rmharman 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What a strange way of looking at the world. The key point about range voting (for honest voters) is that it not only allows voters to say whether they prefer one candidate over another, but also allows them to say by how much they care.  So it allows more information (assuming the range is big enough) than ordinal preference voting.  There is no failure to provide information. --Henrygb 23:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sure you can see why Approval doesn't provide full ranking info, but my apologies, I should've been clearer on why I don't consider Range to provide the full ranking info either. If we can safely assume honesty ratings, it would provide rank info.  But there is a very strong incentive for voters whose real utilities (on a scale from 0 to 99) are something like "Minor Party = 99, Major Party A = 51, Major Party B = 0" to make an exaggerated claim of utility for Major Party A.  They do not expect Minor Party to win, and if they want to maximize their expected utility from the election, they need to maximize the difference in their ballot between the two likely winners. Thus, they will actually cast an Approval-style ballot, with Major Party A given the same maximum score as Minor Party.  You follow?  In any case, I have, in recent months, started to come around to the view that rating-based systems may, nonetheless, have advantages over ranking-based systems, even if the ranking system collects approval info.  The Center for Range Voting has some interesting work from KVenzke suggesting that even Condorcet does not fully escape "duopoly problems".  I haven't decided yet whether I think their cases where betraying a favored third-party in favor of a major party is encouraged are things that a strategic voter could realistically anticipate. Rmharman 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I accept the point that for some people there is an incentive for tactical voting (I wrote the final paragraph of Range_voting), but even then most of them might give Major Party A 98 rather than 99.  And if they saw preventing Major Candidate B from winning as their overwhelming priority then it suggests they see no significant difference between Minor Party and Major Party A. --Henrygb 22:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that Approval and Range cannot be said to satisfy IIA. With approval, it cannot be said to satisfy or violate anything, because there is no presumed, consensus strategy with Approval. The leading Approval Voting organization doesn't even have an endorsed strategy. If a voter simply approves of his or her top choice, then it is exactly plurality and doesn't satisfy IIA. If a voter approves of a front-runner and everyone s/he likes better than the front-runner, then it doesn't satisfy IIA either. So what exactly is the strategy by which Approval is evaluated? With Range Voting, the advocated strategy, so I've heard, is to give your favorite candidate the top score, your least favorite the bottom score, and to score everyone else relatively in between. This can clearly suffer from the same "center squeeze" scenario that IRV does, which doesn't satisfy IIA either. Progressnerd 22:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe the optimal strategy for Approval is "work out your expected utility from the election, and approve all candidates who give you greater than expected utility". This will nearly always produce a set of approved candidates which includes at least one, but not all, of the front-runners. If a *non-front-runner* drops out, your expected utility will hardly change - the non-front-runner is pretty much by definition altering that weighted average very little. If a *front-runner* drops out, however, this may dramatically alter your expected utility, and lead to a changed set of approved candidates.

Jack Rudd (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

LIIA
LIIA implies Condorcet (and Smith), but Condorcet (and even Smith) doesn't imply LIIA. KVenzke 03:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Is there a name for the subset of Condorcet methods that satisfies LIIA? Rmharman 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know of a name for this subset of methods. I would have to just call them "methods which satisfy LIIA." KVenzke 19:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited the beginning of the LIIA section, because it seemed to give the impression that LIIA is practically original research, and that it doesn't even have an agreed-upon name. Also, it seemed to be POV to mention Condorcet methods here, as more specifically it is Smith methods that may satisfy it. I'm not sure about the rest of the section: It seems to be a general argument against the utility of IIA rather than an argument in favor of LIIA. KVenzke 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The point is that IIA is incompatible with some very basic ideas about democracy and social choice (like "if there are only two options, the one preferred by a majority should win") and as such is a very silly criterion to be applying to election methods. Thus, the only way the concept of "irrelevant alternatives" can have any meaning at all is under LIIA, where candidates that are members of a Smith set of more than one element are not mis-defined into the "irrelevant" class.  IIA is badly named! Rmharman 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It is fine to say that the majority criterion and independence of irrelevant alternatives conflict. That does not make either good, bad or silly. But you are displaying your POV when you say "the only way the concept of irrelevant alternatives can have any meaning at all is under LIIA" - it simply is not true. --Henrygb 23:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Preferences set
I deleted the piggybacking addition on my own parenthetical comment on the Morgenbesser anecdote because if it is correct (and I'm not convinced it is -- it needs at the least more exposition) it should be a separate "technical" paragraph on its own, not overloading what is meant to be an illustrative non-technical comment on an illustrative anecdote. The meaning of the addition is also not clear to me -- that the analogy is imperfect because the preference rankings could shift non-transitively with a new option even *after* the choices have been frozen? This seems meaningless to me -- how can one take account of the new option at all if the choices are already frozen? 142.103.168.33 04:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that the comment was useful, although you're probably right in that it didn't belong in your parenthetical. The comment seemed to discuss the fact that preferences are taken as given for voting systems---anything that acts to change that is, strictly speaking, outside of the scope of the field.  This is why there is a difference between runoff elections and IRV: preferences can only be stated once, frozen, for IRV, while they can change for various reasons in a true runoff election. See, for example, Corks' "Evaluating Voting Methods" (p. 3) CRGreathouse 03:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I deleted the addition "not exactly rational" added by Noe to my own parenthetical comment (originally entered from another IP address) on the Morgenbesser anecdote because it misses the whole point of my comment -- that the apparently irrational non-transitive nature of Morgenbesser's choice could be a perfectly sensible and rational consequence of the "irrelevant" alternative changing the internal state of the decision-maker. There is nothing "irrational" in human cognition in something reminding you of something else -- the "else" thing then being used as the basis for a decision where the original reminder plays no part. 137.82.82.145 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

LIIAC
I don't understand why LIIAC is considered a weaker version of IIAC. IIAC doesn't imply LIIAC, does it? We should mention this if that's the case, or include a short proof if it isn't. Also, does someone have a reference to the Young & Levenglick paper introducing LIIAC? CRGreathouse 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You are correct. It is easy enough to produce a range voting example (so meeting IIA) where the new candidate wins despite not being in the Smith set. --Henrygb 09:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Are there any methods that adhere to both IIAC and LIIAC? Range voting has IIAC but not LIIAC; the Schulze method has LIIAC but not IIAC; the Borda count has neither IIAC nor LIIAC. I'm just trying to see if there's one with both -- they seems mutually exclusive, even though related. CRGreathouse 17:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Silly me -- LIIAC → Smith criterion → majority criterion → not IIAC. CRGreathouse 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible new section in article: IIA in Arrow's social choice theory
A recent edit deleted references in the article to Arrow (1951), b/c his usage of 'IIA' is different from the usage of 'IIA' in the rest of the article. One way of handling the ambiguity is with a Disambiguation page and separate articles for each page. Another way is to define and discuss each uaage within the article itself (as was done in the article Qualitative economics). (This has already been done with the section IIA in econometrics.) Then the fact of different usages should be noted in the lead section. Arrow's usage of the same term is spelled out in the link to Arrow in the article. There's also a nice intuitive statement in Kenneth Arrow. The current intro to the article is
 * Independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) is an axiom often adopted by social scientists as a basic condition of rationality. The axiom states: If A is preferred to B out of the choice set {A,B}, then introducing a third, irrelevant, alternative X (thus expanding the choice set to {A,B,X} ) should not make B preferred to A. In other words, whether A or B is better should not be changed by the availability of X.

In Arrow's usage, the second sentence could be rephrased as:
 * IIA states: If A is preferred to B out of the choice set {A,B}, then no matter what preferences are for an unavailable third alternative X, B should not selected by the voting rule over A.

Example (adapted from Sen, Collective Choice and Social Welfare, 1970, p. 37): the choice between Hillary and McCain, given preferences of voters for each relative to the other in 2008, is not to be affected by their preferences for say George Allen (who by hypothesis is not on the ballot) in 2008. Thomasmeeks 15:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (spelling typo fixed) Thomasmeeks 12:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think they're different. There are arguments about minor differences in IIA (see the classic 1973 article of Paramesh Ray in Econometrica), but the concept of IIA in social science is literally based on that of Arrow. If there is a difference between the two uses you list, it's entirely because the one you list for Arrow is phrased wrongly. That's not the ordinary way of phrasing it. I don't have his seminal 1951 book (I've read it, though), but in the original 1950 paper he talks about removing an alternative, which can be clearly seen as equivalent to adding one. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that the wording in the lead correctly states IIA. If so, that wording requires changing to produce Arrow's IIA.  The Kenneth Arrow cite above and my example above are dissimilar to those in the IIA article.  The Econometrica cite in the IIA article (which I have not read) may bring out the same difference that I am asserting. Thomasmeeks 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To be more explicit, in the article addition of X to those that are available could flip the observed choice of A or B (the spoiler effect of X not being chosen but affecting the choice of A or B), but in Arrow, availability of X removes tha applicability of his IIA condition to the choice of A & B. In his usage, what makes a variable 'irrelevant' is not that it is not chosen but that it is unavailable.  Thomasmeeks 12:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(New left margin to respond directly to CRG's points above). I thank CRG for prompting a more careful response. I've had a chance to look at Ray (1973) (thx JSTOR), cited above and in IIA. Arrow (1950 JPE, 1951) does use an example that equates removing X or adding X back as affecting the choice between A & B (the spoiler effect), just as CRG suggests. But, Ray (1973, pp. 989-90), cited above, demonstrates that that Arrow's own formal statement of IIA (called IIA(A) by Ray), is inapplicable to the example he cites ("Clearly, this [Arrow's example] is a violation of IIA(R[adner]-M[arshak]], not IIA(A)." p. 990). So, the distinction of Arrow's IIA condition from other uses does matter.  Thomasmeeks 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (p. numbers above corrected Thomasmeeks 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC))
 * P.S. Concerning the last sentence, a couple more results from the Ray (1973) article supporting it: Ray proves that the IIA(R-M)  condition (congruent with the current IIA-article usage) is consistent with Arrow's other conditions. That is, Arrow's impossibility theorem cannot be derived  with IIA(R-M) instead of IIA(A) (p. 989, Theorem 2).  Second, as between IIA(R-M) & IIA(A), neither can be derived from the other.  Still, there is overlap in the conditions, and certain kinds of information restriction can reduce IIA(R-M) to IIA(A) in which case the impossibility result recurs, though in that case IIA(R-M) adds nothing to the information restriction (pp. 990-91).  Thomasmeeks 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just state Arrow's definition here, which from Social Choice and Individual Values seems to be: --Henrygb 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. Independence of irrelevant alternatives I: Let S be a subset of hypothetically available (not merely conceivable) social states, say x and y, from the set of social states.  Let $$R_1$$, ..., $$R_n$$ and $$R_1$$' , ..., $$R_n$$'  be any 2 sets of orderings with the following property:  For every voter i, the ranking of x and y in S is (by construction) the same. (Different voters could still have different rankings of the 2 social states.) Then the subset S for each of the 2 sets of orderings maps to an identical social choice.
 * Works for me (if any background info deemed necessary to make that exposition self-contained and clear to those who had not read the source article were worked in). Thomasmeeks 11:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll work on this. As the above suggests, there are different ways IIA could go, from new sections to new articles to spinning off sections to a disambiguation page.  In my edits, I'll try to respect the integrity of the whole article and make edits as plain as I can.  Improvements are always welcome as is rational criticism.   (minor edit) Thomasmeeks 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Instant-runoff voting: Flawed Example?
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the example is flawed. "Note that the social choice ranking of [A, B] is dependent on preferences over the irrelevant alternatives [B, C]." How can B be considered irrelevant when it is the winning candidate when it is switched? It's just like saying: There are three parties, 5 voted A, 3 voted B, 3 voted C. Because B and C lost, giving the voted from C to B shouldn't matter. (which is illogical)

I'm trying to think of a better example here..203.116.243.1 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick calculation: a,b,c with results spoiled by c: (cab = 2)(abc = 1)(bca = 3)(cab = 2)(bca = 1) I'm not sure if this is the most efficient spoiled situation. Basically, without c, a beats b. With c, a gets eliminated by runoff, then b beats c.203.116.243.1 (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Borda example flawed?
I don't think the example adduced here is a clear example of IIA; I'm not sure I even think it's a flaw. One intent of Borda voting is to give "partial credit", as it were, for preferred also-rans. If enough credit is added to an also-ran who's already close to winning, it can push them over the top.

I think a better example is as follows. Let's suppose that five voters rank alternatives {A, B}; three prefer A to B and two prefer B to A. If we score two points for a first choice and one point for a second choice, A wins over B, 8 points to 7.

Suppose a third alternative C is introduced. Suppose also that the three voters who preferred A find C the worst of the three (A, B, C), but the two voters who preferred B put C in second place (B, C, A). If we score three points for a first choice, two points for a second choice, and one point for a third choice, we now find that B wins with 12 points, A is second with 11 points, and C brings up the rear with 7 points. In short, introducing a third option that did not affect the individual relative rankings of A and B nevertheless influenced the overall result of the vote. BrianTung (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect definition of LIIA!
The definition of Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (LIIA) in the article does not at all match the definition provided by Peyton Young in his 1993 book Equity in Theory and Practice.

Here are two equivalent ways to express the real LIIA: (1) If the alternative that won or the alternative that finished last is deleted from all the votes, then the relative order of finish of the remaining alternatives must not change. (2) If a subset S of the alternatives are together in the order of finish--in other words, no alternative outside S finishes between or tied with any alternatives in S--then the relative order of finish of the alternatives in S must not change if all alternatives outside S are deleted from the votes.

Young's LIIA is much stronger than the criterion listed in the article, and it's failed by one of the two voting methods that the article mentions as satisfying LIIA, Schulze's method. (Ranked Pairs satisfies it, as does Peyton Young's method. Young's method also satisfies a weak reinforcement criterion--if two collections of votes separately produce the identical order of finish, then the combined votes must produce that same order of finish. Young's method fails independence of clone alternatives, however, which is much more important than reinforcement since it is fairly easy for a minority to nominate slightly inferior clones but hard or impossible for a minority to partition the voters.)

Depending on the comments, I intend to correct the article. SEppley (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 * A couple of weeks elapsed with no objection, so I corrected the article. SEppley (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why Are There No Failure Examples For Rating Methods?
The article now reads (in "Criticism of IIA")...

"IIA is too strong to be satisfied by any voting method...These include Approval and Range Voting"

Why are there no failure examples in the article?

Shall I add them?

Filingpro (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I've tried clearing this up now. Approval and Range fails when voters, by using strategy, modify the method into something that reduces to majority rule.
 * Since the argument criticizing IIA works for every method that reduce to majority rule, I don't think a concrete example would be needed. You may add one if you think one is needed.
 * 85.165.58.214 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks but I don't understand. You say voters "modify" the Approval method by using strategy. How is it that I modified Approval voting by employing bullet voting or compromising which are inherent to Approval voting, while keeping my same preference listing as per Arrow's theorem?

 * You added in the article "Approval and Range can pass IIA because they do not necessarily reduce to majority rule". The words "can" and "not necessarily" imply that Approval and Range can also fail IIA. Mathematical criterion only require one failure case to cause failure of the criterion.

 * My question remains. Why there no examples of failure of rating methods in the article? Doesn't this reflect a bias towards rating methods? If as you say, "criticizing IIA works for every method that reduce to majority rule, I don't think a concrete example would be needed" then why do we need examples for any methods at all, since every plausible competitive voting method reduces to majority rule in the trivial two candidate case? (see also suggestion below)
 * Filingpro (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: It seems that the criticism of IIA section shows that when there is a cycle in the aggregate of voter preferences, then it is trivial to show how any plausible voting method will fail IIA. Therefore, I suggest that when considering showing examples of failure by voting methods, we include examples of failure for any method that can fail IIA when there is no cycle.

For example, Approval voting fails IIA even when there is no aggregate voter cycle because it is vulnerable to simple spoilers just as Plurality is.

APPROVAL FAILURE IIA:

 * ELECTION 1: C WINNER

 * 3 C
 * 2 A (Voters prefer A > B > C)
 * 2 B

 * ELECTION 2: B WINNER (ELIMINATE IRRELEVANT ALTERNATE A)

 * 3 C
 * 4 B

Filingpro (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits To Criticism of IIA
Here are the problems addressed in the edit: The former paragraph reads: " IIA is too strong to be satisfied by any voting method that reduces to majority rule when there are only two alternatives. Most ranked ballot rules do so, while Approval and Range can pass IIA because they do not necessarily reduce to majority rule.[5] Any comprehensive use of strategy that makes Approval or Range reduce to majority rule when there are only two candidates will make those methods fail IIA as well. (Even if only one voter is an optimizing voter, it is possible to construct a tied or nearly-tied example to show IIA can be violated.) "

Problem #1: To comply with IIA, a method must pass every case. Any failure case results in non-compliance. Therefore, there is a problem with the rhetorical structure: "Approval and Range can pass IIA because they don't necessarily reduce to majority rule". This does not logically follow they pass IIA because all that is needed is one case of reducing to majority rule that causes failure. Problem #2: “Comprehensive use of strategy” by voters is not required to make Approval and Range fail IIA. Nor is it required that any voter is an “optimizing voter”. It only requires that a voter might be minimally rational – i.e. that it is at least possible they do not vote against their interest – i.e. abstain from voting. As long as we do not assume that certain voters will necessarily abstain – i.e. we do not necessarily exclude them from representation, then all rating methods fail IIA. Specifically we are just allowing even the possibility that a voter having meaningful preferences for A>B, might cast a positive vote for A in a two candidate election (rather than abstain), and thus allowing Approval and Range to fail IIA. This failure is trivially shown just as Plurality voting fails to resolve common vote splits. Making clear the minimum requirement for failure of IIA is editorially vital to the thesis of this section, that IIA is too strong. PS last two paragraphs of this section may require editing or removal, or moving to Majority Criterion Filingpro (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independence of irrelevant alternatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615143618/http://people.hbs.edu/tsteenburgh/articles/Steenburgh_(Mar-Apr_2008).pdf to http://people.hbs.edu/tsteenburgh/articles/Steenburgh_(Mar-Apr_2008).pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing wording in section "In social choice (under Voting Theory)"
This section contains the wonderful sentence:

"Arrow's IIA does not imply an IIA similar to those different from this at the top of this article nor conversely.[7]"

...

What?

"does not imply": ok, se we're a no

"similar to": um, like

"those different from": wait, unlike

"this at the top": ok, I think this is actually "those at the top" or referring to the other IIA definition above

"nor conversely": .. wait, the opposite? Is this logical converse? Wait, let me rewrite:

not like those unlike to the other defintion, or the other way

not unlike the other definition, and not like?

like the other def, and also not?

I really feel this is saying that "Arrow's IIA is different from the earlier definition, and it doesn't imply the earlier definition. Also the earlier definition does not imply Arrow's definition of IIA. But they have similar intuitions." But this is I think reading a lot into it and prognosticating meaning where I feel it is very confused. I actually don't know which implication directions hold, if any. I came here to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex0du5 5utu7e (talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


text: User:Jason One

title: User:Jason One


text:
New Communist Party of Georgia

New Communist Party of Georgia (საქართველოს ახალი კომუნისტური პარტია) is a communist party in Georgia. It is founded in 2001 by Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, the grandson of Joseph Stalin.

The party symbol is a hedgehog. The party participated in the June 2004 elections in Adjara. The party is affiliated to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of Oleg Shenin.

title: New Communist Party of Georgia


text:
Gregory Wannier

Gregory Hugh Wannier (1911–1983) was a Swiss physicist. He developed a complete set of orthogonal functions known as the Wannier functions which became tools of the trade for solid-state theorists. He also had made contributions to ferromagnetic theory via the Ising model. The Kramers–Wannier duality yields the exact location of the critical point for the Ising model on the square lattice.

Biography
Wannier received his physics PhD under Ernst Stueckelberg at the University of Basel in 1935. He worked with Professor Eugene P. Wigner as a post-doc exchange student at Princeton in the academic year 1936/1937 and later taught at several American universities before a stint in industry from 1946 to 1960. After working at Socony-Vacuum Laboratories, he joined Bell Laboratories in 1949. There he was in the Physical Electronics Group with colleagues such as William B. Shockley, Conyers Herring, John Bardeen, Charles Kittel, and Philip W. Anderson.

He returned to academia in 1961 at the University of Oregon, where he retired as professor emeritus in 1977. He published a series of important papers on the properties of crystals, working with graduate students and visiting professors. Additionally, he published widely read textbooks on solid-state theory and statistical mechanics.

He was regarded by many in the department as its most eminent member until his death on October 21, 1983. He was a fellow of the American Physical Society.

Books

 * Elements of solid state theory, Cambridge University Press 1959. Elements of solid state chemistry (Wannier, Gregory H.)
 * Statistical Physics, Wiley 1966; reprint Dover 1987, 2010

title: Gregory Wannier