text:
Category talk:Aeronautics

Categories for deletion discussion
The following was the discussion for this category which was formerly named Category:Aeronautic.

What is an Aeronautic? I suspect a good category for this exists somewhere else already. --ssd 06:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The noun form is "aeronautics" (i.e., balloons and dirigibles), which would be preferable, and there are quite a few articles and even a subcategory or two which could be put in that (which should itself be a subcategory of "aviation"). So, rename Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 22:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe Category:Aviation is what it should be. That is the closest thing I could find. —Mike 08:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * The article that's in there at the moment relates to aeronautics, which is a very distinct subgroup of aviation. As I said, there are also other articles which could easily populate a Category: Aeronautics. Moving it to aviation would be a bit like moving articles on bicycles into a general road vehicles category because the current category is misnamed as "Bike". Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]]
 * Is Category:Avionics any better? I moved Lee waves there. --ssd 05:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. Lee waves are a weather pattern used by glider and balloon pilots. Aeronautics is ballooning. Avionics is aircraft onboard control instruments. Lee waves definitely relates to aeronautics, but has nothing to do with avionics. Hmm. A bit of affirmative action may be called for here... stay tuned. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 05:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There is now a Category:Aeronautics, with a smattering of articles and subcategories, which is a subcategory of Category:Aviation. I'm sure there are plenty of other articles that will fit in there, too. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 06:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Aeronautics


text:
Lew Burdette

Selva Lewis Burdette, Jr. (November 22, 1926 – February 6, 2007) was an American right-handed starting pitcher in Major League Baseball who played primarily for the Boston / Milwaukee Braves. The team's top right-hander during its years in Milwaukee, he was the Most Valuable Player of the 1957 World Series, leading the franchise to its first championship in 43 years, and the only title in Milwaukee history. An outstanding control pitcher, his career average of 1.84 walks per nine innings pitched places him behind only Robin Roberts (1.73), Greg Maddux (1.80), Carl Hubbell, (1.82) and Juan Marichal (1.82) among pitchers with at least 3,000 innings since 1920.

Major League career
Born in Nitro, West Virginia, Burdette was signed by the New York Yankees in 1947, and after making two relief appearances for the team in September 1950, he was traded to the Braves in August 1951 for four-time 20-game winner Johnny Sain. Along with left-hander Warren Spahn and right-hander Bob Buhl, he gave the Braves one of the best starting rotations in the majors during the 1950s, winning 15 or more games eight times between 1953 and 1961. Burdette led National League pitchers in earned run average in 1956. When Milwaukee won the 1957 World Series against the Yankees, Burdette became the first pitcher in 37 years to win three complete games in a series, and the first since Christy Mathewson in 1905 to pitch two shutouts (Games 5 and 7), starting Game 7 after Games 1 and 4 starter Warren Spahn was stricken by the flu. In the 1958 Series, however, the Yankees defeated Burdette twice in three starts. The final setback came in Game 7, which he again started on only two days' rest, a decision for which manager Fred Haney was widely criticized. In addition to winning 20 games in 1958 and tying Spahn for the National League lead with 21 victories in 1959, Burdette won 19 in 1956 and 1960, 18 in 1961, and 17 in 1957.

Burdette was the winning pitcher on May 26, 1959 when the Pittsburgh Pirates' Harvey Haddix pitched a perfect game against the Braves for 12 innings, only to lose in the 13th. Burdette threw a 1–0 shutout, scattering 12 hits. In the ensuing offseason, he joked, "I'm the greatest pitcher that ever lived. The greatest game that was ever pitched in baseball wasn't good enough to beat me, so I've got to be the greatest!"

On August 18 of the following year, facing the minimum 27 batters, Burdette no-hit the Philadelphia Phillies 1–0 at Milwaukee County Stadium. Tony González, the only opposing batter to reach base after being hit by a pitch in the fifth inning, was retired on a double play. Burdette helped himself by scoring the only run of the game; after doubling to lead off the eighth inning, he scored on Bill Bruton's double one batter later. Following up his no-hitter, five days later he pitched his third shutout in a row.

In 1963 Burdette was traded to the St. Louis Cardinals (1963–64), and was later sent to the Chicago Cubs (1964–65) and Phillies (1965). Signing with the California Angels, he pitched exclusively in relief for the team in 1966 and 1967 before retiring.

Career statistics
In an 18-year career, Burdette posted a 203–144 record with 1,074 strikeouts and a 3.66 ERA in 3,067.1 innings, compiling 158 complete games and 33 shutouts. In two All-Star games, he allowed only one run in seven innings pitched, and in 1956 he topped National League pitchers with a 2.70 earned run average. He was twice a 20-game winner and twice led the National League in shutouts. He also led the National League in wins, earned run average, innings and complete games once each. His totals of wins, games and innings with the Braves ranked behind only Spahn and Kid Nichols in franchise history. He won his only NL Player of the Month award in August 1958 (7–1, 1.89 ERA, 38 SO); teammate pitcher Joey Jay had won the award the month previous. As a hitter, he compiled a .183 batting average (185-for-1,011) with 75 RBI and 12 home runs; his first two home runs came in the same 1957 game, and he later had two more two-homer games. He also hit a home run in Game 2 of the 1958 World Series, being the first pitcher to do so since Bucky Walters in 1940.

Pitching style
Burdette was a very fidgety pitcher, constantly scratching himself and fussing with his uniform before pitches. Former manager Fred Haney once said, "Burdette would make coffee nervous." Frequently repeated motions such as bringing his fingers to his lips and wiping sweat from his forehead lead to rumors of throwing spitballs. After the second game of the 1957 season, Birdie Tebbetts, manager of the Cincinnati Reds, called Burdette a "cheating spitballer," prompting Redlegs' GM Gabe Paul to lodge an official protest with the National League. NL President Warren Giles responded with a statement clarifying that it was okay for a pitcher to moisten his hands as long as he did not transfer the moisture to the baseball and said, "Until someone—the umpires or someone—presents evidence that Burdette is using the spitter, I'll do nothing about it." Burdette himself said, "It's the best pitch I've got—and I don't throw it." The rumors persisted, though: Don Hoak said, "Only once did I ever see water fly off a spitball, and the man who threw me that pitch was Burdette." The Sporting News wrote in 1967, "Perhaps no pitcher has engendered more controversy about the spitter than Lou Burdette." New York Times sportswriter Red Smith wrote, "There should be 3 pitching statistics for Burdette: Wins, Losses, and Relative Humidity." Burdette himself referenced this reputation, saying he retired because "they were starting to hit the dry side of the ball."

Personal life
Burdette was inducted into the Florida Sports Hall of Fame. He died of lung cancer at age 80 in Winter Garden, Florida.

In 1958, a reference to Burdette appeared in an episode of Leave It to Beaver. The text "Lew Burdette just hit a home run and Milwaukee leads seven to one in the series," appears briefly in a few frames showing a letter from the principal to Beaver's parents. Burdette also released a single in 1958 with two Rockabilly songs "Three Strikes and You're Out" on the A side, and "Mary Lou" on the B side.

Burdette's grandson, Nolan Fontana, is a professional baseball player.

Highlights

 * Two-time All-Star (1957, 1959)
 * Third in Cy Young Award voting (1958)
 * Led league in wins (1959)
 * Led league in games started (1959)
 * Led league in complete games (1960)
 * Twice led league in shutouts (1956, 1959)
 * 5 times in top 4 in wins (1956–58, 1960–61)
 * World Series MVP (1957)
 * Player of the Month for August 1958

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

title: Lew Burdette


text:
Frits Pannekoek

Frits Pannekoek (born 1947) served as president of Athabasca University from 2005 to 2014. From 1998 to 2005 he was Director of Information Resources and Associate Professor in the Faculty of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary. Prior to taking that position, he was director of Director of Historic Sites (1979 to 1998). Graduating from the University of Alberta in 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) and the Governor General’s Gold Medal, Pannekoek went on to get his Master of Arts from the same institution. This was followed by a doctorate in 1974 from Queen's University with a dissertation on Western Canadian history and Indigenous people.

From 2008 to 2012 he served as president of the International Council for Open and Distance Education, and in 2014 was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of South Africa for his service to open and distance learning. In 2015 he was inducted into the Alberta Order of Excellence for community service, his work in heritage preservation and in distance learning.

As President of Athabasca University, he undertook several key projects for which he had secured funds starting in 2007. In August 2011, the Premier opened the 53,800 sq. foot Academic Research Centre funded by a 2007 $30 million grant from Alberta’s Ministry of Advanced Education and Technology. It was the first major new building on campus since the main building had been built decades earlier. That same year the University completed a two-year $7.65 million project to modernize its learning management systems, and an $8.45 million project to double the size of its science labs. Both were funded by the Government of Canada’s Knowledge Infrastructure Program, the Province of Alberta and internals sources. In 2008 he also initiated the University’s first fund raising campaign Open Our World, which successfully concluded in 2015 exceeding its $30 million target.

He continues to work with Indigenous postsecondary institutions and organization including Athabasca University, and with several colleagues and institutions on new ways of online learning, particularly MOOCs.

title: Frits Pannekoek


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil' Scrappy

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lil' Scrappy
Poor guy seems to be named after some character in a 1930s B-movie, but that aside, he hasn't yet put out his first album. Not notable (yet). -- Hoary 05:33, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * Comment: the "split EP" it mentions has 21 tracks and "lil' scrappy" gets 86,000 google hits . Kappa 06:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable yet, agree with Hoary. Megan1967 06:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The EP referred to in the article is, according to All Music Guide, actually an album which reached #12 on the Billboard album charts and #3 r and b/hip hop charts last year. A single "No Problem" reached the US top 40. Meets criteria for inclusion for Wikipedia Music project. Needs to be expanded and added to and I hope to do that myself. Capitalistroadster 07:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Have rewritten article adding chert success, forthcoming album and work on Lil Jon's single and on tour with Lloyd Banks and Young Buck of G-Unit.Capitalistroadster 09:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep — J3ff 07:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons given by Capitalistroadster and to address systemic bias against people with silly names. Kappa 13:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK, I take it back about the name. And I've somehow managed to stay mum about Dizzee Rascal and even the truly non-notable Camilla Parker Bowles (let's see, the Guardian tells us she got one O-level and Wikipedia tells us that she once actually worked [gasp!] for a living, as a receptionist). -- Hoary 14:45, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

 * Keep for meeting WikiProject:Music's guidelines for inclusion. (this is not based on the article, but on CapitalistRoadster's comment) Tuf-Kat 03:58, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP! He is a well (VERY well) known new major-label recording artist in the American Southern hip hop music scene. Good grief, people! --b. Touch 17:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't stand this ig'nunt fool, and his pic is enuff to make anyone retch. Still, a legitimate subject matter for Wiki. deeceevoice 20:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Gbrown5878

Please do not add links that do not relate to the subject (like Tufts dining menus on Davis (MBTA station)). --SPUI (talk) 05:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gbrown5878


text:
Category talk:Video game franchises

Categories for deletion discussion

 * This category was listed on deletion on January 10, 2005. Consensus was to keep.

I think Category:Computer and video game franchises and Category:Computer and video games by company need to be merged. --ssd 07:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * These are not the same things. Several game franchises are spread ACROSS several companies. Civilization, MechWarrior, etc. 132.205.94.5 21:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons stated above. --LostLeviathan 04:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the two are not the same thing. However, there are franchises in the second, and games in the first.  I think they both need to be kept, but sorted out first. --ssd 04:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: There doesn't seem to be any particular criteria for inclusion other than "it's got one or more sequels", and most games that are notable enough for WP articles have had sequels or remakes. -Sean Curtin 21:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Video game franchises by genre
I think it could be created a new category Category:Video game franchises by genre under Category:Video game franchises, where we could have for example Category:Platform video game franchises, Category:Racing video game franchises... If we do this we can have in each category under Category:Video games by genre the category that contains the franchises that correspond to this genre. For example, inside the category Category:Racing video games we could put the category Category:Racing video game franchises and move the categories Burnout games, Driver series, Grand Turismo series, Mario Kart games, Need for Speed games, Project Gotham Racing series... from Category:Racing video games to Category:Racing video game franchises. Please talk to me if you think it is a good idea or if you don't understand what I mean --Aliuken (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. J 1982 (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This category
has too many subcategories (368, at last count). I’ll move most or all of them into Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Clarify my position. If a category X is placed in Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises, it is okay if X is a direct subcategory of some videogame related categories, such as categories related to videogames by theme, country, or year. However, I think Category:Video game franchises would look nicer, less cluttered if categories placed in Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises were not also placed directly in Category:Video game franchises; Category:Video game franchises should directly contain only a few subcategories, such as

 * Category:Wikipedia categories named after video game franchises
 * Category:Video game franchises by year
 * Category:Video game franchises by company
 * Category:Video game lists by franchise
 * Category:Works based on video games by franchise

 * Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You really should have dropped a note over at WT:VG informing them of this project-wide change to categorisation before you started it. For courtesy purposes, if nothing else. Category Talk pages get less traffic than the morning rush-hour in Chernobyl- X201 (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Category co-used with by-year categories
I notice that there is a tendency for video game franchise articles to use this category alongside any of the categories from "Category:Video game franchises by year". Are they supposed to co-exist, or is that a classic example of overcategorization? Sorry, but I cannot tell what the standard is here. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 09:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like diffusion to me, shouldn't be. Lordtobi  ( ✉ ) 13:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Video game franchises


text:
Talk:Unfair labor practice

Untitled
Does the term "unfair labor practice" have a notable usage outside of the context of American labor law? If not, couldn't this article be located at unfair labor practice in the interests of simple article titles (more easily found via google, etc.)? Great work, by the way. RadicalSubversiv E 05:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Unfair labor practice


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nighthawk (Ron Thomas)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 delete. Joyous 21:16, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The Nighthawk (Ron Thomas)
Self promotion. vanity. non noteable. ALKIVAR ™ 05:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - less than 45 Google hits, possible promo. Megan1967 06:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, eek, self-promotion. Wyss 11:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - horrible and horrible vanity --Brookie 12:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Egads, JPEG image with lots of text, and theme song by Gino Vannelli?! Need I say more?
 * I'm pretty sure this is a copyvio. If you click on the picture, there's a line of text at the bottom of the page that reads "Nighthawk Biography (c) 2004, Thomas Consulting Group" Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  11:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not likely a copyvio because a user named Ron Thomas uploaded it. If he owns it and uploads it then its legit. However that doesnt stop the fact that its self promo/vanity.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 22:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Dukes and Kings of Bohemia

 * Listed for deletion on December 25, 2004 but no clear consensus reached.

Category:Dukes of Bohemia and Category:Kings of Bohemia should be merged into Category:Bohemian monarchs. These two categories are redundant and violate common standard of Category:Monarchs. Qertis 14:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Um...who wrote this? Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|30px|]]

 * Keep and revert. Before User:Qertis depopulated Category:Kings of Bohemia, Category:Kings of Bohemia and Category:Dukes of Bohemia were subcategories of Category:Bohemian monarchs. This made both subcategories more clear and allowed for divergent subcategorization of either subcategory (e.g. Category:Dukes of Bohemia used to be a subcategory also of Category:Dukes). Merging them into one category yields no benefit at all. Martg76 17:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ducal titels have generally so little in common, that even Category:Dukes may be seen as redundant. This is certainly no argument against single and transparent category populated by all Bohemian monarchs ruling in a direct succession for over 1000 years. Splitting this line into two is absolutely useless. BTW what about Category:Kings? It's empty. And Maria Theresa of Austria? She was qeen, not king. And what about Category:Polish monarchs? It should be than also depopulated and subcategorized into Category:Dukes of Poland and Category:Kings of Poland. Be consistent! -- Qertis 10:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the whole Category:Heads of state subcategories are a bit of a mess. However, whether a subcategorization of rulers of the country makes sense depends on the particular historical situation; there's certainly no one-size-fits-all solution. If subcategories add information, I think it is beneficial. I am still contemplating how to best subcategorize Category:Rulers of Austria (dynasties? proclaimed or officially recognized titles?). With respect to Maria Theresa, you are right, this was my mistake when I created the kings category. Maybe Category:Kings and Queens of Bohemia would be better. Martg76 16:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep per Martg76 comments. Sortior 05:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the case of Bohemia, such a distinction is rather artificial, as there wasn't really a difference, other than prestige, between the title of Duke and King of Bohemia. -- Naive cynic 12:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Strategy-stealing argument

Gender
Hi, why both players are females ? i think the neutral gender in english in the male gender .. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 200.78.53.94 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 February 2005

 * See Gender-specific pronoun -- Dominus 15:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It used to be, but not really any more. —Simetrical (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Tic-Tac-Toe
I don't see how strategy-stealing applies here. Player 1 can never pretend to be player 2 -- whenever it's player 2's turn to play there are an even number of vacant squares, but when it's player 1's turn to play there are an odd number of vacant squares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.194.10 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 * You're right, the argument needs a little elaboration. Suppose there is a winning second-player strategy.  The first player can place an X at random and thereafter pretend to be the second player.  Having an extra mark on the board cannot hurt him.  If the strategy calls for him to play where the extra X is, he can simply play somewhere else at random.  This cannot make his position worse than it was, so the winning strategy is still a winning strategy. -- Dominus (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I have made the argument more rigorous and hopefully more clear by explaining that first player may "ignore" the extra X so as to treat his position exactly as the second player's, and thus use the supposed winning second-player strategy. Denziloe (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Go
Shouldn't Go be considered in this? If it is true, then in Go you can steal the strategy as well. It is a symmetrical game and there is no penalty for having an extra move (you can pass, and you can lose maybe one territory for putting down a stone in your own territory; you may even lose a lot of territory if you put a stone in one of 2 eyes when the territory is surrounded completely by the other side... not sure if all this is necessarily a penalty). —the preceding unsigned comment is by 128.6.175.45 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the problem with that is that if there's a winning second-player strategy and the first player passes, then the second player would also pass, and it could continue like that forever, making the game undecidable. It would be known that whoever made the second move would automatically win, and therefore it would never be advantageous to play first.  If there's some draw rule in Go based on consecutive passes, or some limit on consecutive passes, this might not be an issue. As for whether making an actual move (not passing) is ever a penalty, I am neither a game-theorist nor a Go player (beyond a cursory knowledge of most of the rules), so I'm afraid I don't know.  Game theory is a mathematical discipline, of course, so even if no one's thought of any disadvantageous moves yet, they can't be assumed not to exist until their existence is proven impossible. —Simetrical (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, if there are two passes in a row, it ends the game and the determination of dead or not dead pieces begins. The board would have to be at least "half full" before people would actually pass. with just two moves, it is hardly conclusive and there is so much space that it wouldn't be a disadvantage to have an "extra move." Interestingly, it can be a disadvantage to move later in the game, perhaps the endgame. Similar to the zugzwang in chess, Go has kamikaze/suicide attacks. If the player has other options of course they can move those before. But we also have to consider perfect strategy. Although the strategy stealing argument doesn't lead one to perfect strategy besides perhaps strategy stealing (though I think you would always be a move behind), we have to assume perfect strategy in the process of the game, and we have no idea what it would be. 70.111.224.85 13:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fatal flaw?
I diagree that the strategy stealing argument means first player can always force a win. Let's say that second player knows the best strategy, first player doesn't. Thus first player moves "randomly" to steal the second players strategy. Second player begins his "best strategy," BUT first player "steals" it. Although the first player has stolen the best strategy, second player has an advantage: initiative. So if this continues out, the second player will win. One might go on to say that second player could steal the first player's strategy stealing strategy, and both players continue to place random pieces down until the game is over by chance! If a game is such that the second player always wins, then that means that it is the first move that is bad. Which means that whereever your first move is, it is a disadvantage because the second player can react to that with the appropriate "best strategy," leaving the first player unable to steal the strategy because he/she is always behind by at least one move. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 128.6.175.45 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Let's say that second player knows the best strategy, first player doesn't" is an invalid premise. Possibly you should take a look at winning strategy—a strategy is only a winning strategy if it wins no matter what the other player does.  It must work even if your opponent knows the strategy as well as you do.  If both of us know and use a second-player winning strategy, then the one who plays second must win.  If it can be proven that in a given game any strategy valid for the second player is equally valid for the first player, which is what the strategy-stealing argument is, then there can be no second-player winning strategy—if there were, we'd both have a winning strategy, which is nonsensical. —Simetrical (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * What I said meant that the second player had a winning strategy, while the first tried using the strategy stealing argument as their winning strategy. Now we have to wonder if the second player would later steal the strategy stealing strategy so that they both end up with the same thing. Resulting as I mentioned earlier a perhaps random game, where the players randomly move on the board until the game is done. This game would most likely be won by the first player just because of first move advantage. This is ridiculous of course and leads us to the current strategies in place for all games today. (I'm assuming there is no such game in which if you randomly move, you will win every time.)
 * Another question that games have to critiqued is fairness. If a game isn't fair, there is no point in even applying the strategy stealing argument, as it could be impossible for a person to win anyway. Since none of the games mentioned are fair (they are proven to be a forced win for first player), they cannot apply. Connect6 is a contender for fairness, but in my experience playing it, a defensive strategy is almost infallible. If both players use this strategy, there is likely to be a draw. More gameplay has to be done to prove/disprove this. 70.111.224.85 14:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Shannon Switching Game
I'm sure the strategy-stealing argument doesn't apply to the Shannon Switching Game, because although there can be no draws and an extra move is never a disadvantage, the game isn't symmetric. "Short" is trying to join A to B and "Cut" is trying to make this an impossible task by disconnecting A from B, therefore they have different winning strategies. Also, the Shannon Switching Game can be played on any graph, and it is trivial to show that some graphs give an automatic win to Cut and some give an automatic win to Short. Is there, in fact, a particular graph or set of graphs for the Shannon Switching Game for which the strategy-stealing argument DOES apply, or am I just misunderstanding the rules of the game? 91.84.76.81 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The Shannon Switching Game is symmetric. Mathematically, it it equivalent to the Gale Game (aka Bridj-it). Yes, the two games look quite different upon first sight, but aren't. When player A conquers an empty cell in the Gale Game with a connection, it's the equivalent of a short. If the other player conquers a cell, it's a cut. A cell in the Gale Game is the equivalent of an edge in the Shannon Switching Game. In the Gale Game, both players try to win by connection two sides of the playfield. In the Shannon Game, one player tries to build a path between the two endpoints via "shorted" edges, while the other tries to build a "sideward" path, which can be traversed without crossing any edges (colored/shorted or uncolored/resistive).
 * An implementation of the Gale Game can he found here (there's also further information the Shannon's solution for the computer player, which makes the equivalence even clearer). --Klaws (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Constructivity
I deleted:
 * The strategy-stealing argument is non-constructive. It proves that a strategy exists, but provides no help in discovering what that strategy is. In other words it is an existential proof of a win or draw for the first player.

There's a lot of confusion on this point, but the SSA shows the absence of a strategy for second player. A constructive proof of such a negated proposition means that one can construct an absurdity from any purported winning 2nd player strategy, which looks like proof by contradiction but is not. If the SSA is used as part of an argument that there is a first-player win, that argument is in all likelihood non-constructive, but constructive arguments may indeed form part of non-constructive proofs.

There's enough confusion about this that it maybe deserves inclusion in the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Chess
The chess section states, "In chess, it is common knowledge that having the first move is a small but significant advantage for White"

An advantage cannot be both small and significant. The words have opposite meanings. Perhaps the writer meant something like "small advantage that can be significantly exploited by a skilled player". I know next to nothing about chess strategy so I'm not going to try and correct this. But somebody should! 99.23.132.69 (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I disagree that an advantage cannot be both small and significant. —Dominus (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

unnecessarily complicated.
The exposition was impossible to understand, even though I know the concept very clearly! Sorry, I don't have any suggestions: it just needs to be clearer, perhaps by starting from an example (really introduce chomp) or perhaps mention states (go directly to any third state on the first move, though this is only a subset of games where there is a strategy stealing possibility). Sorry I don't have more explicit advice, I just know that how it reads now is really unclear!

Possibly infinite games
It probabl;y needs to say better the conditions too as Determinacy shows how even with a well determined outcome the result isn't assured. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Constructivity & NPOV
As presented in this article, the strategy-stealing argument does not provide a strategy for the first player, so therefore cannot be a constructive proof of a strategy for the first player under any assumptions; this is a simple matter of definition. It may be that the SSA (as presented) is the only major component required for such a proof (e.g. in finite games), but that would not be definitional and should instead be backed up by a reliable source. The currently cited source is reliable (Bishop is, to my knowledge, an expert on the subject of constructive mathematics) and states that the SSA is non-constructive, albeit in a different form. Probably what we need is a source that more closely matches what the article is talking about. But until a better source is found, the article should present what's in our source as fact without non-NPOV fact-as-opinion phrases like "has been called". Another strategy for improving the article in the meantime (instead of just reintroducing the problem) would be to reword the article to specify the conditions and definitions under which the quoted source by Bishop applies. Mathematical statements which are contingent upon side conditions are not the same as opinions. Belovedeagle (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Strategy stealing does not provide a strategy: correct. However, this is mathematics, and "constructive" in mathematics has a technical meaning, Constructivism (philosophy of mathematics), which (for finite games) this lack of a strategy does not encompass. We should not confuse readers by using this word in some sense other than its technical sense, or in attempting to use this technical word incorrectly. There is nothing NPOV about saying it has been called non-constructive, pointing to people who have done so, and pointing out that this usage is incorrect. It is a factual statement that it has been called non-constructive, not an opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your reply. I generally agree with your statement that "[It is NPOV to say] it has been called non-constructive, pointing to people who have done so, and pointing out that this usage is incorrect." but I disagree that this is what the article does. In particular, I don't think the article as it stands actually succeeds in pointing out that the usage is incorrect. This is where the NPOV failure comes in: "It has been called non-constructive" is not NPOV; "It has been called non-constructive but this is incorrect because etc." may be NPOV. This is really what my edit was attempting to accomplish, modulo that...
 * I'm not sure I entirely agree that Bishop was wrong (or is wrongly applied in the article). I think you may have missed the point in my first sentence; let me rephrase: As the SSA is defined in the article, the SSA is not a proof that the first player has a strategy. If it isn't a proof at all that the first player has a strategy, then it certainly can't be a constructive proof that the first player has a strategy. Over in classical mathematics land, this objection can be brushed aside because we really don't care about constructing the proof anyways; a wink is as good as a nod and the SSA-as-presented-here is as good as a proof of a strategy. But in constructive mathematics, this distinction suddenly becomes very important. You appear to be correct that there exists a constructive proof of the strategy by combining SSA with an instance of LEM. But it is the nature of using instances of LEM in constructive mathematics that all of the actual construction happens in the decision procedure. That is, if you take the proof which you point out exists, and you ask, "where in here is there actual construction of a strategy", you'll find the answer is, "in the proof of the LEM instance". So returning to our article here, it doesn't have anything about a decision procedure for strategies in finite games (nor do I think it should, but perhaps there's a way to work it in?). And therefore as far as this article is concerned, the SSA isn't constructive. Frankly I assume that all of this is precisely what Bishop meant, but maybe you have more context which suggests he was just mistaken, or he meant to exclude finite games in the cited passage, or whatnot.
 * To restate my position as succinctly as I can, there exists a constructive proof of a first-player strategy in certain games, but the SSA as presented here is not that proof, or at least is not the relevant part of that proof. This viewpoint is no doubt strongly influenced by my focus on the computational properties of constructive proofs, and you seem to have interpreted this as some confusion on my part about what constructive mathematics is. But this conception of constructive mathematics is not an "attempt[] to use this technical word incorrectly". In any case, if someone with this focus can draw a distinction between two things (such as the SSA and a complete constructive proof of a strategy), then it's not incorrect to state in the article that there is a distinction. Distinctions can exist independently of one's personal opinion about their importance.
 * So what I'd like to accomplish now is to fix the article to say the above, except minus getting into the weeds as I have done here. Again, this is what I was trying to do but you obviously disagreed. May I suggest you make the next attempt at improving the article? Belovedeagle (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not saying that Bishop was incorrect. That is a misreading of what I have said and misses the point. All of this getting into weeds would be relevant for infinite games, where excluded middle becomes non-obvious. But strategy stealing is generally applied to finite games like hex. All of this foundational material is irrelevant there, because finiteness makes it irrelevant. There exists a perfectly valid procedure for constructing a winning strategy: perform a game tree search. Strategy stealing merely tells you what the outcome of this procedure will be, more quickly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this engages with my concerns at all. The obviousness of LEM here is not in question.
 * If you do not wish to engage with my concerns, that's your prerogative, but in that case I feel you would be obliged not to simply revert any future changes I may make along the lines I have suggested. I'm not yet confident that this will occur. So unfortunately I must ask you directly and impolitely, what changes am I permitted to make to this article in your view? Belovedeagle (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing above comment in light of an edit I missed. I am going to make a bold attempt to edit the original article now that I understand your position better; I hope you will interpret it in the spirit it is made even though it will probably look a lot like my first attempt. Belovedeagle (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

To state that an opinion is "accurate" is to state that it is fact, which is itself a statement of fact. You have once again effectively reverted my original change without adequate discussion, even though this time you did not use the 'undo' button literally. Belovedeagle (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the reason I said "accurately described" is because I agree that "described" would be a better way to explain the situation if it could be done in an NPOV. So if someone can find a way to say "accurately described" in a way that we can agree is NPOV, that would be a superior compromise than what I have tried, which is to claim the fact is true in a strict sense, which isn't even quite right or perfectly encyclopedic. Belovedeagle (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I will admit to not even vaguely understanding the idea that there's an NPOV problem here. The original text was clear, accurate, and light on jargon. The replacement at present uses much more technical language and consequently is less clear and harder to follow, without being better in any sense I can readily determine. I suggest reverting to the version before the recent edits. --JBL (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree the latest version is overall worse, which is of course why I didn't start with it. David Eppstein above said best what the article should have done, but in my view did not do: "There is nothing NPOV about saying it has been called non-constructive, pointing to people who have done so, and pointing out that this usage is incorrect." The original article only did 2 out of 3. For a version which meets not only those requirements but also yours, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy-stealing_argument&oldid=1080538860 is a good place to start! Iterating on that will be more likely to resolve all issues. Belovedeagle (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This does not help me understand what you think was wrong with the original. Can you state, as briefly and clearly as possible, what you think was problematic about the original wording?  (Also I think "I changed it in a way that I know is bad" is almost always a sign of a poor decision-making process.) --JBL (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally NPOV comes into play when we state opinions as facts. But NPOV also requires that we do not state facts as opinions. Original article stated, "However, it does not provide an explicit strategy for the first player, and because of this it has been called non-constructive." "X has been called Y" is a construction we use (per NPOV) to launder opinions into facts. The use of this construction in the original article incorrectly presents "[SSA is] nonconstructive" as an opinion.
 * Normally we'd fix the problem by just turning "X has been called Y" back into just "Y" when "Y" is actually a fact. But in this case it's more complicated, because if we just say "SSA is nonconstructive", that is very much an incorrect fact, and not at all what Bishop meant, because of missing context. I am trying to find a better wording of the underlying correct point which Bishop was making.
 * Let me go through the points of my original edit which I feel fixes this problem and is better than the final version (though still needing improvement):
 * "It does not provide an explicit strategy for the first player" - I think we are agreed above that this is a true claim which is the correct version of "SSA is nonconstructive".
 * "and so is not a constructive proof of such a strategy" - This connects the corrected claim back to the original claim "SSA is nonconstructive" which is found in the cited source. To an expert, this reading of Bishop may be straightforward; to the reader, it may need this gloss.
 * "However, in games where there can be no draw, the law of the excluded middle may be applied making a non-constructive proof that the first player has a winning strategy." - explains why the SSA is actually fine constructively, in the broader context where we know that the decision procedure exists
 * If there is a flaw with this version so severe that there is consensus against it, I would really appreciate an explanation. The edit summary of the original revert only restated point #3 above; since that was (therefore) in agreement with the text of the edit it has not led me to understand what the problem was. This lack of explanation is the poor decision-making process in question. Belovedeagle (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Like JBL, I'm finding the original easier to follow than the current version. The current version uses more words and more involved syntax to say the same thing, in a way which requires more background experience to understand. XOR'easter (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 * I have removed some of the jargon by bringing back parts of my original change. I think the only way I will learn if the bits I brought back are acceptable is to try them. Belovedeagle (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This analysis hinges on a strange and unnatural reading of the phrase "and for this reason has been called". I reject your reading of this phrase.  As a result, it seems clear that your are directed to fixing something that isn't broken.  I think you should stop boldly doing that until you can find anyone else to agree with you that there's an actual problem. -- JBL (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not required for changes. So far no one has engaged constructively here; I've gotten exactly zero suggestions how my original changes could be better (only that they're bad). Because of this the discussion seems to be purely for the sake of appearance rather than genuine. (Clarified below.) I'd love to work with someone genuinely on this article, but I can't force you to engage. Belovedeagle (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the reason I don't think that the BRD-type discussion is actually happening here is that the purpose of such a discussion is for me to better understand your concerns with my changes. "The article is fine as is" is not a concern with my changes, it's a concern about making any changes at all. This isn't to say you didn't have valid concerns about any of my changes; you did and I agreed with them and so I changed my changes again to try to improve based on your feedback. That was good. But then you reverted my improvements without explaining what was wrong with the new version other than that you felt I should ask permission first. That was not good. Belovedeagle (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone has objected to every change you've made because they make the text worse, in various ways. Once your changes have been objected to, the onus is on you to find a consensus.  So far, you have yet to convince anyone that there is anything wrong with the section you've been editing, which is about as far from establishing a consensus to make changes as is possible. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why the most recent change made the article worse? I understand you tried to explain by saying "bizarre formatting" in the edit summary but I don't understand what that is supposed to mean, and this leaves me feeling that it may have been an excuse to restore your preferred version of the article - but I honestly do want to be proven wrong if it means a way forward. Belovedeagle (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your message contains a clear violation of WP:AGF, which now brings to 3 or 4 the number of distinct ways in which your behavior is disruptive. DE has already warned you but in a slightly oblique way, so let me be very clear: if you don't figure out how to interact more appropriately, I will seek administrative intervention.
 * That said: your use of emphasis was bizarre, and a reader, coming to that text, will find it confusing. "On its own" as opposed to what, and why is that phrase so important?  (I'm not asking you these questions, I'm trying to convey to you what a reader who happens not to be living in your head will experience upon reading them.)  Separately, the phrase "a constructive proof of a winning strategy" is somewhere on the spectrum between awkward and wrong.  Of course, the fact that your edits don't make things better is not terribly surprising given that you have yet to articulate a convincing basis to believe that there is something here that could be improved. --JBL (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I have been very frustrated because I felt this change is trivial. I appreciate that you are now providing feedback.
 * I do not think I will be able to "articulate a convincing basis to believe that there is something here that could be improved" to your satisfaction; but I think there is an easy workaround: if I suggest a change which is in your view neutral, it seems like that should be okay too per policy. Or you can suggest a compromise of your own.
 * What about "However, insofar as it does not provide an explicit strategy for the first player, it is non-constructive."? This avoids the formatting and the problematic phrases. It explains exactly what is required for "it is non-constructive" to be true; namely, that we are only considering the fact that "it does not provide an explicit strategy". Belovedeagle (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If "it does not provide an explicit strategy" is the entire meaning of "non-constructive" here, then why bother saying "non-constructive" at all? Why not just say, "However, it does not provide an explicit strategy for the first player; this raises the question of how to actually compute a winning strategy"? All that saying "non-constructive" does is bring in another technical term, in a way that benefits pretty much nobody. Readers who don't know what "constructive" means will get nothing, and readers who are familiar with constructivism will be confused. XOR'easter (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought; I was concerned however that it will amount to completely abandoning the language used in the citation. That was certainly not my original intention, but maybe it is the best solution...
 * So, yes, I do support the proposed language "However, it does not provide an explicit strategy for the first player; this raises the question of how to actually compute a winning strategy". If anyone later figures out how to put the citation quote back in, that would just be icing on the cake. Belovedeagle (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of factors here complicating the claim for this argument to be constructive, including: While I don't think we should treat the question of constructivity as a complicated matter that we should avoid in general, I don't see the sources to provide an adequate treatment of this topic in this article. I recommend that we keep our treatment short, avoid claims we can't source, and provide hyperlinks to related topics so that the interested reader can explore what little we do have to say that might be helpful. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) This doesn't describe a precisely defined proposition that could be constructive or nonconstructive. Instead, this is presented at the level of a heuristic argument that might yield a correct argument in some game situations, or fail to apply in others. It can be applied simply, or it can be adapted.
 * 2) The article documents that the first game the argument was applied to was the game of [hex]]. This is a game with a finite game tree so in this case, we can apply quantifier elimination so there is no distinction between classical and constructive existence proofs. Likewise, the longest presented argument in the game involves a class of positions of chess, which is normally played with some rule that prevents infinite game trees.
 * It is quite clear that Belovedeagle is entirely correct and that the other editors are wp:tag teaming Leche de Pan (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On the whole I'd prefer not to get this kind of assistance from new accounts, as, unfortunately, even when entirely genuine it leads to the appearance of sockpuppetry. I have seen no evidence of intentional tag-teaming. Belovedeagle (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I advise familiarizing yourself with WP:AGF. XOR'easter (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Would it help this discussion to find high-quality sources discussing how the strategy-stealing argument in infinite games relates to intuitionistic logic or the axiom of determinacy or related foundational issues, if it does? I only saw a small number of dubious-looking papers in a quick search but maybe I wasn't using the right keywords. At this point, without sources, we have no basis for saying anything about whether the people calling this argument non-constructive are doing so with any connection to constructivism in mathematics or whether they are merely using the word with some other colloquial and non-technical meaning (it doesn't provide a construction). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 * "merely using the word with some other colloquial and non-technical meaning (it doesn't provide a construction)"
 * I think it may be the heart of the disagreement that this is really different from the "technical meaning" as you would call it. It is trivial (but surprising to newcomers) that the SSA is constructively valid. But if it doesn't provide a construction for a strategy, then it is constructively valid proof of what? On its own, for one proposition, and not another, as you explained. Alongside a decision procedure, for both propositions. For us, in practice, a trivial distinction. For the article, what SSA actually proves goes to the very heart of the topic.
 * So, the question is what should the article have to say about that? As XOR'easter pointed out, the article currently "benefits pretty much nobody" re the above. That's a fair enough paraphrase of my original objection to work with. Since the SSA really is constructive, then let's just delete the unclear suggestion that it's not. Figure out how to put it back later if we find a source more appropriate for the audience than Bishop's expert-directed quip. Belovedeagle (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, our own philosophical maunderings are irrelevant here. We need sources. Do you have any? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to remove the "non-constructive" claim. I am not suggesting to add anything to the article. Are you suggesting that we should find a source that says "the Wikipedia article on SSA is confusing and this should be deleted"? I currently can't tell if you agree or disagree this suggested change should be made, or are neutral, or if your reply has anything to do at all with the text it's under. Belovedeagle (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim that it is called non-constructive is sourced. What published sources are you bringing to bear for your assertion that we should say something different in its place? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not asserting we should say anything at all in its place. In fact I'm not asserting anything, I'm seconding a suggestion.
 * As I have already tried to explain, it is not possible to have a published source for deleting confusing content from an article.
 * Also, the claim that it is called non-constructive is not sourced. To have a source for that claim we would need to have something saying "Bishop said in [cute] that SSA is non-constructive". What we actually have is a source saying "SSA is not constructive". I don't really care about the distinction myself as it's irrelevant to the discussion, but since it appears to be very relevant to you, please do note the distinction. Belovedeagle (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Strategy-stealing argument


text:
Fairmount, Philadelphia

Fairmount is a neighborhood within Lower North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. Its boundaries are north of Fairmount Avenue, west of Corinthian Avenue, south of Girard Avenue and east of The Schuylkill River. While this may be the most accurate demarcation, the area's boundaries fluctuate depending how the neighborhood is defined. Several other neighborhoods near Fairmount are sometimes also collectively called Fairmount, including: Spring Garden, Franklintown and Francisville. Fairmount and neighboring Spring Garden are commonly referred to as the "Art Museum Area," for their proximity to and association with the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Fairmount is also the location of the Eastern State Penitentiary.

The name "Fairmount" derives from the prominent hill on which the Philadelphia Museum of Art now sits and where William Penn intended to build his manor house. Later, the name was applied to the street originally called Hickory Lane that runs from the foot of Fairmount Hill through the heart of the neighborhood.

History
A handful of European settlers farmed the area in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century, when Fairmount was still outside Philadelphia's city limits. Prominent city families established country seats there as well, including Bush Hill, White Hall, and Lemon Hill, the last of which still stands overlooking the Schuylkill River. Fairmount was originally in Penn Township, which was subsequently divided, putting the future neighborhood in the newly created Spring Garden District until 1854 when it was incorporated into the City of Philadelphia.

During the American Revolution, British soldiers occupying Philadelphia built defensive works starting on the hill of Fairmount and continuing several miles along a line just south of present-day Fairmount Avenue to the Delaware River. Their purpose was to prevent American troops under George Washington from attacking them from the north, the only side of the city not protected by water.

Signs of urban expansion appeared in the early 19th century, when three large, innovative, and internationally recognized institutions were located in the district. The first of these was the Fairmount Dam and Water Works at the foot of Fairmount Hill. Beginning in 1822, the Water Works used waterpower to pump water from the Schuylkill River into reservoirs on the top of Fairmount Hill, from where it flowed by gravity into city homes and businesses. An engineering wonder, it was also an architectural and scenic attraction. Its buildings, which included a restaurant, are among the earliest examples of Greek Revival architecture in the United States. Protection of the municipal drinking water that the Water Works pumped was the impetus for the purchase of lands along the Schuylkill that later became Fairmount Park, one of the world's largest municipal park systems. Charles Dickens listed the Water Works as one of the two things he particularly wanted to see while in Philadelphia.

The other was Eastern State Penitentiary, less than half a mile away on Fairmount Avenue. The prison opened in 1829, the first prison in the country built specifically with the intention of reforming rather than simply punishing criminals. The prison's hub-and-spoke layout was also a first, and became the model for hundreds of prisons around the world (it was often called the "Pennsylvania Model"). Its unique system of solitary confinement for all prisoners did not, however. Intended to provide prisoners relief from the overcrowding and squalor of other prisons and give them time to reflect on their crimes, it led instead to intense despair and sometimes insanity among the inmates and was roundly condemned by Dickens when he visited.

In 1831, these two innovative institutions were joined by a third: Girard College. This school was founded in accordance with the will of Stephen Girard, possibly the wealthiest man in America at the time of his death. Himself an orphan, he wanted to create a model institution for educating poor orphaned white boys at a time when universal public education did not yet exist.

The executor of Girard's estate was another prominent and wealthy Philadelphian, Nicholas Biddle, former US Secretary of the Treasury, who commissioned the building of Founders Hall in honor of Girard. The Hall is the first example of true Greek Revival architecture in the United States and is, like both the Water Works and Eastern State Penitentiary, a National Historic Landmark. In 1968 Girard College entered the nation's awareness again when the United States Supreme Court altered Girard's will by striking the words "poor, male, white, orphan" and set a major precedent for equal access to education for all Americans.

These three institutions were built when Fairmount was still a rural suburban district of Philadelphia. Beginning in the 1830s, the city itself began to grow beyond its original boundaries, and a mixture of homes and factories sprang up on the district's southern fringes. The Baldwin Locomotive Works, the nation's largest maker of locomotive engines, was located on the southeastern edge of the future Fairmount neighborhood and was a major factor in development of the neighborhood south of Fairmount Avenue in the 1840s, 50s, and 60s.

Fairmount's homes were generally smaller row or town houses and the residents were generally working class. Row houses were interspersed with lumber yards, coal yards, lime yards, iron foundries, bakeries, dry goods stores, as well as several wagon works and stables. Many of these were built in the second half of the 19th century to support factories and breweries in the area. Fairmount has many large houses built for the managers of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, other professionals, and brewery owners which date back to the 1840s.

Fairmount is near the Philadelphia Museum of Art, its famous “Rocky Steps” (immortalized in the 1976 Academy Award film, Rocky and its new Perelman Annex). Fairmount is located at the end of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, a broad 1.5-mile tree- and flag-lined avenue that connects City Hall to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. This stretch is known as the “Museum District” since most of the city’s cultural attractions and museums are located here. Along the Parkway are the Rodin Museum, Philadelphia’s Central Library, the Franklin Institute of Science, the Academy of Natural Sciences and the Barnes Museum. Based upon the famous Champs-Élysées in Paris in its design and owing to its ability to hold vast numbers of people, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway is also where most of Philadelphia’s large outdoor events, parades, concerts, and races are held.

Eastern State Penitentiary, located on Fairmount Avenue, has become another main draw for the neighborhood. Tours of this historic 1829 facility, now abandoned, are offered. It is also annually converted into a haunted house during the Halloween season and, because of its resemblance to the Bastille, it is part of Philadelphia’s Bastille Day celebration.

A January 5, 2022 fire in a house owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority killed 12 people, eight of them children.

Infrastructure and government
The United States Postal Service operates the Fairmount Post Office at 900 North 19th Street.

Demographics
Fairmount is a predominantly white section of North Philadelphia. The neighborhood has become increasingly gentrified over the years, with newcomers to Philadelphia settling in the area for its proximity to Center City.

As of the 2000 census, the racial makeup of Fairmount, Spring Garden, and Francisville is 65.23% White, 24.24% African American, 3.93% Asian, and 4.09% from other races. 7.63% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race.

The population of Fairmount grew by 3% between the 1990 and 2000 censuses.

Education
Fairmount is zoned to schools in the School District of Philadelphia.

Fairmount is divided between two attendance zones for Kindergarten through 8th grade:
 * Bache-Martin Elementary School
 * Laura Wheeler Waring Elementary School

Parents in the Fairmount neighborhood no longer have the opportunity to send children to the Albert M. Greenfield School, as the school no longer accepts applications from outside the catchment.

The neighborhood Catholic elementary school is St. Francis Xavier School.

For High School, Fairmount residents are assigned to the Benjamin Franklin High School, but many residents attend Roman Catholic High School, J. W. Hallahan Catholic Girls High School.

Philadelphia Mennonite High School is a private Mennonite high school with about 100 students. It is located at 860 North 24th Street in Fairmount.

title: Fairmount, Philadelphia


text:
Federation for American Immigration Reform

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a nonprofit, anti-immigration organization in the United States. The group publishes position papers, organizes events, and runs campaigns in order to advocate for changes in U.S. immigration policy. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies FAIR as a hate group with ties to white supremacist groups.

FAIR was founded in 1979 by Michigan surgeon and white nationalist John Tanton. Other co-founders include Otis Graham and former Gulf Oil chief executive officer Sydney Swensrud. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

History
The "founder of the modern immigration reform movement"—John Tanton, an ophthalmologist in Petoskey, Michigan—"saw a threat coming in the soaring rates of immigration" and that the "environment was threatened by overpopulation". Frustrated by the lack of interest of his "liberal colleagues in groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club where he was actively engaged, he helped establish "three major national groups"—FAIR, Numbers USA and the Center for Immigration Studies—to fight to reduce [legal and illegal] immigration."

Tanton—along with University of North Carolina professor Otis Graham and former Gulf Oil CEO, Sydney Swensrud—established FAIR in 1979. In 1982 Tanton also established U.S. Inc, a foundation chaired by Tanton with financial support from Cordelia Scaife May which would over the years, serve as a funding conduit for FAIR, Numbers USA, the Center for Immigration Studies, and many other groups.

FAIR's first executive director was Roger Conner. Other co-founders included Sharon Barnes, Jay Harris and Stewart Mott (of the Stewart R. Mott Foundation) and William Paddock, dean of Zamorano the Pan American School of Agriculture. Dan Stein has been president of FAIR since 1988.

In American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change, Brian N. Fry described Tanton as the "leader of the drive to restrict immigration" starting in the mid-1970s. Fry described those who favored maintaining or increasing immigration numbers as "expansionists" and those who sought to reduce them as ""restrictionists." Fry traced "restrictions roots" to a surprising surge in illegal and legal immigration—the "new immigration"—following the 1964 termination of the Bracero Program and the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

Tanton as President of Zero Population Growth from 1975 to 1977 attempted to get members to "support immigration restrictions." When they were unwilling, he launched FAIR with seed money in 1979.

Throughout the 1980s FAIR's lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill met with more success as did their direct mail campaigns. FAIR received funds from donors such as Cordelia Scaife May (1928–2005) through her Laurel Foundation (1928–2005) and the Pioneer Fund which contributed $1.2 million to FAIR in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Following negative publicity about FAIR receiving funds from Pioneer Fund when they were revealed in a Los Angeles Times article, FAIR stopped "receiving grants" from Pioneer that required "public disclosure." The SPLC claimed FAIR continued to "receive private financial support from Pioneer's leaders for several years."

Tanton had wanted FAIR to focus on issues related to Hispanics in the United States, such as "cultural division" and bilingualism. He was unable to convince FAIR's board of directors to shift their focus. However, FAIR helped Tanton establish U.S. English as the umbrella organization for "projects pertaining to overpopulation, immigration, and the environment." Through the work of Senator Samuel Ichiye Hayakawa (R-CA) (1906–1992) and Tanton, U.S. English became a well-organized and well-funded official movement resulting in twenty-two states enacting official language laws to protect English between 1981 and 1997. From 2007 to 2015, Julie Kirchner was FAIR's executive director.

In 1991 historian Eric Hobsbawm explained the rise of FAIR, US English and English first in the United States in the 1980s as part of a larger political phenomenon of xenophobia that "feeds on hostility towards the new mass migrations". He quoted a Czech historian, "Where old social relations become unstable, amid the rise of general insecurity, belonging to a common language and culture may become the only certainty in society, the only value beyond ambiguity and doubt."

In 1994, FAIR supported California Proposition 187.

In 2004, the Federation for American Immigration Reform cooperated with the group called Protect Arizona Now in order to support the passage of Proposition 200, which shares similarities with California's Proposition 187 as to which undocumented immigrants are restricted from public benefits and voting because they are most likely unable to provide the required proof of citizenship. It also made the crime of a public official not reporting illegal status a class 2 misdemeanor.

In 2007, FAIR successfully campaign against Bush's proposed Immigration Reform which represented "a systemic overhaul including a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants." "FAIR rallied talk show hosts...The Center for Immigration Studies published "studies of the bill's perceived flaws" and "Numbers USA jammed the Capitol's phones." FAIR had become the "most important organization [in the United States] fueling the backlash against immigration" and Tanton was perceived as the leader. As a result, liberal groups who opposed FAIR focused on Tanton who was at that time "in his 32nd year on the board." Tanton was concerned that US birthrates had dropped "below replacement level." In 1986 Tanton wrote memos to FAIR colleagues—which became known as the WITAN memos—predicting a "Latin onslaught" and worried that high Latino birth rates and low US birthrates would lead "the present majority to hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile". He was concerned Latinos would "bring with them the tradition of the mordida ['bribe'], the lack of involvement in public affairs." He asked, "What are the differences in educability between Hispanics (with their 50% dropout rate) and Asiatics (with their excellent school records and long tradition of scholarship)?" The memos—which became known as the WITAN memos—were leaked to the press in 1988.

He warned that unless Latino immigration was restricted it would ultimately "lead to linguistic, economic, racial and religious "apartheid" in the United States." He cautioned, "I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that." When the WITAN memos were leaked to the press in 1988, Tanton eventually had to resign from U.S. English. although he denied the accusations.

FAIR has created several affiliated groups, including the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) and the FAIR Congressional Task Force (FCTF) as a 501(c)(4). The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) was spun off from FAIR in 1985.

FAIR has held an annual "Hold Their Feet to the Fire" (F2F) event since 2007 in Washington, D.C. In 2008, Lou Dobbs, a regular (F2F) attendee, broadcast on live television from the event's rally, commended FAIR. He was fired from CNN in 2009 and hired at Fox the next year, to run a similar show.

In September 2009 two divisive issues—immigration and health care—became "politically linked" when partisan health reform opponents challenged what they perceived as subsidized health care for illegal immigrants. By early September the bipartisan Gang of Six negotiations on a compromise for the health care reform bill, had fallen apart. Senators who had previously "embraced the framework" were convinced by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that they were being politically unwise. Their rhetoric turned "shrill" and "anti-reform" with one Senator talking about "death panels that would kill grandma." The furor on immigration "escalated" into what The Washington Post called a "proxy war." FAIR's annual "Hold their Feet to the Fire" event" in Washington on September 14 and 15, was described by The Post as a "Capitol Hill lobbying push..[with] 47 conservative radio hosts holding a 'town hall of the airwaves'... [highlighting] the costs of illegal immigration."

America's Voice's Director Frank Sharry said, "conservative activists" had attempted to "intimidate" Congress by "tapping into a thin but vocal vein of populist anger... We didn't call them out last time, we thought we were in a political debate. Now we realize it's part political debate and... part culture war. These talk-show guys and FAIR, this isn't about immigration policy, as much as they think there are way too many Latinos in this country and they want to get rid of a couple of million of them." The SPLC strongly denounced FAIR and its founder. FAIR president Dan Stein stated in The Post article that the SPLC had "decided to engage in unsubstantiated, invidious name-calling, smearing millions of people in this movement who simply want to see the law enforced and, frankly, lower levels of immigration" and that "America's Voice and allied groups were 'juvenile mud throwers who seem unprepared to engage in serious public debate'.

In a 2011 article in The New York Times, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan, Linda Chavez, was cited as saying that 77-year-old Tanton was "the most influential unknown man in America." In a 2011 interview published in The New York Times and The Houston Chronicle, FAIR's President Dan Stein said, "Is FAIR responsible for everything [John Tanton] said in his private correspondence? No, I love John, but he's had no significant control over FAIR for years."

By the end of 2016, FAIR's annual budget reached $11.2 million.

In May 2017, Julie Kirchner, FAIR's executive director since 2005, was named as ombudsman of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman reporting to the Department of Homeland Security.

A 2017 FAIR report claimed that undocumented immigrants in the United States cost taxpayers approximately $134.9 billion. This report included the children of undocumented immigrants, even those who were U.S. citizens, in the cost calculation. According to the Associated Press, "the estimate was criticized for making broad generalizations and other major methodological flaws."

Controversy
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) currently classifies FAIR as a hate group, citing among other things the organization's anti-Latino and anti-Catholic attitudes, its acceptance of $1.2 million from a racist foundation, the Pioneer Fund, its hiring as key officials men who also joined white supremacist groups, having board members who also write regularly for hate publications, its promotion of racist conspiracy theories, and the white supremacist beliefs of its founder. In 1982, John Tanton wrote "As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion." The SPLC issued an intelligence report in 2007, after which they added FAIR to its list of hate groups.

FAIR responded to this charge by stating that there is no factual basis for the accusation; that FAIR has compiled a long record of mainstream credibility and respect on immigration issues and has always opposed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion; and that the accusation is an "act of desperation, resulting from the SPLC's failure to convince the American people of their viewpoint."

In August 2018, FAIR's former press secretary, Joe Gomez, filed a complaint with the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights, alleging racist, xenophobic, and ableist harassment at FAIR. Gomez's attorney, Chris Bell, accused FAIR of misrepresenting the settlement to media outlets by wrongly saying the D.C. Office of Human Rights dismissed the complaint because it had no merit. Instead, the office dismissed the complaint because a settlement was reached, according to Bell. "If they continue to misrepresent the truth, I'm going to set the record straight," Bell said. "There was never an agreement [FAIR] could go out and misrepresent the truth."

FAIR’s comment, attributable to Dan Stein, president of FAIR: “FAIR stands by its position that the allegations made by Mr. Gomez with respect to his treatment here were always without foundation. FAIR believes that this retraction by Mr. Gomez is a vindication of this position. FAIR endeavors to treat all its employees with dignity and respect.”


text: File:Justiceleagueunlimited.jpg

title: File:Justiceleagueunlimited.jpg


text:
Talk:Elephants' graveyard

Move the apostrophe
Shouldn't the title of this article be Elephants' Graveyard?--U.U. 05:46, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * No. See Naming_convention. --Prisk 05:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That was avtually a typo. What I meant was that shouldn't the apostrophe be after S?

That was avtually a typo. What I meant was that shouldn't the apostrophe be after S?--U.U. 06:34, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

What about just "Elephant graveyard"? I thought that's what it was. --BDD 02:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

If more than one elephant uses the graveyard, the form should be elephants'. The page needs a bibliography so readers know on what authority the elephants' graveyard myth is considered a myth. One external link to a site which thinks animals are telepathic doesn't improve Wikipedia's reputation for restrained scientific comment. RM
 * I'm looking for sources to tidy this up; so far I've seen "elephant graveyard", "elephant's graveyard", and "elephants' graveyard" each multiple times in scholarly sources. --Zeborah 02:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with the initial recommendation. Elephants' graveyard would be grammatically correct; the article should be moved to that page instead of using a Re-direct. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture
Enough with the edit war - can we leave the popular culture stuff in for long enough to talk about whether or not we should keep it? Personally I think it shouldn't be there in this sort of form because: By contrast, if we can find a source(s) that discuss "elephant's graveyard in popular culture" then it would be reasonable to synthesise the main points of those sources into this article. But that would be in paragraph format and it wouldn't try to give a complete list, just enough examples to clarify the summary -- it'd be a format/style along the lines of:
 * lists like that get long and unmanageable quickly, yet as long as they get, there's no hope of them ever being complete
 * it's not encyclopaedic, but rather just a jumble of data
 * it's (I think) against policy, being original research (ie Wikipedia editors watching the films themselves), rather than information found in secondary sources (ie Wikipedia editors getting information from researchers who've watched and discussed the films).
 * "The concept of the elephant's graveyard has been prominent in popular culture since 1823, when the eponymous hero of _The Elephant Who Wanted to Go Home_ became so popular in London that schoolchildren had elephant skeletons embroidered on their sailor suits [1] . In the twentieth century, works referencing the concept have been divided between those seeing it as an unattainable goal (cf _Indiana Jones and the Quest for the Elephant's Graveyard_) and those promoting it as the ultimate metaphor of oncoming environmental catastrophe (as in the 1985 film _The Ivory Forest_). [2] "
 * (Where [1] is a reference to an article about London schoolchildren fashion in the 1820s, and [2] is a reference to a chapter in a book about Western myths and misconceptions about Africa. Or whatever.) --Zeborah 07:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, I've done a bit of a reorganisation among other things - I found a citation for the Tarzan stuff, but ideally I'd still like to get rid of the "other references include' list if no reliable sources can be found which discuss them. --Zeborah 06:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Other references" list
And a year later -- keeping the Tarzan stuff in there, but moving the rest of the stuff to here as they don't seem particularly important either to the concept of the elephant's graveyard or to the places they occur -- true trivia, iow. The list is as follows: --Zeborah (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Other references include:
 * The Disney animated film The Lion King featured a prominent scene in an elephant graveyard.
 * The elephant graveyard is discussed in the first book in the Edgar Font's Hunt for a House to Haunt series.
 * An episode of The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest finds Jonny helping an elderly elephant reach the area.
 * An elephant graveyard also appears in the Asterix volume Asterix and the Magic Carpet.
 * British new wave band Boomtown Rats perform the song "Elephant's Graveyard" on their fourth LP, Mondo Bongo.
 * In the MMORPG  World of Warcraft  there is a kodo graveyard, a reference to the elephant graveyard.
 * The Haruki Murakami novel Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World discusses the concept of the mind/identity as a proverbial elephant graveyard.
 * In the collectible card game Magic: the Gathering, an elephant graveyard is a land card.
 * In the James Gurney novel, Dinotopia, dinosoaur characters often go to a location known as "The World Beneath" to die.

Cites
Shouldn't there be a specific cite to the claim in the intro that it is a myth?: Does it really need one? I could cite it to sources 1 through 5 but it seems a bit of overkill. I think of the intro as something that summarises the rest of the article - if people want to know more they can see the appropriate section and follow the references from there for what they're specifically interested in. --Zeborah (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)r

Elephant gravesites
Don't elephants visit the sites where their fellows have died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Sure they do. Especially on May 23, which is All Saint's Day in the elephants calendar. They hold flower bouquets with their trunks and dress up neat for the occasion. A eulogy is delivered by the matriarch of the group, and they all trumpet a tune from the Babar Book of Brayers. It's a highly emotional time for pachyderms. 77.58.147.83 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm, the guy was just asking a question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.153.163 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They are known to return to the corpses and bones of their dead companions, but there is no specific repository for these; the bones are found where the animal died, wherever that may be.Drsruli (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Citations?
There's a "citation needed" marker about a reference in the X-Files episode. I've just watched the episode, and the reference is there. Surely citing the title of the episode is sufficient. Or what? A time-stamp? -- Evertype·✆ 17:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the location (minutes/seconds) into the episode is needed, for the same reason we require a page number when someone cites a book as a reference. Alternatively, a reliable third-party source that confirms the reference might be used.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems absurd. However, are there specific Wikipedia guidelines for the presentation of this material? -- Evertype·✆ 17:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elephants' graveyard


text:
Marquesan language

Marquesan is a collection of East-Central Polynesian dialects, of the Marquesic group, spoken in the Marquesas Islands of French Polynesia. They are usually classified into two groups, North Marquesan and South Marquesan, roughly along geographic lines.

Phonology
The most striking feature of the Marquesan languages is their almost universal replacement of the or  of other Polynesian languages by a  (glottal stop).

Like other Polynesian languages, the phonology of Marquesan languages is characterized by a scarcity of consonants and a comparative abundance of vowels. The consonant phonemes are:

Of this small number of consonants, is found only in eastern Nuku Hiva (Tai Pi Marquesan), and  is found only in South Marquesan dialects. In writing, the phoneme is written $⟨n(g)⟩$, and  is written , the okina.

Unlike Samoan, the is not an isolated nasal: it is found only in conjunction with a following. So, whereas the Samoan word for 'bay' is faga, pronounced, it is hanga in Tai Pi Marquesan, and is pronounced. This word is useful to demonstrate one of the more predictable regular consonantal differences between the northern and southern dialects: in North Marquesan, the word is haka, and in South Marquesan, it is hana.

The phoneme is represented with the letter $⟨h⟩$; however, it is realized phonetically as, , or , depending on the following vowel.

The vowel phonemes are the same as in other Polynesian languages, long and short versions of each:

Alphabet

 * A E F H I K M N O P R S T U V
 * a e f h i k m n o p r s t u v

Noun and verb phrases
Verbal particles are placed before the verb they modify.

A noun phrase in Marquesan is any phrase beginning with either a case marker or a determiner. Case markers or prepositions always precede the determiners, which in turn precede the number markers. As such, they all precede the noun they modify.

There are 11 personal pronouns which are distinguished by singular, dual, and plural. As well as that, there are two other personal pronouns which distinguish possession.

Complex sentences use verbal nouns in subordinate clauses.

Te hakaiki kei mei Hanaiapa te ono-tina te hakaiki momo mei

DEF chief big from Hanaiapa DEF hear-devb def chief lesser from

 * Hanaiapa, o Tua-i-kaie, ua noho me te vehine pootu oko

Possession
Margaret Mutu & Ben Teìkitutoua (2002) present descriptions and examples of possession in Ùa Pou (a north Marquesan dialect). All examples in this section are taken from their work. See notes for more information.

Possession in Marquesan is marked by prepositional particles affixed to the noun phrase which they modify. These prepositional particles relate the phrase as a whole to other parts of the sentence or discourse and therefore can be considered centrifugal particles. Possession is essentially different from the other types of adposition modification in that it marks a relationship between two noun phrases as opposed to that between the verbal phrase and the noun phrase.

There are four possession markers in Marquesan. They are the prepositions: a, o, na and no. Possessive prepositions a and o translate as 'of' while na and no are attributive, possessive prepositions which translate either as 'belong to, of' or 'for'.

a and o possessive prepositions
In these examples, the relation of two noun phases with the use of the possessive prepositions a and o can be seen. The preposition is affixed to the possessor noun phrase which in turn dominates the possessed phrase.

Úa tihe mai te vahana a tenei tau vehine

PRF arrive hither DEF husband of this PL woman

"The husband of these women has arrived."

Úa tau ma ùka o te haè

PRF land path top of DEF house

"(It) landed on top of the house."

na and no attributive, possessive prepositions
In these examples, we see the relation of constituents which form a noun phrase. This is an example of attributive, alienable possession.

…ùa ìò i -a Tainaivao è tama na Pekapeka…

PFV taken STATAG PS Tainaivao INDEF son {of (belong to)} Pekapeka

'(she) was taken by Tainaivao, a son of Pekapeka.'

À too tēnei vaka no koe

IMP take this canoe for 2SG

'Take this canoe for yourself.'

Dominant vs subordinate possession
Marquesan distinguishes between two contrastive types of possession. The first can be described in very broad terms as possession in which the possessor is dominant, active, superior, or in control of the possessed. A and na mark this type of possession:

E ìò koe he mea vehine na ia

NP take 2SG INDEF thing woman of him

"You will get a wife for him."

On the other hand, o and no indicate possession where the possessor is subordinate, passive, inferior to, or lacking in control over the possessed:

Ù kave mai koe i tēnā kahu no ia

PFV bring hither 2SG DO that dress for her

"You have brought that dress for her (to wear)."

Locative phrases
Locative constructions in Marquesan follow this pattern (elements in parentheses are optional):

 * Preposition - (Modifier) - lexical head - (Directional) - (Demonstrative) - (Modifier) - Possessive Attribute/Attributive Noun Phrases

Huʻi-ʻia atu t-o ia keo ʻi tai

turn-PASS DIR ART-POSS 3SG bottom LD sea

"Its bottom is turned seawards."

This locative syntactic pattern is common among Polynesian languages.

Dialect diversity
North Marquesan is spoken in the northern islands (Nuku Hiva, Ua Pou, and Ua Huka), and South Marquesan in the southern islands (Hiva Oa, Tahuata, and Fatu Hiva). In Ua Huka, which was almost entirely depopulated in the 19th century and repopulated with people from both the Northern and Southern Marquesas, the language shares traits of both North Marquesan and South Marquesan. Comparative data on the various dialects of Marquesan can be found in the Linguistic Atlas of French Polynesia (Charpentier & François 2015).

The most noticeable differences between the varieties are Northern Marquesan in some words where South Marquesan has  or  (glottal stop), and  in all words where South Marquesan has.

The table below compares a selection of words in various dialectal varieties of Marquesan, according to the Linguistic Atlas of French Polynesia, with their pronunciation in the IPA. Tahitian and Hawaiian are also added for comparison.

The northern dialects fall roughly into four groups:

 * Tai Pi, spoken in the eastern third of Nuku Hiva, and according to some linguists, a separate language, Tai Pi Marquesan
 * Teiʻi, spoken in western Nuku Hiva
 * Eastern Ua Pou
 * Western Ua Pou

The southern dialects fall roughly into three groups:

 * Pepane: Eastern Hiva ʻOa and Ua Huka
 * Fatu Hiva
 * Nuku: Western Hiva ʻOa and Tahuata

North Marquesan exhibits some original characteristics. While some Polynesian languages maintained the velar nasal, many have lost the distinction between the nasals and , merging both into. North Marquesan, like South Island Māori dialects of New Zealand, prefers. Another feature is that, while some Polynesian languages replace *k with, North Marquesan has retained it. (Tahitian and formal Samoan have no whatsoever, and the  in modern Hawaiian is pronounced either [k] or [t] and derives from Polynesian *t.)

The dialects of Ua Huka are often incorrectly classified as North Marquesan; they are instead transitional. While the island is in the northern Marquesas group, the dialects show more morphological and phonological affinities with South Marquesan. The North Marquesan dialects are sometimes considered two separate languages: North Marquesan and Tai Pi Marquesan, the latter being spoken in the valleys of the eastern third of the island of Nuku Hiva, in the ancient province of Tai Pi. Puka-Pukan, spoken in Puka-Puka and the Disappointment Islands in northeastern Tuamotu, is a dialect of South Marquesan, and should not be confused with the homonymous Pukapukan language spoken in Pukapuka, one of the Cook Islands.

title: Marquesan language


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Rivers of the world

Rivers of the world

 * Listed on January 17, 2005 with no clear consensus so marking unresolved at this point. RedWolf 05:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Previous consensus on "LandformFeatureName of CountryName" faltered on rivers, because continents and countries were treated differently. I'd like to fix this once and for all by establishing "Rivers of Foo" as the convention for all continents, countries, provinces, etc. A list of the state of affairs as of 7 Jan 2005 follows. -- Beland 06:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Category:London_Rivers
 * Category:Rivers_in_Bedfordshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Berkshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Buckinghamshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Cambridgeshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Cheshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Cornwall
 * Category:Rivers_in_County_Durham
 * Category:Rivers_in_Cumbria
 * Category:Rivers_in_Denbighshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Derbyshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Devon
 * Category:Rivers_in_Dorset
 * Category:Rivers_in_East_Yorkshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Essex
 * Category:Rivers_in_Gloucestershire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Hampshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Herefordshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Hertfordshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Hong_Kong
 * Category:Rivers_in_Ireland
 * Category:Rivers_in_Kent
 * Category:Rivers_in_Lancashire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Leicestershire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Lincolnshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Merseyside
 * Category:Rivers_in_Norfolk
 * Category:Rivers_in_Northamptonshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Northumberland
 * Category:Rivers_in_North_Yorkshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Nottinghamshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Oxfordshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Rutland
 * Category:Rivers_in_Shropshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Somerset
 * Category:Rivers_in_South_Yorkshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Staffordshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Suffolk
 * Category:Rivers_in_Surrey
 * Category:Rivers_in_Sussex
 * Category:Rivers_in_the_Isle_of_Wight
 * Category:Rivers_in_the_United_Kingdom
 * Category:Rivers_in_Wales
 * Category:Rivers_in_Warwickshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_West_Yorkshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Wiltshire
 * Category:Rivers_in_Worcestershire
 * Category:Rivers_of_Argentina
 * Category:Rivers_of_Belarus
 * Category:Rivers_of_Canada
 * Category:Rivers_of_Chile
 * Category:Rivers_of_Hong_Kong
 * Category:Rivers_of_Iceland
 * Category:Rivers_of_Italy
 * Category:Rivers_of_Lithuania
 * Category:Rivers_of_Luxembourg
 * Category:Rivers_of_Nepal
 * Category:Rivers_of_Norway
 * Category:Rivers_of_Switzerland
 * Category:Rivers_of_the_Netherlands
 * Category:Rivers_of_Ukraine
 * Category:African_rivers
 * Category:Alabama_rivers
 * Category:Alaska_rivers
 * Category:Alberta_rivers
 * Category:Arizona_rivers
 * Category:Arkansas_rivers
 * Category:Asian_rivers
 * Category:Australian_rivers
 * Category:Austrian_rivers
 * Category:Belgian_rivers
 * Category:British_Columbia_rivers
 * Category:British_rivers
 * Category:Bulgarian_rivers
 * Category:California_rivers
 * Category:Chinese_rivers
 * Category:Colorado_rivers
 * Category:Connecticut_rivers
 * Category:Czech_rivers
 * Category:Delaware_rivers
 * Category:English_rivers
 * Category:European_rivers
 * Category:Finnish_rivers
 * Category:Florida_rivers
 * Category:French_rivers
 * Category:Georgia_rivers
 * Category:German_rivers
 * Category:Greek_rivers
 * Category:Hawaiian_rivers
 * Category:Hungarian_rivers
 * Category:Idaho_rivers
 * Category:Illinois_rivers
 * Category:Indiana_rivers
 * Category:Indian_rivers
 * Category:Iowa_rivers
 * Category:Kansas_rivers
 * Category:Kentucky_rivers
 * Category:Korean_rivers
 * Category:Lists_of_rivers
 * Category:Louisiana_rivers
 * Category:Maine_rivers
 * Category:Manchurian_rivers
 * Category:Manitoba_rivers
 * Category:Maryland_rivers
 * Category:Massachusetts_rivers
 * Category:Mexican_rivers
 * Category:Michigan_rivers
 * Category:Middle-earth_rivers
 * Category:Middle_Eastern_rivers
 * Category:Minnesota_rivers
 * Category:Mississippi_rivers
 * Category:Missouri_rivers
 * Category:Montana_rivers
 * Category:Nebraska_rivers
 * Category:Nevada_rivers
 * Category:New_Brunswick_rivers
 * Category:Newfoundland_and_Labrador_rivers
 * Category:New_Hampshire_rivers
 * Category:New_Jersey_rivers
 * Category:New_Mexico_rivers
 * Category:New_York_rivers
 * Category:New_Zealand_rivers
 * Category:North_American_rivers
 * Category:North_Carolina_rivers
 * Category:North_Dakota_rivers
 * Category:Northwest_Territories_rivers
 * Category:Nova_Scotia_rivers
 * Category:Nunavut_rivers
 * Category:Ohio_rivers
 * Category:Oklahoma_rivers
 * Category:Ontario_rivers
 * Category:Oregon_rivers
 * Category:Pennsylvania_rivers
 * Category:Polish_rivers
 * Category:Portuguese_rivers
 * Category:Quebec_rivers
 * Category:Rhode_Island_rivers
 * Category:Romanian_rivers
 * Category:Russian_rivers
 * Category:Saskatchewan_rivers
 * Category:Scottish_rivers
 * Category:Slovak_rivers
 * Category:South_American_rivers
 * Category:South_Carolina_rivers
 * Category:South_Dakota_rivers
 * Category:Spanish_rivers
 * Category:Swedish_rivers
 * Category:Tasmanian_rivers
 * Category:Tennessee_rivers
 * Category:Texas_rivers
 * Category:U.S._rivers
 * Category:Utah_rivers
 * Category:Vermont_rivers
 * Category:Virginia_rivers
 * Category:Washington_rivers
 * Category:West_Virginia_rivers
 * Category:Wisconsin_rivers
 * Category:Wyoming_rivers
 * Category:Yukon_rivers

 * Why are you listing existing Rivers of Foo that conform to the suggested convention? I would prefer to keep the Foo rivers convention for political subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states) of countries because (1) it grammatically sounds better when referring to them in sentences without having to use piped links all the time; (2) helps set off political subdivisions from the countries (3) I just think it's just less cluttered. RedWolf 06:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * These are Category names not article names. How often will one be using them in sentences? -- RHaworth 02:13, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

 * Assuming the above list is complete or completish then 'Rivers in' rather than 'Rivers of' would involve fewer changes. There is nothing to chose between 'of' and 'in'.
 * 'Foo rivers' also gives rise to the problem of adjectival forms: 'Utah rivers' seems all right but 'British rivers' might seem inconsistent, 'Britain rivers' looks ugly, and 'Great British Rivers' looks like someone's list of favourite rivers. Using 'Rivers in Foo' solves these problems.
 * RHaworth 02:13, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

 * Keep. This is a massive and unnecessary change. The time to debate convention has passed.  The names of the categories have been made and they are fairly unambiguous.  Furthermore, within each nation there is a strong tendency for subdivision categories for political subdivisions to follow the same naming convention.  There is no need to re-invent the wheel for all of the categories that do not fit your idea of convention.
 * --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)