text:
Talk:Theological fatalism

For the February 2005 deletion discussion, see Votes for deletion/Theological fatalism. Decision was to keep this article. jni 11:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not the correct argument?
I always thought the argument stated, was like this:

1. God is infallibly omniscient. (If K(X) -> X) 2. God knows something. (There exists an X such that K(X)) 3. Let S be something that God knows. (Instance of #2, thus K(S)) 4. S will happen. (K(S) -> S)

1 is justified by definition. #2 is justified, because if this premise was rejected, you would be saying for all X Not K(X). But then, by definition, you would say that for any set of possibilities, God has no knowledge of them, which is absurd. #3 simply falls from the definition of there exists, this step is valid because S is not referenced anywhere else. #4 is Modus Ponens on #1 and #3.

About Passive Foreknowledge
In the article it is said that a passive foreknowledge will not invalidate free will in any logical or rational way. I disagree with this. If God or anyone has a passive forknowlege of something that is about to happen, this is in contradiction with free will. If God knows with his Omniscience that a person X is going to perform action A, and not B or C, then this is not compatible with free will (in exception of soft determenism, wich i will explain later). Because his foreknowledge of person X performing A, exludes the possibilities of person X performing action B or C. If person X doesent perform action A (wich has been foreseen), but B or C, then God then is not Omniscient. For any certain foreknowledge of any action excludes the other possibilities of other actions, otherwise it is not certain foreknowledge, only partial foreknowledge or statistical foreknowledge, hence the person X is not able to choose from other actions than the action that is foreseen. Thus making the action foreseen determined and not of free will (free will is the ability to choose one of many different actions, and thus be in controll of your own actions). Now to Soft Determinisim. This part of determinism says that determinism and free will are compatible. Like certain foreknowledge of action A beeing comitted and not action B or C. The point here is in the definition of free will and the type of determination. Unlike hard determination, soft determination says that the person that is determined to do action A, is not determined by outer forces. He/she is determined by inner forces. Like hard determinism the person is not able to do anything else than that wich is determined, but in soft determinism the determined subject is determined to do action A, because of inner forces such as will, lust or thoughts or (neurobiological connections for that matter), he is just as determined, but he/she actually chooses in the sense that it is the will of that person or other inner forces is what determines him/her. Thus he/she wants to and does perform what he/she wants to perform, and is not forced to do what he/she does in a strict sense. In this way he/she does what he/she wants to do, thus having a free will. In this way, determinism and free will is compatible. The free will in determinism is not the same as that in hard determinism. In hard determinism free will is based on the possibility to choose and perform one of many actions, but in soft determinisms free will is based on the wanting to do what you do. In this way the free will of the two determinism is defined in a different way. (if anyone has any corrections here, please post them below) Flaffen

 * Flaffen, your argument is logically flawed. There is a distinct difference between what a person WILL do and what a person COULD do. For example, if I eat eggs for breakfast, that does not preclude the possibility that I could have eaten pancakes. I could have, but I didn’t. Similarly, if a perfect observer, who sees everything with perfect clarity, watches me eat breakfast, he can conclude with absolute certainty that I ate eggs. Now, if we were to use your logic, you could make the following argument:

 * “The perfect observer sees everything with perfect clarity, and is never mistaken. Now, if see sees that person X did action A, then this is not compatible with free will. Because the perfect observer is never mistaken, and he saw X do action A, then that means that person X could not have done B or C. After all, if he did B, then the perfect observer would be mistaken when he saw him do A. Therefore, X does not have free will.”

 * Do you see how ludicrous that argument is? If the perfect observer sees X doing A, then from that, you can conclude only that X did do A. You can not conclude that X had to do A. Similarly, with an omniscient being, it is logically necessary that if that being (let’s call him “God” for simplicity) knows that X will do A, then X will do A. It doesn’t mean that he MUST do A, only that he WILL do A. It is not logically necessary for him to do A; in some possible worlds, he could have done B or C. However, in those words, God would have known that he did B or C.

 * Does that make sense? It is a lot easier to explain if you use logical terminology, instead of just saying, “Obviously person X had to perform action A,” as if stating that somehow proves your point. 17.201.38.216 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I wrote for debate regarding free will on christianity.com (got banned afterwards):

"An interesting point many people omit when defending "passive foreknowledge" and thus existance of free will in situation where God is both omniscient and omnipotent (judeo-christian doctrine) is that, even if the foreknowledge of events is kept hidden, God is the Ultimate Cause, the Beginning of Everything which makes Him either directly or indirectly responisible for choices made by His creation. In other words: God had set up a whole set of events (creation) leading to eternal damnation (or salvation in other cases) of particular individuals eventhough He foresaw what the results would be. That leads to the conclusion of us being not responsible for choices made by "ourselves" only from our limited perception (lack of divine foreknowledge) as we are not responsible for the act of creation itself; any form of punishment would be unreasonable as it is not the creation that is the Ultimate Cause for its deed, but God Himself!".

 * That is only true if God has free will. If God had no choice to set things in motion in the way that he did then he cannot be said to be responsible for those things.  It can be argued that since God's knowledge of his own actions is known to him before he performs them there is a feedback loop of causation since the knowledge is fed into the information available at the time the decision is made.  Thus God would have no ability to do anything other than what he already knows he will do and thus without a will.  This paradox isn't in place with agents that don't have this knowledge and God's knowledge can't be said to have set them in motion because God had no ability to do so; he had nothing to do with it.

Although I did not take the note on the difference between hard and soft determinism, I rather confronted theological fatalism (the conception of determinism) with belief in God's punishment/reward and whether it would be justified. It, after all, doesn't matter if a human being believes he/she wants to act this way (soft determinism) because from God's perspective it is Him who takes the whole responsibility whilst "sealing the pact" and thus agreeing to the forepredicted events, when commiting the "act of creation".

By the way, have you studied philosophy or are only a hobbist as myself?

MaybeNextTime

PS To mods: sorry for editing the article, I didn't know that showing logic issues in it is against wiki's rule or the such. Next time I will rather head to "discussion" right on.

PSS Thank you for expanding the topic.

 * The latest addition is comepletely flawed... The difference between human being being not responsible for the history is that the man was not there to make it all happen whilst in God's case that's what supposedly has happened.

He is said to have intentionally created the very current of events we are a part of knowing that certain (particular) people will sin and will thus become damned.

Also what the heck is "spiritual choices"?! It's been a long, long time since it's been proven that there are no choices independent from our bodies, so unless one implies that our "souls" so to speak are so easily influenced by physical damage (eg. brain damage as a result of a car accident) there is no suhc thing as "spiritual choices".

God HAS ultimately INFLUENCED (directly or indirectly - depends how you apporach to it) this very current of events (planet orbits, existance of life - everything, even our choices!).

Either that or we're not discussing christian God here, which I believe we are. MaybeNextTime

Islamic
Should be something on Islamic connection (Ash`arism etc.)... AnonMoos 11:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge to fatalism
See Talk:Fatalism. --24.57.157.81 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttals Are Poor
There are a whole bunch of errors on this page, but here are a few that jumped out at me:

The statement "no premise states that God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X" is incorrect: "Things we will do tomorrow" is a subset of the set of all things that can be known, and an omniscient entity knows all things. This one just seems like a no-brainer to me.

I don't agree that statement 3 (If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you must invariably engage in event X.) assumes what is trying to be proven. Statement 3 is the if-then statement required for the argument to be valid. In fact, it's the only statement that makes sense: It would be self-contradictory if it read "If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you must invariably 'not' engage in event X", or "'may or may not' engage in event X".

Statement 3 of the opposing argument (If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you will freely choose this based on your free will, not obligation or lack of choice in event X.) is just statement 3 with "free will, not obligation or lack of choice in event X" gratuitously inserted. "Statement" 4 is a rambling paragraph of unsupported statements.

Actually, I just read the last two paragraphs and I think the entire article needs to be rewritten, but I'd like to hear others' opinions before I do anything. And my head is starting to hurt.

Hmsbeagle 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Since I wrote the initial rebuttal to statement 3, saying that it assumes the argument. In a nutshell, theological fatalism says that if God knows what you are going to do in the future, then you are required to do that action. And if you read statement 3, it says the exact same thing. It does not logically follow that if God knows you will do X, then you invariably must do X, any more than knowledge of a past action means that you were required to perform that action. The correct logical conclusion is that if God knows you will do X, then you will do X. There is a world of difference between the idea that you WILL do something, and that you MUST do something. And in fact, statement 3 of the opposing argument does say “will,” not “must.”

 * But I do agree with you on one thing: Statement 3 is the statement required for the argument to be valid. That was pretty much my whole point in posting the rebuttal. 75.17.119.149 07:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmsbeaglem, your whole counter argument in the article entirely ignores the fact that the supposed God created the individuals, therefore giving the creator responsibility for the choices the individual makes. The initial statements don't even mention creation. An acknowledgment should be made that the argument also entails that the God with foreknowledge also created the individuals, as this is the true argument, rather than the straw-man that you've put up.

Causation Rebuttal
There is also an implied causual relationship between God's knowledge and the free agent's decisions in the argument at 3. It states that because God knows you will do X then you will do X. However, knowledge about events does not cause those events, events cause the stated knowledge. More specifically, the knowledge of an event must be based on that event having occured, in the process of occuring, or occuring in the future (in this case God's knowledge could not be "complete").

Decisions and actions are events and thus God must know the decision or action either because he experienced it or knows something about the process by which it will come to be that is complete enough that he can predict it with absolute accuracy. Obviously it is true that there are some types of rules that may exist that could negate free will for other reasons, and God might know these rules, but that doesn't mean that God's knowledge itself creates this negation.

The argument is circular and also uses a causation fallacy. It must be shown HOW God's knowledge of an event causes the event. (3) simply states this causual relationship, which as already mentioned is the conclusion of the argument. The argument tries to say that knowledge is the cause of the events it is about and this certainly needs some support.

 * Yes, the argument in this article is admittedly terribly written. I believe sounder alternatives exist, but I am no philosopher and have no access to these arguments. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bible
In Bible it is clearly stated that God knows your future acts. E.g. in the New Testament "you know everything" (Peter to Jesus); in Old Testament it is stated somewhere (perhaps in Psalms) that "God knows what you're going to say even before you open your mouth/take a breath/whatever" (sorry for not remembering the exact phrase). In the New Testament God foreknows what people do (e.g. about the case of Jesus). Furthermore, St.Paul even says in some of his letters that all our good deeds are foreplanned and prepared by God (and that they are grace, that they are not our contributions etc.), which means that God knows all good deads throughout the history. And how you can know a good deed without knowing circumstances in which it happens? Events have no sense as isles, everything has its share in the future, evil too.

It just needs some looking throughout the Bible and you'll have enough arguments. E.g. people predestinated (praeordinati) for eternal life and those not... (Acts: "and all predestinated for eternal life followed him" -- when Paul said that he has to go to pagans, because in Israel noone listens to him... or similar).

Finally, if God is invariable and beyond time, then his knowledge certainly doesn't change with our earthly time. Otherwise it would involve the problem of creation, i.e. if the Old God is within time, then did he perhaps create the world after the ellapse of eternal boredom? Is it possible that eternity ends? If eternity is defined as an infinite amount of time, and infinity is defined as something that cannot be passed, then the moment of creation certainly couldn't come.

-- 77.114.107.233 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me add that this is very simple. Let's say a "God" creates the world. We assume there are various ways he (or rather it) can do this. But he knows what will happen... If he creates such circumstances, then such things will happen; if he chooses other, then other things will happen, etc. He adjusts the creation, plans all acts and creates them.

But finally, all this babbling about freedom is only about subject... "Me", "devil", "God" are just grammatics, these are subjects and nothing more. We know actions and ONLY actions, everything beyond this is superfluous – subjects are imaginary and added after an act... They don't matter a thing, except psychologically (because man says "it's mine" or "it's created by me" when something happens AFTER he first planned it: so whatever happens according to his plan, determined by an earlier aim/will, is "his"... but certainly not everything happens as planned). This, let me repeat, changes nothing, because the world is created just as wanted by God, and therefore there can be no talk of "God's wish" (or "the will of Father") that man always, throughout history, does some (always the same) things and avoids others. There is no such wish – and history will show it is even naive to have such.

-- 77.114.107.233 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw man
This whole page is horrendous; it literally consists of presenting a bad argument it admits is "rough" and an "example," savagely attacking that poorly written argument in the very same section, then providing another unconvincing counterargument with no sources or criticism. It sounds like somebody really wanted to defeat the notion of theological fatalism without actually researching even so much as its definition, let alone a single philosopher's stance or argument. Even the logic on the page is extremely unsound from both formal and informal perspectives. This is the height of original research, nonverifiability, lack of references, severe point of view, poor prose, unencyclopedic material, and overall bad writing.

The page should be completely redone and honestly does not deserve "Start" class, lacking even a single citation. Eebster the Great (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm entirely in agreement. --Nathanmx (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Theological fatalism


text:
Sandra Post

Sandra Post, (born June 4, 1948) is a retired professional golfer, the first Canadian to play on the LPGA Tour. In 1968 at age 20 in her rookie professional year, she won a women's major – the LPGA Championship, and was the youngest player at the time to win a major.

Over her 16 year career on the LPGA Tour, Post won 8 championships and became the first Canadian to win multiple times in the same season, doing so twice in each of 1978 and 1979. The next time a two-win season by a Canadian occurred was in 2000 by Lorie Kane. In 1988, Post was named to both the Canadian Golf Hall of Fame and the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame. In 2004, she was inducted into the Order of Canada as a Member with the designation, CM.

Early years
Born in Oakville, Ontario, Post was introduced to golf at age five by her father, and was a youthful prodigy who learned her golf at the nearby Trafalgar Golf & Country Club. She was competing in Ontario provincial events by age 13 and compiled an outstanding junior and amateur career that included winning the Ontario and Canadian Junior Girls Championships three times each.

Wins major, LPGA Rookie of the Year
Bypassing college, Post turned professional in the spring of 1968 and joined the LPGA Tour at age 19. In her debut season of 1968, Post became the youngest player to win a women's major title at the LPGA Championship. Her 18-hole playoff victory over defending champion Kathy Whitworth, by 68 to 75, also marked the first victory in the championship by a non-U.S. player. She was the only Canadian to win an LPGA major for 48 years, until 18-year-old Brooke Henderson in 2016.

For her performance on the professional circuit, Post was voted the Tour's Rookie of the Year award. Post did not return to the winner's circle on the Tour until 1978; however, she challenged to win on many occasions during that ten-year period. In December 1974, she won the Colgate Far East Open, a non-tour event in Melbourne, Australia.

Second on 1979 money list
Post hit her peak form from 1978 to 1981, winning seven of her eight career titles, and became one of the world's top players. She captured back-to-back wins at the Colgate-Dinah Shore Winner's Circle in 1978 and 1979.

For the 1979 season, she finished second on the LPGA money list, and won the Lou Marsh Trophy as Canada's "Athlete of the Year." During her 16 years on the pro tour, Post also had 20 runner-up finishes, including the U.S. Women's Open in 1975.

Honors
Several nagging injuries led Post to retire from most LPGA competition by the mid-1980s, but she competed occasionally after that. In 1988, she was elected to the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame and the Canadian Golf Hall of Fame. In 1999, she was inducted into the Ontario Sports Hall of Fame. In 2003, she was honored by her country with membership in the Order of Canada. She was voted No. 8 of the females chosen as Canada's Athletes of the 20th Century.

Post has captained Canada's Nations Cup team, serves as a commentator on televised golf events in Canada, and writes golf instructional articles for several Canadian magazines. She is involved in a number of charitable causes, and runs the Sandra Post School of Golf near Toronto. Post has her own golf apparel firm, and has designed a set of women's golf clubs for the Jazz Golf company.

LPGA Tour wins (8)
Note: Post's wins in the Colgate-Dinah Shore Winner's Circle (now ANA Inspiration) were before it became a major championship.

LPGA of Japan Tour wins (1)

 * 1976 Sun Star Ladies

Other wins (1)

 * 1974 Colgate Far East Open (in Melbourne, Australia)

Wins (1)
1Won in a playoff (68 Post, 75 Whitworth).

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

title: Sandra Post


text:
Papa Charlie McCoy

Charles "Papa Charlie" McCoy (May 26, 1909 – July 26, 1950) was an American Delta blues musician and songwriter.

Career
McCoy was born in Jackson, Mississippi. He was best known by his nickname, Papa Charlie. As a guitarist and mandolin player, he was one of the major blues accompanists of his time. He played in the Mississippi area with his band, the Mississippi Hot Footers. As a slide guitarist, he recorded under the name Tampa Kid, releasing "Keep on Trying". He and his older brother Kansas Joe McCoy performed together in the 1930s and 1940s and recorded as the McCoy Brothers.

McCoy and Bo Carter recorded several sides as the Mississippi Mud Steppers, including two variations of Cow Cow Davenport's "Cow Cow Blues": the first, an instrumental, was released as "The Jackson Stomp", and the second, with lyrics and vocals by McCoy, as "The Lonesome Train, That Took My Girl from Town". They also wrote and recorded "The Vicksburg Stomp" (a version of which was recorded by the mandolinists Mike Compton and David Long in 2006).

McCoy moved to Chicago, where he organized two bands, both with his brother Kansas Joe—Papa Charlie's Boys and the Harlem Hamfats—which performed and recorded in the late 1930s.

McCoy's career was cut short by his service with the United States Army during World War II. In poor health after the war, he never returned to music. He died in Chicago in 1950 from "paralytic brain disease", only a few months after his brother died. Both are buried in the Restvale Cemetery, in Alsip, Illinois.

Several cover versions of McCoy's composition "Too Long" have been released.

title: Papa Charlie McCoy


text:
Kansas Joe McCoy

Wilbur Joe "Kansas Joe" McCoy (May 11, 1905 – January 28, 1950) was an American Delta blues singer, musician and songwriter.

Career
McCoy performed under various stage names but is best known as Kansas Joe McCoy. Born in Raymond, Mississippi, he was the older brother of the blues accompanist Papa Charlie McCoy. As a young man, McCoy was drawn to the music scene in Memphis, Tennessee, where he played guitar and sang during the 1920s. He teamed up his with future wife, Lizzie Douglas, a guitarist better known as Memphis Minnie, and their 1930 recording of the song "Bumble Bee" for Columbia Records was a hit. In 1930, the couple moved to Chicago, where they were an important part of the burgeoning blues scene there. After they were divorced, McCoy teamed up with his brother to form the Harlem Hamfats, a band that performed and recorded during the second half of the 1930s.

In 1936, the Harlem Hamfats released their recording of the song "The Weed Smoker's Dream". McCoy later refined the tune, changed the lyrics and retitled the song "Why Don't You Do Right?" for Lil Green, who recorded it in 1941. It was covered a year later by both Benny Goodman and Peggy Lee, becoming Lee's first hit single. "Why Don't You Do Right?" remains a jazz standard and is McCoy's most enduring composition.

At the outbreak of World War II Charlie McCoy entered the military, but a heart condition kept Joe McCoy from service. He formed a band, Big Joe and his Rhythm, which performed during most of the 1940s. The band featured Robert Nighthawk on harmonica and Charlie McCoy on mandolin.

Death and legacy
McCoy died of heart disease in Chicago in 1950, at the age of 44, only a few months before Charlie died. They are both buried in Restvale Cemetery, in Alsip, Illinois.

Led Zeppelin vocalist Robert Plant took a recording of "When the Levee Breaks," by McCoy and Memphis Minnie, which was in his personal collection, to guitarist Jimmy Page, who revamped the music, and the band recorded it, with most of the original lyrics, for Led Zeppelin's 1971 album, Led Zeppelin IV. Neither writer was credited on the original album but Minnie was given credit on later pressings.

McCoy's songs have also been covered by Skip James, Bob Dylan, John Mellencamp, the Ink Spots, Ella Fitzgerald, Jo Ann Kelly, Cleo Laine and A Perfect Circle.

Pseudonyms
McCoy also performed and recorded under the names Bill Wither, Georgia Pine Boy, Hallelujah Joe, Big Joe McCoy and His Washboard Band, and the Mississippi Mudder. He also used the names Hamfoot Ham, Hillbilly Plowboy, and Mud Dauber Joe.

Posthumous recognition
Like many blues musicians of his era, Joe McCoy's grave site was originally unmarked. A tribute concert was held in October 2010 to celebrate the music of Joe and Charlie McCoy and to buy gravestones for each of them; they were installed on May 31, 2011.

title: Kansas Joe McCoy


text:
2003 Rwandan presidential election

Presidential elections were held in Rwanda on 25 August 2003. They were the first direct presidential elections since the Rwandan Civil War and the first multi-party presidential elections in the country's history. Paul Kagame of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was elected to a seven-year term with 95% of the vote.

The results were disputed by Faustin Twagiramungu, the main opposition candidate, who argued that "People were controlled, people were forced to vote. It’s not possible that we in the opposition got only 3.7% of the vote. There is something wrong." The elections were widely condemned as fraudulent by outside observers; according to the scholar Timothy Longman, "the Rwandan population experienced the elections not as a transition to democracy but as a series of forced mobilizations that ultimately helped to consolidate RPF rule." The international reactions were nevertheless muted, which, according to Filip Reyntjens, "reinforced the RPF in its conviction that things would blow over, which they did." In Reyntjens' view, "after failing Rwanda in 1994, the international community did so again in 2003 by allowing a dictatorship to take hold."

Background
Prior to the elections a campaign was launched by the RPF to ban the Democratic Republican Movement (MDR), which was charged with "divisionism". This move was criticized by Human Rights Watch, which stated "If the MDR is dissolved, conditions for the elections will change even more dramatically. As the only party outside of the RPF with any substantial support, the MDR would be the only one able to seriously contest at least the legislative if not the presidential elections." The MDR was banned, and Faustin Twagiramungu was forced to run as an independent.

title: 2003 Rwandan presidential election


text:
Talk:Wason selection task

Cheater module
I'm curious if there were any studies trying to frame the abstract questions in "cheater" terms, and if there was an improvement in finding the correct solution then. E.g., the question would be: Even cards are not allowed to have the red color on the reverse side. Which cards must you flip to test the rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.218.156 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've heard of such studies, and think it was Tooby and Cosmides who introduced this variation of the experiment. It definitely deserves a mention in the article. Have you tried a Google Scholar search or similar? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC) There's already a big section on this in the article! MartinPoulter (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the common (even if incorrect) response?
The article seems to imply that many people get this wrong, but doesn't actually tell in exactly which way they do so. That'd be a pretty essential part of the article. Rodrigo de Salvo Braz (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. The solution section even seems to assume that its reader got it wrong. —Bromskloss (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I got it right, but I assumed they were only asking for one of the cards. There is more than one card that you could turn over to test the truth of the proposition, but you needn't turn over all of them. I think that's a flaw in the question more than the people answering it.208.90.102.250 (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Social context aspect - Autism effect?
I notice the statement: "The suggested rule is that a Wason task proves to be easier if the rule to be tested is one of social exchange (in order to receive benefit X you need to fulfill condition Y) and the subject is asked to police the rule, but is more difficult otherwise."

This immediately led me to wonder if anyone has looked at the results of the Wason task amongst autistic people with normal intelligence. If the hypothesis described above is correct, I would expect that autistic people will give the correct answer to social and non-social versions of the test (drinkers vs age, cards and colours) equally often, unlike "ordinary" people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.58.240 (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good/Evil, Good/Bad philosophies failure?
I think what one learns from this is that not all things in life come in black and white, opposites. If something means something, it doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite of that something means the opposite of the other somethling. neat.

It is therefore logical to assume that people coming from backgrounds where "black and white" aren't preached may have emmensly higher possibilities to get it right. Can someone check what backgrounds those test subjects had? --161.76.99.106 11:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that you might be missing the point. The key with the Wason selection task is that we can re-phrase the task and ensure that nearly 100 % of the students get the question correct.

 * In particular, you set up 4 tables at a bar: One where every body is old, one where everybody is young, one where no one is drinking alcohol, and one where there are lots of beers. Now consider the law: If someone is under 21, then they must not drink alcohol. Nearly all the students will get this question correct. Yet this question is isomorphic to the original question concerning numbers/colors.

 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.211.147 (talk • contribs).

diagram caption is incorrect
The caption establishes an equivalence relation:

"The subject must choose which of these cards must be turned over to test that all cards with an even number on one side have red on the other side." This requires a different selection answer, as the 8, brown, and red cards must be turned over to guarantee equivalence. It is an implication in the article text:

"if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face shows a primary colour"

The subtlety of implication is much of the point of the Wason selection task. I propose changing the caption to the following:

"The subject must choose which of these cards must be turned over to test that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face shows a primary colour."

--Metaxis (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Metaxis (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Good catch. Of course, someone came around and screwed up the caption again. I've fixed it and added a comment to the effect of "stop messing with this." TiC (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Different explanations
There are a heap of explanations for the task. I have added a bit more info, but more work needed, e.g., citations for the discovery that deontic versions of the task are easier. --Andy Fugard (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Group vs Individual Performance
Paul Krugman (NY Times 4/8/2010) cites a study using this task that seventy-five percent of the groups solved it, but only 14 percent of individuals did

There is an observation by a psychologist in this article that “he had never met an experimental subject who did not understand the logical solution when it was explained to him, and then agreed that it was correct” that may indicate why groups did so much better – because it would be relatively easy for a group to achieve a consensus once an individual had discovered the solution and shared it. It sure provides a shortcut for individuals who are using a mechanical method to solve the problem that are still sifting through possibilities when the solution goes viral in the group.

And that individuals fail more often because they loose patience or do not have enough time to execute a full mechanical search and must rely on people who reason or intuit the solution to present it for their affirmation. This behavior would be predictable for for problems having a large number of trial solutions that are subject to being solved by reasoning or intuition. Sudoku would be an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.165.130 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not distinct colours
Is there any particular reason why this article uses two deceptively alike colours, red and brown, to identify the cards? When I first looked at the picture, it was not clear to me that the cards were supposed to have two distinct colours. (Of course I see that they are different, but I would not object if someone showed me the brown card in isolation and called it red.) And I can only imagine how the picture looks if you are colour blind. What about changing from brown to blue? --Alatius (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 * ColorFilter confirms that this is a problem; red and brown are about the worst possible colors to use here as they look very similar with the most common type of colorblindness and fairly similar across every kind of colorblindness. However there is no color scheme that will work for all people, other than dark vs. light. How about changing "colored patch" to "patterned patch," and "red and brown" to "striped and speckled?" TiC (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to reopen an old thread, but 13 years later this still appears to be a problem. It was one of the first things I noticed about this article as I was very confused what colour the 4th card was.
 * I plan to change this to an obviously blue card that is distinct from the reddish-brown (and not green as it would then conflict with the background).
 * I acknowledge the suggestion for patterns, but I think this adds complexity. To handle colourblind accessibility, I'm going to:
 * - test the cards are obviously different colours at first glance, given different types of colourblindness (probably needs careful selection of the lightness values of the cards)
 * - put text on the cards that state their color (will do this with a translatable SVG so it's still easy to internationalize) Domdomegg (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with the standard formulation of the selection task, in which their are numbers on one side, and letters on the other?Logperson (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I think having letters on the other side makes it harder to refer to the cards (e.g. 'card with an X' is longer than 'red card') and adds more cognitive complexity as people have to remember multiple symbols (rather than symbols on one side, and colors on another being very distinct). Domdomegg (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Surely the Cosmides/Tooby Task is Fundamentally Different
The article implies (and perhaps the researchers did too) that the "underage drinking" task posed by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby is structurally equivalent to the Wason selection task—that only the social context is different. Yet there seems to be a fundamental structural difference that largely accounts for the improved performance. In the Wason task, the description explicitly calls attention to the 8 card (via the phrase "even number"—a minor mathematical inference) and the red card. The brown card, though part of the solution, is not mentioned. Its significance must be inferred, and indeed this is the crux of the problem. But in the underage drinking task, age 16 (negatively via the phrase "over 18", which is a trivial mathematical inference rather than a fairly difficult logical one) and "drinking beer" (via the phrase "drinking alcohol") are explicitly highlighted in the task setup. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the exact logical leap that makes the Wason task difficult (realizing that the brown card rather than the red card is significant even though the red card has been mentioned and the brown card has not) is precisely what is missing from the underage drinking task (where the cards mentioned in the task are in fact what you have to turn over).

I'm not sure this is a beef with the article; it may be with the research. But I am led to dismiss the assertion that the Cosmides/Tooby task is equivalent to the Wason task aside from the "social context". — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldPeculier (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I see. You're saying that the relevance of "over 18" to "16" is more intuitively obvious, even without the social-contract context, than the relevance of "red" to "brown". I'm not sure I'd call that a "fundamental difference", but still, that's a plausible hypothesis — and a testable one, if we can create a social-contract context for "exactly 18". (Maybe, "room #12 is reserved for fifth-graders"; the cards could be "third-grader", "fifth-grader", "in room #12", "in room #17".) But yeah, that's definitely original research. :-/  —Ruakh TALK 20:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 * what are you trying to do here? Are you working on a paragraph for possible inclusion in the article? If you want to do that, I'd suggest using your Sandbox rather than here, then post a note here asking for feedback. In your text, what work is done by the statement "These two and only these two can used."? Is seems you can use the other forms, they just won't be deductively valid. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Miscommunication
Surely this is a test of miscommunication; the tester is not communicating the conditions clearly. Does this test rate differently in another language? Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wording
It seems to me that the wording here is slightly wrong, or at least could be improved. It says " Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?". Note the word "shows" as in *currently* showing, not "has", as in implying an ongoing state of being. For instance, note that the brown card, specifically, is NOT showing a number at all, therefore one could argue, strictly speaking, that it is irrelevant to the actual question being asked. Fawcett5 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Policing social rules example confusingly different from primary example
The correct answer to the first example (card two, the even number, and card four, the brown card), is unnecessarily different from the correct answer to the "Policing social rules" example (card *one*, the under 18yo, and card four, the alcoholic drink). Swapping the order of the 25 and 16 cards in the second graphic would bring the two examples back into agreement. M@ (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The order of the cards is completely irrelevant in both tasks. --Arno Matthias (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"Generalization" section
Is this section adding anything of value? It doesn't cite any sources, or seem to illustrate any concept not illustrated by the original. I can't quickly find any references to it, so it seems like it might even qualify as "original research." Will remove in a few days if no one objects. Personman (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
— Assignment last updated by Ashley444 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wason selection task


text:
Big Walter Horton

Walter Horton (April 6, 1921 – December 8, 1981), known as Big Walter (Horton) or Walter "Shakey" Horton, was an American blues harmonica player. A quiet, unassuming, shy man, he is remembered as one of the premier harmonica players in the history of blues. Willie Dixon once called Horton 'the best harmonica player I ever heard'.

Robert Palmer named him as 'one of the three great harmonica soloists of modern blues with the two others being cited as Little Walter and Sonny Boy Williamson II. Also known as 'Mumbles', 'Shakey', along with 'Tangle Eye' and 'Shakey Head' (because of his head motion whilst playing the harmonica, along with his suffering from nystagmus). Horton was known for his unique tongue-blocking techniques and tone.

1920s
Horton was born in Horn Lake, Mississippi. He claimed to be born in 1917, but his birth date is often cited as April 6, 1918. Various sources give the year as 1917 or 1921, although it is most likely he was born in 1921. He was playing the harmonica by the time he was five years old when his father gave him a harmonica as a gift. Horton dropped out of school at the age of seven. In his early teens, he lived in Memphis, Tennessee after moving there with his parents. He claimed that his earliest recordings were done there in the late 1920s with the Memphis Jug Band, but there is no documentation of them, and he would have been around six years old at the time of the recording sessions that took place in 1926, so this was likely fabricated by Horton.

1930s
In the 1930s he played with numerous blues performers in the Mississippi Delta region. Horton had already started playing on the streets for tips and the like. Johnny Shines, a childhood friend of Horton's, said, 'I met Walter, really, in 1930, and he would be sitting on the porch, blowing in tin cans, you know, and he'd get sounds out of those things'. Horton likely spent a short period of time in Chicago in 1938. It is generally accepted that he was first recorded in Memphis, backing the guitarist Little Buddy Doyle on Doyle's recordings for Okeh Records and Vocalion Records in 1939. These recordings were acoustic duets, in a style popularized by Sleepy John Estes and his harmonicist Hammie Nixon, among others. It can be heard—upon listening to players such as Hammie Nixon—that Horton was heavily influenced by such earlier styles of harmonica playing. On these recordings, Horton's style was not yet fully realized, but there were clear hints of what was to come.

1940s
Horton eventually stopped playing the harmonica for a living, because of poor health (possibly tuberculosis), and worked mainly outside the music industry in the 1940s. He worked as a cook, ice man, and undertaker. Walter Horton also met and gave lessons to harp players James Cotton and Little Walter in the 1940s. Horton is likely to have developed his musical skills during these times, considering the difference between the styles in his recordings from 1939 and those of the 1950s. Horton had a daughter named 'Christine' in 1945 or 1946 (along with five other children born in unknown years). Walter started playing again in 1948, and then recording in 1951 and onwards.

1950s
By the early 1950s, Horton was recording again (his first recordings of the decade being in 1951). Horton recorded with Joe Hill Louis in 1951. Horton was invited by Eddie Taylor to join Jimmy Reed's band in 1952, so he moved to Chicago. A couple of weeks after arriving, however, he was invited to join Muddy Waters' blues band when Junior Wells was drafted into the army at the end of 1952. Horton replaced him long enough to record on one session in January 1953. Horton was fired from the band by the end of 1953, likely due to his drinking and/or unreliability, and replaced by Henry 'Pot' Strong. After being fired from the Muddy Waters band, Walter moved back to Memphis and recorded again with Sam Phillips at Sun studios. Horton was among the first to be recorded by Sam Phillips, at Sun Records in Memphis. For his recordings for Sun, Horton was accompanied by the young pianist Phineas Newborn, Jr., who later was a well-known jazz pianist. Horton's instrumental track "Easy", recorded around this time, was based on Ivory Joe Hunter's "I Almost Lost My Mind". During the early 1950s he appeared on the Chicago blues scene, frequently playing with Memphis and Delta musicians who had also moved north, including the guitarists Eddie Taylor and Johnny Shines. Horton went back to Chicago in 1954. In 1956, Horton recorded 'Walking By Myself', with Jimmy Rogers for Chess; some consider his solo in this song the best he ever recorded.

1960s
Horton was active in the Chicago blues scene during the 1960s, as blues music gained popularity with white audiences. From the early 1960s onward, he recorded and frequently performed as a sideman with Taylor, Shines, Johnny Young, Sunnyland Slim, Willie Dixon and many others. Horton recorded his first solo album in 1964 as he was mainly known as a backing musician.

In October 1968, whilst touring the U.K., he recorded the album Southern Comfort with the guitarist Martin Stone (previously with Savoy Brown and later a member of Mighty Baby). In 1969, Walter recorded 'Johnny Shines with Walter Horton', where some of his best third position playing can be heard ('Sneakin' and Hidin' Part 1 and 2'). Along with this, Walter also recorded with Johnny Winter, J. B. Hutto and the Hawks, Koko Taylor, Fleetwood Mac, and J. L. Smith in 1969.

1970s
Horton toured extensively in places such as Germany, Finland, and England. He toured usually as a backing musician and, in the 1970s, he performed at blues and folk music festivals in the United States and Europe, frequently with Dixon's Chicago All-Stars. He also performed on recordings by blues and rock stars.

In the late 1970s, if in town, Horton played the Sunday matinees at B.L.U.E.S, with Homesick James and Floyd Jones,(who had switched from guitar to bass), and he toured the United States with Homesick James Williamson, Guido Sinclair, Eddie Taylor, Richard Molina, Bradley Pierce Smith and Paul Nebenzahl, and he performed on National Public Radio broadcasts. Two of the compilation albums of his work are Mouth-Harp Maestro and Fine Cuts. Also notable is the album Big Walter Horton with Carey Bell, released by Alligator Records in 1972. He worked at blues festivals and often performed at the Maxwell Street market in Chicago. In 1977, he played on the Muddy Waters album I'm Ready, produced by Johnny Winter. He also recorded for Blind Pig Records during this period.

1980s
Horton accompanied John Lee Hooker in the 1980 film The Blues Brothers. Although in the film his playing is actually overdubbed by Joe Berson as Horton was reportedly undone by the tedious cinematic process of multiple takes and abandoned the set. His final recordings were made in 1980. Horton died of heart failure in Chicago in 1981, at the age of 60, in a neighbor's apartment. Walter's death certificate also mentioned acute alcoholism.

Legacy
Horton was renowned for his innovative contributions to the music of Memphis and Chicago. His technique and tone continue to be studied and emulated by harmonica players around the world and he was heralded as one of the most brilliant and creative musicians ever to play the harmonica.

Horton was posthumously inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame in 1982.

In 2008, Horton was honored with a marker on the Mississippi Blues Trail in Horn Lake.

Other information
Walter Horton has a daughter named Christine, who has children herself. Walter also named and recorded a song (in a similar style to "Louise") for her in his 1970 album, Big Walter Horton with Carey Bell. Horton was known to often tell tall tales, and would give lessons to his admirers. Horton always used Hohner Marine Band harmonicas.

Horton's mother was Emma McNaire Horton, his father was Albert Horton, and he had six children and 8 grandchildren at the time of his death. Many of his relatives outlived him, including his parents. His wife was Fannie Horton.

He lived in near-poverty for most of his life. This was due to the fact that he was ignored by record companies and radio stations during his later life, without regular band or regular income. Like many of his peers, he lived on a meagre income during much of his career and endured racial discrimination in the racially segregated U.S. He lived in apartments most of his life, Bob Corritore said, “One time I went to Walter’s apartment to pick him up. It was a broken down rise made of wood and it appeared that he had a lot of family living there.”

Timeline of residency (references and the like in biography).

1921—1926: Horn Lake, Mississippi.

1927—1937/38: Memphis, Tennessee. Horton also moved through Arkansas at some point around this time.

1938: Chicago, Illinois.

1938/39—1952: Memphis, Tennessee. Recorded with Little Buddy Doyle in 1939 and then with Sam Phillips at Sun Records in 1951.

1952-1953: Chicago, Illinois. Joined Muddy Water's band during 1953 before being fired, periodically thereafter moving to Memphis to record again with Sam Phillips.

1953: Memphis, Illinois.

1954—1981: Chicago, Illinois. Moved permanently to Chicago in 1954. Occasionally visiting Memphis in later years.

title: Big Walter Horton


text:
Category:Ancient Italian history

This categorizes all historical themes up to (about) 476 AD, the fall of Western Roman Empire.

title: Category:Ancient Italian history


text:
Léon Fairmaire

Léon Marc Herminie Fairmaire (29 June 1820 – 1 April 1906) was a French entomologist.

As a specialist in Coleoptera, he assembled an immense collection comparable with that of Pierre François Marie Auguste Dejean (1780–1845). This is in the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle. Fairmaire wrote 450 scientific papers and other publications relating to Coleoptera (partial list of papers in Wikispecies). He also worked on Hemiptera.

title: Léon Fairmaire


text:
Talk:Ciara

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020
So please change the introductory line from this:

Ciara Princess Harris-Wilson (/siˈɛrə/ see-ERR-ə; born October 25, 1985)[1][2] is an American singer, songwriter, dancer, and model.

to the following:

Ciara Princess Wilson (/siːˈɛrə/ see-ERR-ə) (née Harris; born October 25, 1985)[1][2] is an American singer-songwriter, dancer, model and actress. Ciara changed her last name to Wilson, she didn’t hyphenate her last name.

 * ❌ A whitepages.com search is not a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

children
She now has 3 children "Win Harrison Wilson" was just born. See below

Ciara's instagram baby announcement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:CE7F:40:6DC8:514D:3BB0:ACF0 (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021
Remove this errant line in the infobox:

which causes the page to appear on Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters

Do not revert back to the edit that restores the home_town parameter as that parameter is no longer a supported infobox person parameter. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  EN  - Jungwon  18:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
The Couples Quiz 47.199.45.18 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — KuyaBriBri Talk 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021
Please change the intro from:

"Born in Austin, Texas, she traveled around the world during her childhood, eventually moving to Atlanta, Georgia, where she joined the girl group Hearsay."

to

"Born in Fort Hood, Texas, she traveled around the world during her childhood, eventually moving to Atlanta, Georgia, where she joined the girl group Hearsay." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5290:2EB0:C565:C7B4:C408:312E (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: no reference provided. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 21:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request, February 2022
Just to minimize the chances of redundant changes (people repeatedly changing her birth place to Atlanta) and ensure entries to the legacy section remain while still allowing members to update and contribute (w/ accounts) NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

MASS Deletion February 2022
Dang, I'm doing so much editing/adding that you think I know the woman? XD that's a new one.

I completely get wanting to keep things concise, and in retrospect I get why you cleaned up some of that. (Weak source for her global sales estimates)

But the main excuse used to delete like half of the sourced content is so flimsy.

What does "too much promotional stuff" even mean when it's literally a page about her career?

I noticed some edits that have been there long before I ever created an account were deleted in the process, and I guess I'm just confused as to why you'd delete artists that she went on record to say inspired her from the artistry section, especially since most of the names you deleted have been there for years (the only one I added was Sade, and the source is her directly saying Sade inspired her in an interview....). You also left residue from cut off citations in the process...

Also, why delete artists that said she inspired them from the "impact/legacy" section? I added like 2 and half paragraphs summarizing *from music sites* (billboard, Pitchfork, etc.) that elaborated on her artistry and like 10 to 15 artists that referenced her ... with sources ... over a 9 month span. How is that excessive promotion or conflict of interest? I mean, if you don't think the artist shouting her out in a youtube interview or on social media is enough that's a fair opinion, but I've never added names without an accompanying source (either from a big music site or the artists themselves). I ONLY add if a music site lists her or if the artist themself said she influenced/inspired them, AND if the source for it is linkable.

Multiple artists have recently had that section expanded upon, to reflect transitions in their careers. Missy Elliot & Nicki Minaj for example have had some pretty large updates to their "legacy" sections recently (from the same few people that did the research to expand upon it). I haven't done anything differently from that for Ciara's page....

Outside of expanding on those two sections of her page with what amounts to maybe 4 paragraphs and restructuring a few existing sentences, what have I done to damage this page and get 9 months of edits deleted? I've also deleted information whose sources I felt were weak in retrospect and cleaned up *actual* vandalism I found that no one did anything about...

Now the one thing I think I am somewhat guilty of after doing some research is wikipuffing (using terms with positive or negative tone rather than neutral), and I can definitely work to avoid that going forward.

I plan to add back some of her influencers and influencees in the coming weeks when I have the time, because I flat out disagree with some of the sloppy deletion that took place. I'll wait for some elaboration before I act tho.

NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I removed stuff that was sourced only to Twitter, Instagram and YouTube because it seemed like a passing mention, not important enough relative to the guidelines at WP:SECONDARY and WP:SOCIALMEDIA. I also removed an AllMusic feature called "Similar Artists, Influenced By, Followers" because it is unreliable, machine-generated, not written by humans. I took out https://twobees.org/layton-greene-colorism/ because it was self-published by "Miss2bees", not a known journalist. I shifted some overly promotional wording that you had added such as "zeitgeist"—we're just talking about a singer, not a spirit of the age. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, the last few sentences are hilarious, and I was trifling thinking those words didn't sound rediculous XD. So I apologize for that.

Now in regards to youtube videos as sources, Video links said YouTube link are referencable if appropriate. In the context of these particular artists citing others as an inspo or being cited, I think that would be a perfectly appropriate use of those sources. These links are not sources used to describe career or life happenings. They are strictly within the context of someone's artistry and contain snippets of those people talking about it. I can still get articled sources for some of those artists tho since you have an aversion to YouTube as a source where wiki itself does not. The same can be applied to the handful of twitter sources used in the legacy section. There's no reasonable doubt to the authenticity of someone like latto breaking down why she was inspired to pursue music by Ciara through Twitter. Especially since she didn't *need* to make that post and said "I don't cite her as an influence as much as I should". No comment on that "bees" source. There was a video inside of that, so I'll just upload the interview link itself instead, since it's more direct and way more valid than sourcing the website.

As far as AllMusic goes, someone else on your page asked about it and you never addressed its validity. They were trying to add more genres to an album and you basically disagreed with them about those genres and deleted some stuff. That's it. SO many pages refer to it for other artists (Ciara herself listed under those pages). So now all of a sudden it's invalid and random? XD. It's a no for me, and I'm restoring those references, where relevant.

Thanks for the explanation and post on my talk page tho. I can and will work with that in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 13:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:WEIGHT are two more applicable guidelines. The first one says we should not have indiscriminate lists, the second one says the mass of information presented in the article should properly represent the literature in terms of balance. If Tinashe is reported by actual reporters to be influenced by Ciara, then we have found proper weight. One Insta shout-out isn't enough. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Face" of a genre
, in your recent edit, you provided some better sources for certain of the influence names, but the first thing I saw was an exaggeration of the source followed by a violation of WP:SYNTH. You said "Ciara is considered one of the faces of beat-driven and crunk influenced R&B." The source is a Time magazine piece that doesn't support your text. Time says "Once billed as the first lady of Crunk&B, she’s become one of the most reliable suppliers of frothy, light-on-its-feet party music, mixing the freshest parts of R&B and hip-hop with the drum-machine beats of decades past." That doesn't mean she is a "face" of a genre. Time says she was "billed" as such, which is a left-handed compliment. The magazine is commenting about how she was marketed, not what she is at her core. You followed that with a synthesis of sources: "Resultantly, artists that use similar elements in their music like FKA Twigs, Jhené Aiko, and Tinashe were compared to Ciara early in their careers." The Pitchfork and NYT sources you cite do not say that the comparisons were made because she was "one of the faces" of a genre. The source reviewing FKA Twigs only mentions Ciara in passing—useless here. The source talking about Jhené Aiko says that Ciara "may have" influenced Aiko—not such a ringing endorsement, nor anything about Ciara being a "face". The source describing Tinashe says she has had "small victories" in her not-very-original career path: "Tinashe has taken a path charted by Janet Jackson, Aaliyah, Ciara and others". This says nothing about how Tinashe notionally was inspired by Ciara because Ciara was a "face" of a genre. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the NYT review of Tinashe says some negative things about Ciara ("And over the last few years, Ciara has tried a version of what Tinashe is now doing. But Ciara has always been more preoccupied with the body than the heart. Her lack of vocal presence guarantees that it is easier to connect with her music physically than emotionally.") which makes me think that more negative reviews should be brought to this biography to satisfy the hard policy of WP:Neutral point of view. If editors here have been ignoring negative reviews, then we have a big problem. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, now you're just being petty. The second source specifically called Ciara a face of crunk n b, which is a form of beat driven R&B. And YOU were the one that made the edit to call her "the face" of "crunk flavored" R&B. I said it was a signature of her artistry. Now you're mad that I'm working with YOUR verbiage?

As far as "synthing" goes, I have no issues removing that portion all together. Granted, those sources literally compared those artists to Ciara and a handful of others. I don't see how saying those artists were compared to her early in their careers is a stretch.

You're sending extremely mixed messages with that last paragraph. You used the source implying something negative about both Tinashe and Ciara as an excuse to delete it but then you also said Ciara's page needs more negative content about her to balance things out? What are you trying to say? You're not even making sense.

The source noted that Tinashe is following in Ciara, Aaliyah, & Janet's footsteps, and I followed it with an interview by MusicXclusives where she's asked about Ciara and says that she DOES take inspiration from Ciara and other talented artists that bring "cool things" to the table. That section of the interview was put at the forefront so it's not just a "passing" mention. Tinashe/Ciara comparisons are not uncommon at all, but I tried to work with you and sift out sources that I knew you'd probably delete. Only for you to not use critical thinking skills and delete a reference to The New York Times. And by your standards, most artists would be mentioned in "passing" since no one really says more than 2 or three sentences when describing their influences. Are you gonna go and delete a bunch of stuff from Ciara's contemporaries' pages? Most of their sources are the same... And how is it "extra promotional content" (which you like to call alot of things) to include two sentences from a billboard write up on a song? Do you know what ACTUAL bloating looks like on other pages? Whole paragraphs stretched from an artist saying in a sentence that they were inspired from (insert artist).

And if you know that most of the new sources I added were adequate....WHY DELETE THEM. Instead of simply deleting the few sources you personally disagreed with, you deleted everything ... you're not working properly with the Content removal guidelines. You are deleting validly sourced information based one your arbitrary opinions, most of which a bent over backwards interpretation of the pages you keep sending me.

What's really the problem dude, because I'm not doing this edit war b.s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 * My aim is to uphold WP:NPOV and keep various musical artist biographies from becoming too hagiographic. Your word "zeitgeist" sparked my mass removals. Rather than making mass restorations of puffery/promotional language, let's take it a piece at a time. Don't try to stitch it all together to create an overarching story not found in any source. And let's start introducing the negative reviews for balance.
 * Certainly Tinashe was influenced by Ciara, but we should also say that Ciara ended up copying Tinashe's new style in response to Ciara's career stagnation. The two things are connected. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry for getting a bit heated. I respect that neutrality is your priority, and I agree that it's extremely important when it comes to giving information. If you agree that Tinashe was influenced by Ciara, why can't I include the sources? I guess I'm just confused how putting sources that clearly show Tinashe was influenced by Ciara is violating neutrality.

Most legacy sections focus strictly on whatever impact an artist left. They don't talk about who they "copied", that's normally reserved for the artistry section.

And I don't recall any source saying Ciara copied Tinashe. That source through shade at Ciara's artistry but it didn't say she was influenced by her, which doesn't make much sense either way since Ciara's been in the industry a decade before Tinashe. That and their overall career trajectories don't match that inference. The source said "and over the last few years, Ciara has tried a version of what Tinashe is now doing."

Meaning she's already been doing what Tinashe is now trying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you DO revert my edit, can you atleast leave the sources to GQ, Paper, Apple, Billboard, Pitchfork etc. next time. It doesn't make sense to revert good sources of artists saying Ciara was their inspo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotPlanningOnDoingMuch (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ciara


text:
Doline (disambiguation)

Doline is a common name for a sinkhole.

Doline may also refer to:

 * Doline (Kanjiža), a village in the Kanjiža municipality, Serbia
 * Doline, Kneževo, a settlement in Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Doline (Prnjavor), a settlement in Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Doline (Srbobran), a hamlet in Vojvodina, Serbia
 * Doline, a hamlet in Bukovski Vrh in the Littoral region of Slovenia

title: Doline (disambiguation)


text:
FMB

FMB may refer to:

 * Falcon Marching Band, of Bowling Green State University
 * Famous Maroon Band, of Mississippi State University
 * Federación Mexicana de Baloncesto, a basketball federation in Mexico
 * Federation of Master Builders, in the United Kingdom
 * First Merchant Bank, a Malawi bank
 * Flavored malt beverage
 * "Foggy Mountain Breakdown", a 1949 bluegrass song
 * Fort Myers Beach, a town in Florida, United States
 * Funky Monkey Babys, a Japanese band

title: FMB


text:
Arch of Triumph

Arch of Triumph may refer to:

 * Triumphal arch, a monumental structure in the shape of an arch

Structures

 * Arc de Triomf, an 1888 structure in Barcelona, Spain
 * Arc de Triomphe, an 1836 structure in the Place Charles de Gaulle, Paris, France
 * Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, an 1808 structure in Paris, France
 * Arcul de Triumf, a 1936 structure in Bucharest, Romania
 * Arch of Triumph (Pyongyang), a 1982 structure in Pyongyang, North Korea
 * Monumental Arch of Palmyra, a 3rd-century Roman ornamental archway in Syria
 * Siegestor, an 1852 three-arched triumphal structure
 * Triumphal Arch, Chișinău, an 1841 structure in Moldova
 * Triumphal Arch of Orange (27 BC–AD 14), the oldest surviving triple-arched Roman triumphal arch

Media

 * Arch of Triumph (novel), a 1945 Erich Maria Remarque novel
 * Arch of Triumph (1948 film), a 1948 American film
 * Arch of Triumph (1984 film), a 1984 British TV film, remake of the 1948 film

title: Arch of Triumph


text:
Overlapping generations model

The overlapping generations (OLG) model is one of the dominating frameworks of analysis in the study of macroeconomic dynamics and economic growth. In contrast to the Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans neoclassical growth model in which individuals are infinitely-lived, in the OLG model individuals live a finite length of time, long enough to overlap with at least one period of another agent's life.

The OLG model is the natural framework for the study of: (a) the life-cycle behavior (investment in human capital, work and saving for retirement), (b) the implications of the allocation of resources across the generations, such as Social Security, on the income per capita in the long-run, (c) the determinants of economic growth in the course of human history, and (d) the factors that triggered the fertility transition.

History
The construction of the OLG model was inspired by Irving Fisher's monograph The Theory of Interest. It was first formulated in 1947, in the context of a pure-exchange economy, by Maurice Allais, and more rigorously by Paul Samuelson in 1958. In 1965, Peter Diamond  incorporated an aggregate neoclassical production into the model. This OLG model with production was further augmented with the development of the two-sector OLG model by Oded Galor, and the introduction of OLG models with endogenous fertility.

Books devoted to the use of the OLG model include Azariadis' Intertemporal Macroeconomics and de la Croix and Michel's Theory of Economic Growth.

Pure-exchange OLG model
The most basic OLG model has the following characteristics:
 * Individuals live for two periods; in the first period of life, they are referred to as the Young. In the second period of life, they are referred to as the Old.
 * A number of individuals are born in every period. $$N^{t}_t $$ denotes the number of individuals born in period t.
 * $$N^{t-1}_t $$ denotes the number of old people in period t. Since the economy begins in period 1, in period 1 there is a group of people who are already old. They are referred to as the initial old. The number of them can be denoted as $$N_0 $$.
 * The size of the initial old generation is normalized to 1: $$N^{0}_0 =1$$.
 * People do not die early, so $$N^{t}_t = N^{t}_{t+1} $$.
 * Population grows at a constant rate n:
 * $$ N_t^t = (1+n)^t $$

 * In the "pure exchange economy" version of the model, there is only one physical good and it cannot endure for more than one period. Each individual receives a fixed endowment of this good at birth. This endowment is denoted as y.
 * In the "production economy" version of the model (see Diamond OLG model below), the physical good can be either consumed or invested to build physical capital. Output is produced from labor and physical capital. Each household is endowed with one unit of time which is inelastically supply on the labor market.
 * Preferences over consumption streams are given by
 * $$ u(c_t^t,c_t^{t+1}) = U(c_t^t) + \beta U(c_t^{t+1}),$$
 * where $$ \beta $$ is the rate of time preference.

Basic one-sector OLG model
The pure-exchange OLG model was augmented with the introduction of an aggregate neoclassical production by Peter Diamond. In contrast, to Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans neoclassical growth model in which individuals are infinitely-lived and the economy is characterized by a unique steady-state equilibrium, as was established by Oded Galor and Harl Ryder, the OLG economy may be characterized by multiple steady-state equilibria, and initial conditions may therefore affect the long-run evolution of the long-run level of income per capita.

Since initial conditions in the OLG model may affect economic growth in long-run, the model was useful for the exploration of the convergence hypothesis. The economy has the following characteristics:

 * Two generations are alive at any point in time, the young (age 1) and old (age 2).
 * The size of the young generation in period t is given by Nt = N0 Et.
 * Households work only in the first period of their life and earn Y1,t income. They earn no income in the second period of their life (Y2,t+1 = 0)
 * They consume part of their first period income and save the rest to finance their consumption when old.
 * At the end of period t, the assets of the young are the source of the capital used for aggregate production in period t+1.So Kt+1 = Nt,a1,t where a1,t is the assets per young household after their consumption in period 1. In addition to this there is no depreciation.
 * The old in period t own the entire capital stock and consume it entirely, so dissaving by the old in period t is given by Nt-1,a1,t-1 = Kt.
 * Labor and capital markets are perfectly competitive and the aggregate production technology is CRS, Y = F(K,L).

Two-sector OLG model
The one-sector OLG model was further augmented with the introduction of a two-sector OLG model by Oded Galor. The two-sector model provides a framework of analysis for the study of the sectoral adjustments to aggregate shocks and implications of international trade for the dynamics of comparative advantage. In contrast to the Uzawa two-sector neoclassical growth model, the two-sector OLG model may be characterized by multiple steady-state equilibria, and initial conditions may therefore affect the long-run position of an economy.

OLG model with endogenous fertility
Oded Galor and his co-authors develop OLG models where population growth is endogenously determined to explore: (a) the importance the narrowing of the gender wage gap for the fertility decline, (b) the contribution of the rise in the return to human capital and the decline in fertility to the transition from stagnation to growth, and (c) the importance of population adjustment to technological progress for the emergence of the Malthusian trap.

Dynamic inefficiency
One important aspect of the OLG model is that the steady state equilibrium need not be efficient, in contrast to general equilibrium models where the first welfare theorem guarantees Pareto efficiency. Because there are an infinite number of agents in the economy (summing over future time), the total value of resources is infinite, so Pareto improvements can be made by transferring resources from each young generation to the current old generation, similar to the logic described in the Hilbert Hotel. Not every equilibrium is inefficient; the efficiency of an equilibrium is strongly linked to the interest rate and the Cass Criterion gives necessary and sufficient conditions for when an OLG competitive equilibrium allocation is inefficient.

Another attribute of OLG type models is that it is possible that 'over saving' can occur when capital accumulation is added to the model—a situation which could be improved upon by a social planner by forcing households to draw down their capital stocks. However, certain restrictions on the underlying technology of production and consumer tastes can ensure that the steady state level of saving corresponds to the Golden Rule savings rate of the Solow growth model and thus guarantee intertemporal efficiency. Along the same lines, most empirical research on the subject has noted that oversaving does not seem to be a major problem in the real world.

In Diamond's version of the model, individuals tend to save more than is socially optimal, leading to dynamic inefficiency. Subsequent work has investigated whether dynamic inefficiency is a characteristic in some economies and whether government programs to transfer wealth from young to poor do reduce dynamic inefficiency.

Another fundamental contribution of OLG models is that they justify existence of money as a medium of exchange. A system of expectations exists as an equilibrium in which each new young generation accepts money from the previous old generation in exchange for consumption. They do this because they expect to be able to use that money to purchase consumption when they are the old generation.

title: Overlapping generations model


text:
Talk:List of urban planners

Steven Bingler
I listed Bingler as the planner involved with UNOP because he was the principal planning co-ordinator, and he has apparently been noted in many third-party sources. Furthermore, UNOP is a notable plan and needs a Wikipedia article. (The Unified New Orleans Plan is the planning process attempting to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina.) —  Rickyrab | Talk 19:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ordering list
Wouldn't it make more sense for the list to be alphabetical, or have it in a sortable table? Perhaps the ancient planners could be separate.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Urban Plans
This page is really a list of urban plans, rather than a list of planners. I'm going to work on an expansion and move to List of Urban Plans, unless there's any objections. Fitnr (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of urban planners


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L33t programming language

 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 no consensus, so keep (ignoring the sockpuppet votes). Deathphoenix 02:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

L33t programming language
Non-notable programming language, article writen by language's creator. Google find about 63 unique hits, of which almost all are Wikipedia or Wikipedia-mirror hits. Only 3 or 4 relevant non-encyclopedia links. Trying to find examples of the language's only major program ("Hello world") using Google finds under 5 hits.(Delete) — Asbestos | Talk  12:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is nevertheless a valid exercise in computer science; the point was to create a language with certain 'absurd' properties (e.g. self-modifying code) and challenging computer geeks to write code in it. The fact that the syntax looks like l33tspeak is an inside joke. Keep. Radiant! 12:33, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The description you give of it makes it suspiciously sound like original research... Phils 12:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Close but not quite. Since the programming language actually exists, a simple description of it and the reasons it was designed is not original research. Radiant! 13:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * It certainly exists, it just appears that noone else has ever heard of it. — Asbestos | Talk  14:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existence of a real programming language that is written as l33tspeak is somewhat notable. 193.167.132.66 12:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As the author of the article and the language, I (somewhat predictably) vote keep. The article is about the language, not the author, and I didn't write it for money or personal glory - I just thought people would be interested. There's a pretty good selection of obscure esoteric languages with little real-world use already described on Wikipedia, for people who happen to be interested in such things. In my humble opinion l33t's unusual syntax makes it as notable as any other esoteric language. There have been people other than myself writing interpreters and programs for l33t, which to me implies that there is some interest in it. I won't be offended if the page gets deleted, but I felt it was a valid contribution to Wikipedia.
 * Note: Comment by 159.153.176.45 --InShaneee 18:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep-PlasmaDragon 14:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I can appreciate the effort it must have took to make this, but the fact is that it's not in wide use, nor will it most likely ever be. That means no notability, and most likely vanity. --InShaneee 16:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful example of esoteric programming language. Fun example.  This is a chicken/egg problem. it isn't notable so Wikipedia shouldn't list it, but then if noone spreads it around, how can it ever become notable?
 * 5 google hits for a programming topic and we're talking about keeping this, while Chicago aldermen face serious chances of deletion? What's this place coming to? Delete until somebody proves widespread notability. Meelar (talk) 17:29, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this definitely counts as non-notable Delete Jackliddle 21:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless there is some evidence that this language attains some measure of notoriety. The article is pretty much cut and paste from the authors' web sites anyway (the article's external links). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google does overstate the importance of technical topics so I'd expect quite a few hits for anything notable. This isn't a notable language. Carrp | Talk 23:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but with reservations, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research Gazpacho 00:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Del33t. —RaD Man (talk) 02:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone's weekend project, like most "esoteric" programming languages. I'm sure it was a lot of fun, but it's very far to the wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brainfuck and Befunge and other esoteric programming languages are not in 'wide use' (hell, not even Haskell is in wide use), but their presence here is merited. There are not one but two interpreters -- python and ruby -- and I find that to be worthy of mention, and the accomplishment notable. Avriette 13:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Longhair 13:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure it rates an article yet (verging on something like original research), but it's very clever, vastly amusing and really needs a mention on Slashdot! If it's marked for deletion here, it should go to NerdyPC or somewhere, which has offered to keep lots of deleted Wikipedia content - David Gerard 12:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Other esoteric languages are on Wikipedia, what makes L33t so different, just because it's not in wide use? Who uses Brainfuck for their day to day programming needs?  It's just there to prove that it can be done.  Some people probably do, and just because the article is written by the author (well, on top of its lack of use) is no justification for deletion.  Mind you, I think it would be better of more of the article were on a website dedicated to the language, but the article's rather detailed and well written, so why not keep it? Applegoddess 05:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Flamingspinach 19:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep The Recycling Troll 18:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Snal 1:41, 02 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually by anon IP 85.202.139.114. User's only edit. Username doesn't exist. — Asbestos | Talk  03:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I cant believe this is up for deletion! This language is obviously not in wide use - the purpose of esoterics is not to be used, but to be explored, experimented with, and laughed at (with). Given that l33t language actually does exist, this article is therefore factual and worthy of wiki. It's true that google doesnt have much else on this language - which is why the Wiki article is even more so a valuable resource! --EatMyShortz 03:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a primary source. —Korath (Talk) 05:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, its not a place to publish new research. This is not "new research" - it is factual as I stated. I use Wiki as a "primary source" - that's more or less the whole point, it is a place to find information without having to track down individual sites. l33t does have a site, but its more handy here, and better for Wiki. I think the volume of users who want to keep this page should speak for itself, but if deleted, this could also set a dangerous precedent for an awfully large number of other pages on Wikipedia, including about 50 other esoteric languages. --EatMyShortz 12:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, original research.  Neither interesting nor informative.  Esoteric programming languages are not inherently notable; any half-competent computer science student can design one and implement an interpreter or compiler in well under 24 hours.  No evidence whatsoever has been presented that this is on the level of Befunge, Brainfuck, or INTERCAL. —Korath (Talk) 05:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page, while obviously not about a mainstream language, is an excellent example of an esoteric programming language. I can't believe it's up for deletion. (I know this is my first edit, but I am a long time reader...) Gfxmonk 08:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * User's only edit. — Asbestos | Talk  13:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - How do we learn more if pages are deleted? ToriaURU 13:58, 3 Mar, 2005 (UTC)
 * User's seventh edit. —Korath (Talk) 16:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am getting sick of this "user's opinion doesn't count because they dont post much" attitude. Gfxmonk explained already his only edit, and ToriaURU has seven already! Provide some arguments for your case instead of trying to discredit people who have equally valid opinions. --EatMyShortz
 * I would like to think that no matter how many edits a person has, all voices are equal here. ToriaURU
 * k33pz0re - This is one of those rare gems that I occasionally come across on Wikipedia. I think it's a rather clever idea and, as others have already stated, other esoteric languages are allowed their own articles. Plus, it's just freaking awesome. EDIT: I did forget to mention, though, that it could use just a little bit of revision. :) --65.184.25.185 03:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay. "it could use just a little bit of revision" - may I remind readers that this is not to be used as grounds for deletion. I'd like to add that the reason I am so strongly supporting this is that I agree, it is freaking awesome and it was the means through which I discovered esoteric languages. —EatMyShortz 04:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Actual programing language. The article is well written. Need I say more? --Hoovernj 21:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - If somebody wants to learn about this language here then let them. Its existance here doesn't hurt anyone. JesseHogan 05:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It has more value than things like HQ9+
 * Delete This to me looks like original research. It was written by the author and although it isn't harming anyone it is not something anyone will find information about anywhere else (aside from the author's own website/s). It may be an interesting article and I can see why many people would like it to remain on Wikipedia but RTM - it does not belong on here. Waveydave 17:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC).
 * KEEP! Funny, not usefull, but interesting...

 * Comment. I'm confused by the amount of anon voting on this page, but I'm also confused as to why this is still up after 2 weeks of voting. I count 11 Delete votes, 11 Keep votes, and 9 anon or possible sock-puppet votes. Appears to be no consensus to Delete, so looks like a Keep to me. — Asbestos | Talk  13:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is it still on the deletelist then? Actually, I would also say Keep. Bernard van der Wees 22:26, 10 Mar 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:
List of urban theorists

This is a list of urban theorists notable in their field, in alphabetical order:

 * Christopher Alexander (1936-2022)
 * Donald Appleyard (1928-1982)
 * Michael E. Arth
 * Christopher Charles Benninger (1942)
 * Walter Block (1941)
 * Ernest Burgess (1886-1966)
 * Peter Calthorpe (1949)
 * Manuel Castells (1942)
 * Ildefons Cerdà (1815-1876)
 * Gordon Cullen (1914-1994)
 * Mike Davis (1946-2022)
 * Constantinos Doxiadis (1914-1975)
 * Andrés Duany (1949)
 * Richard Florida
 * John Friedmann
 * Joel Garreau
 * Patrick Geddes (1854-1932)
 * Jan Gehl
 * Paul Goodman
 * Percival Goodman (1904-1989)
 * Adam Greenfield
 * Peter Hall (1932-2014)
 * David Harvey
 * Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928)
 * Arata Isozaki
 * Allan Jacobs (1928)
 * Jane Jacobs (1916-2006)
 * Kiyonori Kikutake (1928-2011)
 * Rem Koolhaas (1944)
 * Kisho Kurokawa (1934-2007)
 * Fumihiko Maki
 * James Howard Kunstler
 * Le Corbusier (1887-1965)
 * Loretta Lees
 * Henri Lefebvre (1901-1991)
 * Jiří Löw
 * Kevin A. Lynch (1918-1984)
 * Rob Krier (1938)
 * Richard L. Meier (1920-2007)
 * Lewis Mumford (1895-1990)
 * Saverio Muratori (1910-1973)
 * Clarence Perry (1872-1944)
 * Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk
 * Miguel Robles-Durán
 * Witold Rybczynski
 * Thomas Sieverts
 * Camillo Sitte (1843-1903)
 * Edward Soja (1940-2015)
 * Ignasi de Solà-Morales (1942-2001)
 * Kenzo Tange (1913-2005)
 * Robert Venturi (1925-2018)
 * William H. Whyte (1917-1999)
 * Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959)
 * Sharon Zukin (1946)

title: List of urban theorists


text:
OLG

The acronym OLG may refer to:

 * Oberlandesgericht, a higher regional court of appeals in Germany
 * Online gaming
 * Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, a Canadian provincial government agency which operates lottery games and casinos.
 * Our Lady of Guadalupe
 * Overlapping gene in genomes
 * Overlapping generations in population genetics
 * Overlapping generations model in economics

title: OLG


text:
Category:Modern history of Italy

The period that goes from 1814 (Congress of Vienna) to today.

See also Category:19th century in Italy, Category:20th century in Italy and Category:21st century in Italy

title: Category:Modern history of Italy


text:
Talk:Hands of the Cause

Page started
Just to say this is really impressive. I thought I had too much time on my hand.... -- Tomhab 12:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I just searched Google for "Hand of the Cause of God", and these thirty or so I started with are the only ones who came up. I wanted a vehicle to link Shoghi to Mason Remey without seeming tendentious.Wjhonson 03:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You could do a section on Shoghi Effendi's main page about succession. Probably best to keep it short (3-4 lines) as it's covered elsewhere (isn't it?). As long as you mention what both schisms did I personally don't see anything wrong with it -- Tomhab 04:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A further comment -- the entry says that the work of the Hands is carried on by the Continental Counselors. I think it is more accurate to say that it is carried on by the Institution of the Counselors, which includes the International Counselors on the International Teaching Center; these are not "Continental" Counselors, they are world or International Counselors. 65.175.200.126 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Brent Poirier65.175.200.126 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct person?
Oh and does anyone know for sure if William Sears is the wrong one? Actually, I may put that page up for deletion. Looks like someones trying to promote themselves... -- Tomhab 12:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, it's the wrong one, but we'll just disambiguate it. he really is a controversial figure in the parenting discussion.....Rick Boatright 22:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah right. And John Robarts? I've never heard of either of them to be honest. It just doesn't look like the right kind of guy....... -- Tomhab 23:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * nope, wrong John Robarts too... I'll fix it later. Rick Boatright 03:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone start a page for Holley, come on, don't make me do all the work here! :) Wjhonson 05:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Hands of the Cause of God"
Suggesting the move to Hands of the Cause of God (plural of Hands) because the article is about them as a collection? I won't be offended if someone disagrees, but just a thought. I've just made Letters of the Living which in my opinion is in the same boat so suggest one changes to be in line with the other? -- Tomhab 06:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. I would just want all those pages that point to "Hand" to be automatically relinked? Or would you have to visit each page and fix the link? There are something between 5 and 15 pages that point at this page now I think. Wjhonson 16:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * When you move a page, it leaves a redirect link. It only becomes a problem when you redirect to a redirect. So...

 * on the page for Shoghi and click "Hand of the Cause" which is a redirect to "Hands of the Cause" which redirects to "Hands of the Cause of God" is one too many -- Tomhab 00:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * OK Tom. I appoint you to do this task.  I'd probably mess it up.  I'm not too up on all the neat editing tricks Wjhonson 03:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Heh if you look at the top of every page next to history theres a move button. I'll do it now -- Tomhab 03:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Errrm I *think* its done. It seemed to crash half way through saying "wikipedia could not process your request" but seems to have moved fine. Hand links to Hands fine now -- Tomhab 05:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moving page title
I moved the page without talking about it first, oops! I moved it from "Hands of the Cause of God" to "Hands of the Cause" to avoid having to re-write it on other pages. That way we don't have to write Hands of the Cause.

Any thoughts before I go fix redirects on a bunch of pages? Cuñado  -  Talk  21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Errm isn't the correct name "Hands of the Cause of God"? Whats wrong with just redirecting? -- Tomhab 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually like the title Hands of the Cause better because it's what most people say. I rarely hear the whole term. -- Jeff3000 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The full term for Guardian is "Guardian of the Cause of God" (see Will and Testament of AA), but the common term is just "Guardian". The common term for "Hands of the Cause of God" is just "Hands" or "Hands of the Cause", and for obvious reasons, using Hands just wouldn't work for a page title.

 * I've been changing several page titles to what things are commonly known as, unless there is a disambiguation issue. So for example I moved Mullá Husayn-i-Bushru'i to just Mullá Husayn. Most of the pages are already this way, see Táhirih and Quddús for examples. I'm also making pages along the same lines for the Apostles, see Varqá.

 * So in other words, this issue is much greater than this page, and I'm hoping to find some consensus. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  01:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jalál Kháḍih
This name does not display correctly in my browser. Are you sure this is an English character? It doesn't appear to be English. Wjhonson 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops I mean the fourth character in the last name. It looks like Kha then a box then ih.Wjhonson 15:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it's a unicode character and thus needs either needs to be surrounded by unicode in Wikipedia or needs one to have more unicode fonts installed (I think). For example, I don't see any of the Sanskrit characters on my home computer, but do see them on my work computer.  -- 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading over the talk page of unicode, it seems to be an IE problem with Unicode. Are you using IE? -- Jeff3000 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks Jeff now it looks like Khadih. Yes IE 6 and its fine now. Wjhonson 15:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Taráz'u'lláh Samandarí
No entry for Taráz'u'lláh Samandarí? I just finished his chapter in the book Lights of Fortitude by Barron Harper and there's more than enough info there. Is there a problem with relying upon a book by a Baha'i author?I'm Nonpartisan 14:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm nonpartisan (talk • contribs)
 * Typically for something to be notable there has to be multiple sources. Many of those sources should be from non-Baha'i publishers.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hands of the Cause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073445/http://media.bahai.org/subjects/people/institutions/hands?first=1 to http://media.bahai.org/subjects/people/institutions/hands?first=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225025942/http://www.planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/linklibrary.pl?pageid=400 to http://www.planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/linklibrary.pl?pageid=400

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to remove non-notable ones.
Why the list is having non-notables? Serv181920 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 * This page is not a WP:LIST and considering the small number and limited scope (no more can be appointed), the full list is fine. Most of them would qualify for a bio with some effort. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  19:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you direct me to the policy/guideline that allows such lists of non-notable people? Serv181920 (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's analogous to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses or the Universal House of Justice pages that list members of the subject even if the individuals don't have notability for their own page. Considering that there are only, and will only ever be, 50 Hands of the Cause, and the list on this page is repeated in several reference works (e.g. Adamson 2009, appendix 8), and most individuals are notable and verifiable enough to warrant their own articles, removing from this list would just create work later to add them back. In general, I think any Apostle or Hand of the Cause will easily pass notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  17:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hands of the Cause