text:
Talk:After Virtue

How do people feel about this book?
I'm curious to know how people feel about this book. I myself have just began reading it, and while I find it difficult, and often times a struggle to comprehend, the parts that I am able to follow I find amazing. I was hoping that anyone who has read it would like to share their thoughts on Macintyre's thesis. Afterall, this book deserves to be discussed.

Hi, anonymous user. Firstly, it might be worth you creating a Wikipedia account. It is quick, easy, absolutely not a security risk and means communication is easier. It also helps you become a part of the Wikipedia community quicker. If you do, you can sign a name and date stamp using four ~s in a row. Anyway, to your actual query. I created the page, because I like you think it is a book that deserves to be discussed. I read it first about a year ago, and was baffled by some of it (he assumes a level of background knowledge that is a bit above me, and a lot of the stuff about the Weberian society was fascinating but I could not see where it fitted into the whole scheme), and totally bowled over by other bits. His centre thesis (I think) is that post-Enlightenment moral thinking is dominated by the question "how can I do good" (and even that is reduced to "how can I do what I think is good" by Emotivism). The real question for MacIntyre is "how can I be good", ie the Aristotelian Virtue Ethics approach. What do you think? A discussion of the book would be good, not only for its own sake but also so that we can add to the article. Glad you enjoyed it, and hope you like Wikipedia! Batmanand 23:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference
The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Potential external link
I added the entire 'synopsis' section from information I gleaned from. While it is not a peer reviewed journal or a textbook (and therefore possibly not worthy of being a reference), the article does have significat content up and above what is included here concerning the topics in the book. Are any opposed to adding it as an external link? Uriah923 16:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I would think that the content - if it can be proven it is not copyrighted - is of sufficient quality to quote as a reference. The only concern I have is that surely we are simply linking to a copy of the article? Batmanand 17:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll say pretty much the same thing here as I did at Talk:ITunes. This is just one out of a SEO campaign by the ON people to get links to that site from Wikipedia. (Just as we don't need the above link since it can be seen in the diff where it was removed) The same thing was done with multiple Wikipedia articles until people cried foul, and the consensus was that ON articles do not make the type of quality references Wikipedia needs. That said, if a consensus forms here (with a reasonable minimum of 5-6 people involved) that the article is valuable enough to justify an external link despite the linkspam implications, I certainly wouldn't stand in the way. That said, our article would be much better off using actual highly regarded references than linking to a website with no inherent credibility. Verifiability is the goal, not seeing how many links we can get to ON. - Taxman Talk 18:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

We have three users here already. My vote is that the page is worthy of an external link (not a reference). Batmanand and Taxman - agree or disagree? Uriah923 18:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not a question of whether or not the page is worthy -- the link is not worthy. Omit link. Zora 21:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, are you listening to my question? Are you even reading the posts? There is not link on the page to omit, so what are you talking about?  I am suggesting a link be added in an external links section. Uriah923 21:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I have read the ON linkspam stuff, and see the point, however in this case I think the information added to the page is both correct and substantive. Thus in principle I support it being added as a link. However, given that the page is pretty much a rewrite of where it would link to, would we just be "proving" that someone else had written this information before? So far, I withhold my vote. I would be inclined to vote with Uriah923; however I must first be satisfied that this is not a copyright infringement. Incidentlally, if it is, the information on the Wikipedia page needs a substantive rewrite to not fall foul of copyright too. Batmanand 09:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it is a rewrite of what was in the ON link without incorporating other sources and without changing it enough it is a copyright violation. If it has been changed a lot, then the changes basically amount to original research which isn't allowed here. If the information is correct as you say, then it should be able to be substantiated by other, higher quality published sources, and then we have no problems. We don't need external links just for the sake of them. They serve the purpose of either linking to the most prominent, important websites on a topic or as a very weak form of citation/referencing. Wikipedia is long past the stage where it needs just any content added with weak references. Beyond that is the fact that Uriah's actions are so obviously just part of an SEO campaign. We need to discourage the use of Wikipedia to promote other people's sites, and that is very clearly in External links. Basically I suggest the link isn't needed anyway, and is damaging if it is included. - Taxman Talk 12:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sick of Uriah's SEO spamming. As it stands, his account seems little more than a Role account, with the purpose of pimping traffic to his blog.  He seems to have put a link to ON on every single topic he's ever written about.  He presents his arguments as an "objective" look, but he is supporting the inclusion of all ON links on all of the articles so far! I oppose all ON links at this time. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * OK I think I am now convinced that the ON stuff is merely an attempt to get more links to his site and thus is basically tantamount to SEO spamming. Thus I change my original vote to Oppose. The question of how to deal with the content of the page if we think that ON is suspect is something we will have to discuss in due course. Batmanand 16:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Francis Wheen and the tone of the article
Just thought i'd add that I recently read Francis Wheen's 'How mumbo-jumbo conquered the world', in which he savages this book for its reactionary and atavistic stance. Persmer143.167.142.210 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I have no opinion on whether that specific criticism should be include, but I do think the general tone of the page needs to read a little less like a MacIntyre fan page. The book is indeed "highly regarded" (as the intro states) by many people, but it's also poorly regarded by others.  To a large extent, what people think of the book is influenced by what they think of virtue ethics more generally. --Delirium 12:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Notes scheme & potential ext link
I added proper notation to all of the links included in the text. Also, I added a hidden external links section. It's hidden because it would violate NPOV for me to add the link, but I think it's worthy of listing. So, if you happen along and find it, please check it out and un-hide it if you agree. uriah923(talk) 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, don't go back to the same old games and prove for sure that the only reason you're still here is to substantiate links to your site. It wasn't NPOV that prevents adding the link, it's disruption. - Taxman Talk 12:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we went over this a few months ago. Let's just keep the references removed. I think that was the consensus then, as now. Batmanand | Talk 15:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Most important text?
The sentence "After Virtue is the most important text in the recent revival of virtue ethics" seems too POV for a wiki article. I would also question this claim in that MacIntyre does away with an essential part of virtue ethics in his rejection of Aristotle's "metaphysical biology." I know of few virtue ethicists who would take such an extremely social stance on human nature.
 * I see what you're getting at: the claim "most important" does imply the exercise of judgment. But I think NPOV doesn't exclude all exercises of judgment.  The article doesn't claim that After Virtue is the best book on virtue ethics, or even a good book, which certainly would be out of bounds.  But it does claim that this book is the most important text in the revival of virtue ethics, which is a historical claim, and a well-founded one, I think.  After Virtue didn't start the revival, true; but it was the most widely read, the most commonly responded to, and remains the subject of engagement today.  This is true irrespective of his attitudes towards Aristotelian biology-- even if others have failed to follow him along exactly the same lines, this book's historical influence remains.  So I'm comfortable with the judgment standing.
 * And by the way, is it really true that, as you imply, most virtue ethicists today embrace Aristotle's biology? That sounds like a much more contentious claim than the one you're taking issue with.Talented Mr Miller 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not that virtue ethicists today would accept Aristotle's particular understanding of human nature and, by consequence, his table of virtues- but rather that they are willing to pursue the virtues via an understanding of man qua animal, which MacIntyre rejects. That is, the project of virtue ethics today is not just the uncovering of one's social roles and an embodiment of the excellences which one's social narrative provides as MacIntyre conceives of it in After Virtue. Most contemporary virtue ethicists would object to such a socially situated view of human nature and instead favor a return to the Aristotelian project of examining the essential nature of man. It seems to me that MacIntyre is more important in the development of communitarian philosophy for which his virtue ethics was tailored. Besides, GEM Anscombe wrote the article "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958 and Philippa Foot, Virtues and Vices in 1978, which it seems to me, are the works that really kicked things off for contemporary virtue ethics.
 * Anscombe in 1958 and Foot in 1978? That's a long lead time in getting things "kicked off"!
 * Removing tongue from cheek, I'd again assert that MacIntyre's book was more widely influential and remains so; look at amount of scholarly response, and amount of interest outside the academy. Or look at respective sales at Amazon and such.  However one may feel about the book's merit, its influence still seems to me to be greater than its rivals.
 * That said, I'm still going to amend the opening line to "among the most important texts", and we'll see if anyone feels strongly enough to change it back.Talented Mr Miller 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Chapter Summary
I'm a researcher who's currently reading this book for the second time, and I'm writing a chapter summary as I go along, both for my own purposes and for the use of other researchers who want help dealing with this dense and difficult but significant book. I'm writing it up on my own private wiki, but am considering integrating it with this article when I'm done. I think it would be tremendously useful, but I'm writing it at a higher level of detail than is typical for Wikipedia articles, and thought I'd check here first for peoples' opinions on whether this would be appropriate to include. Here is a sample summary. Let me know what you all think. Ario (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 2. The Nature of Moral Disagreement Today and the Claims of Emotivism
MacIntyre notes that the nature of most moral discourse today is interminable disagreement. He lists several examples of common moral arguments on the subjects of just war, abortion, and medical licensing and regulation (6-7), and notes three salient characteristics of these debates: First, though each argument presented is logically valid, the respective concepts they use are incommensurable, so that there is no apparent rational way to decide in favor of one argument over another, and thus such a decision has the appearance of being personal and non-rational; Second, that despite the necessity of some impersonal and non-rational choice, the arguments all purport to be impersonal and rational, in that they "presuppose ... the existence, independently of the preferences or attitude of speaker and hearer, of standards [of morality]" (9); And third, that the concepts employed for each argument have been divorced from larger theories and contexts of which they were originally a part, and in some cases the concepts (such as virtue, justice, and ought) have changed meaning over time so that the evaluative expressions themselves have also changed their meanings. If these characteristics are symptoms of moral disorder, he argues, then it should be possible to construct a history of moral discourse in which, at an earlier stage, moral utterance is not regarded "simultaneously and inconsistently ... as [both] an exercise of our rational powers and as mere expressive assertion" (11). He notes that a major obstacle to this goal is today's unhistorical treatment of moral philosophy as a single debate among contemporaries examining the same exact subject matter, rather than as a progressing series of traditions among philosophers working in distinct historical contexts.

Forestalling the discussion of such a history, MacIntyre first explores the question of whether moral discussion is in fact rationally interminable not as a contingent feature of our culture, but because that is the inherent nature of moral questions. He specifically addresses emotivism, which "is the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling" (11-12, his emphasis throughout). He notes that emotivism purports to be a theory about the meaning of sentences used in moral utterance. Prominent emotivists have asserted that the sentence "This is good" means the same as "I approve of this, do so as well" or "Hurrah for this!", but MacIntyre argues that these examples make clear that "the expression of feeling or attitude is characteristically a function not of the meaning of sentences, but of their use on particular occasions" (13). Emotivism is thus not a theory of the meaning of moral utterances, as it purports to be, but rather of their use. MacIntyre then traces the history of emotivism, arguing that it in fact arose in its modern form as a theory of the usage of moral utterances in a specific period: at Cambridge in the early 20th century. He then argues that emotivism has existed in other historical periods, and that it arises as a response to the breakdown of the project of providing rational justification for objective and impersonal moral claims. He argues finally that emotivism rests upon a claim that all historical attempts to provide such a justification have failed.

'Criticism' section (Wheen and Scialabba)
Sorry - not sure how to comment correctly, but I think the 'criticism' section in this article is of negative influence on the article's quality. There have, of course, been critical responses to 'After Virtue', but neither Wheen nor Scialabba can be counted amongst serious critics of the book. Including only these two instances makes the entire section appear very arbitrary. Until there is better content for the 'criticism' section, I think it should be omitted in its entirety.155.245.57.127 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I added the Criticism section, the article was taking heat for being too much of a Macintyre fan page. So I think the section should stand. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that neither Wheen and Scialabba count as "serious critics"; is this because neither is a professional philosopher? In any case, the best course of action IMHO is to add to the section rather than omit it. I don't doubt that substantive criticism exists - so by all means let those equipped to synthesize that criticism present it here.Talented Mr Miller (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the person who said the criticism section should be altered. It is an important section to have, but Wheen adn Scialabba are fairly little-known writers, whereas Mac has been commented on by just about everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.230 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is the criticism section labelled as "reception"? The reception section excludes all of the reviews that expressed the greatness of the book. Judging from the reception section here, it looks like the book was a total letdown. It wasn't. It's one of the most critically acclaimed philosophy books published since 1980.
 * The title of the section should remain "reception". If it bothers you that it includes only critical reviews of the book, then add some positive reviews - don't needlessly change the name of the section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just my two cents worth - I agree that having Scalabba and Wheen as two of four critics in the reception section is vaguely ridiculous. They are reasonable people with respectable media profiles (and I have enjoyed stuff they have written), but they are not the first people I would turn to for representative examples of critical responses by Alisdair Macintyre's peers, to a book as significant as After Virtue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.33.90 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Solecism
Please correct "abstracting ourselves from whom we are." Obviously should be "from who we are." Refer to any style manual on the difference between the subjective & objective case (even when following a preposition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.236.100 (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not for nothing, Anonymous User, but it would have been less work to *correct the error yourself* than to write a snotty command for *someone else* to do it.Talented Mr Miller (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Single Source Tag
I think that the single source tag is uncalled for. True, about 2/3 of the references come from one source but that is the book the article is about. I expect a large percentage of the references of a Wiki regarding a book to be from that book, it would be strange otherwise.

General critical response to Wheen
Flagged this section as, because the Washington Post article cited in support is the only critic offered up who actually takes this view. One critic isn't a general consensus.

Francis Wheen material
Endymion.12, from all the evidence of the article about him (see Francis Wheen), Francis Wheen is a well-known writer. It is perfectly reasonable to briefly note his view of After Virtue. That is enough justification for including the material. Your claim that it is undue is baseless, given its brevity, and your attempt to remove it without consensus is unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By my count there are four IP users who have already challenged the inclusion of this content on this talk page, and on that basis it is no more my responsibility to obtain a consensus for its removal than it is yours to obtain a consensus for retaining it. The "reception" section currently contains responses to After Virtue published in three very famous peer-reviewed academic journals. Discussion of a polemic written by a Private Eye journalist does not belong in the "reception" section of an article on the best known work of one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. Unless the article is significantly expanded this would obviously be WP:UNDUE. The fact that it is "properly cited" is irrelevant. Citation is necessary to WP:VERIFY content, but it does not justify inclusion (see WP:VNOTSUFF), which is governed by policies like WP:DUE etc. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments that IP users made many years ago have no relevance of any kind to establishing current consensus concerning the disputed material. Your comment that it is "no more my responsibility to obtain a consensus for its removal than it is yours to obtain a consensus for retaining it" is fatuous and has no basis in Wikipedia's policies. Since it is a disputed change, of course it is your responsibility to obtain consensus. Trying to remove properly cited material without consensus is inappropriate.
 * I believe it might well be a good idea to establish separate sections for media reviews and comments concerning MacIntyre's book and reviews in academic journals. However, your comment that "Discussion of a polemic written by a Private Eye journalist does not belong in the "reception" section of an article on the best known work of one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century" is simply something you made up. It is not backed by policy. Whether After Virtue is MacIntyre's best known work or not has no relevance to anything; or are you suggesting that if it wasn't his best known book, the Wheen material would be appropriate? Likewise, it is utterly irrelevant whether MacIntyre is "one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century" or not: how would the Wheen material become appropriate if MacIntyre were less well-known? Clearly, you're just making this up as you go along, have not thought things through, and do not have a coherent, valid reason for removing the content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy I just referred you to (WP:VNOTSUFF) literally says the following: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". It is your responsibility to obtain a consensus to include this information.
 * The comment you quoted above is fully supported by policy. This is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, and not a repository for dumping any information you can find references for, as I explained above and in my edit summaries. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To respond to the allegation that I am "making this up as [I] go along, have not thought things through, and do not have a coherent, valid reason for removing the content, I will restate everything I have said as clearly and concisely as possible. The "reception" section is short (and very incomplete), and we currently have three references to articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. Inserting a reference to an obscure polemic written by a journalist (the citation for which singles out Wheen's criticism of After Virtue as the main failing of his book) alongside discussion of these peer-reviewed articles is WP:UNDUE, and clearly gives it emphasis out of all WP:PROPORTION to its significance. It's also just unencyclopedic. The importance of this book and of McIntyre makes the discussion of Wheen's (fleeting) reference to After Virtue in his book Mumbo-jumbo look fairly incongruous, as other users have noted before me. You have given me the impression that you don't know very much about McIntyre (or Wheen), which is why you may be struggling here. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTEVERYTHING is irrelevant. It states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I do not suggest that the Wheen material should be included because it is verifiable. I suggest that it should be included because it is verifiable, about the topic of the article, and worth including because it helps readers understand the reception of MacIntyre's book. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is concerned with things such as, "Summary-only descriptions of works" and "Lyrics databases", which are not what we are discussing here. Stop citing irrelevant policies. Your comment that, "Discussion of a polemic written by a Private Eye journalist does not belong in the "reception" section of an article on the best known work of one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century", was stupid, or rather, emotional and irrational in nature. As I said, it is 100% irrelevant whether After Virtue is MacIntyre's best known work, or whether MacIntyre is one of the "most influential philosophers of the 20th century". You were simply making things up there, and I do not apologize for pointing that out. I am not surprised that you do not attempt to explain how your claim that it matters that After Virtue is MacInytre's best known work or that MacIntyre is one of the "most influential philosophers of the 20th century" is supported by policy. It simply isn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The rest of your comment is just you making the same unsubstantiated or irrelevant assertions. For instance, you call Wheen's book an "obscure polemic". How do you know it is obscure, why do you expect anyone to care that you think it is "obscure", and what does its supposedly being obscure have to do with Wikipedia's policies? Nothing, of course. You assert that the Wheen material is undue; the relevant portion of the policy states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I see nothing that suggests that Wheen's viewpoint isn't significant or that his book is not a reliable source. A brief mention of his view is definitely not undue; whether the material appears beside discussion of "peer-reviewed articles" is simply a question relating to the organization of material in the article, and has nothing to do with whether the content is undue or not. I already noted that the issue could be solved simply by establishing a different section for media commentary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing further to add here (I did explain why the significance of this book and its author is relevant in the second comment). You're either somehow incapable of interpreting straightforward arguments, or more likely you're too preoccupied with restoring this information to care whether you understand. We simply disagree on the points concerning policy. I will expand/rewrite the section in the next few weeks. Endymion.12 (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is tantamount to saying that you cannot defend your position. That of course is unsurprising. You have consistently avoided responding to my points. Making self-referential comments about your own past comments and what you claim to have explained in them is preposterous behavior. If you seriously believe that your claim that, because After Virtue is MacIntyre's best-known book and MacIntyre is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, the material about Wheen should not be included, is based in policy, then that shows simply that you have no understanding of the relevant policies. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So I have two options here: I can either (1) engage in a long, circuitous argument with someone whose replies make very clear to me that we're talking entirely at cross-purposes. The tone/register of your comments also suggest there is little prospect of achieving any kind of understanding.
 * Or,
 * (2) I can use that time instead to devote a few hours in the next few weeks, perhaps this Sunday, to expanding and rewriting the section. I work in academia and have access to most indexed/online journals, and can therefore use literature reviews/secondary literature to provide a balanced summary of all the major critical responses to After Virtue over the last few decades. The "reception" section for any major book should ideally contain such a balanced summary of all the major responses, rather than a collection of comments on random books with no attempt made to establish how significant they are in the reception of the work.
 * I'm satisfied that I've expressed myself very clearly in my previous comments. By "obscure" I meant "not known to many people" rather than difficult to follow or understand, if that clears up any confusion. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The talk page is a place for discussing improvements to the article, not a place for you to discuss your life. Nor should you assume that other editors necessarily care where you work. Note that irrelevant comments are subject to potential removal. Also, I understood what you meant by "obscure", thank you. Don't patronize me. Instead of explaining something that does not need explaining, you could consider that your unsupported claims about the obscurity of Wheen's work do not provide you with an excuse for removing mention of it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your third opinion, Mark Marathon. Could you please clarify how it is based in policy: what policy supports the extraordinarily restrictive view that only opinions of "respected philosophers" should be mentioned in articles about books by philosophers? So far as I know, no policy states anything of the sort, so while I respect your right to disagree with me, I do not see the opinion you have offered as having any basis in policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately missing the point here, or are you just not reading what other people have written? I don't understand how you can respond to a thoughtful comment concerning the RS policy and the relative significance/noteworthiness of Wheen's opinions by asking why "only opinions of "respected philosophers" should be mentioned in articles about books by philosophers", or to a comment I left explaining that I intend rewrite the section using literature reviews with the reply that you're not interested in "where [I] work". As I have explained before, the inclusion of content need not be explicitly ruled out by policy for it to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, a 3rd opinion isn't actually required to be based on policy per se. It's an informal process that evaluates both the arguments provided by the other editors. In this case policy is an issue, specifically WP:DUE and its relationship to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Based on a Google search and this very article, "After Virtue" is a respected scholarly work by a respected scholar, published by the press of a respected university, included in the syllabus of respected universities and colleges and analyse din respected scholarly journals. That makes this an inherently scholarly issue. An article should fairly represents viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. To determine if a source is reliable for a scholarly issue, the more people engaged in checking facts and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a book that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable for scholarly issues, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable.
 * At this stage I do not see any evidence that Wheen's viewpoint constitutes ~40% of the prominence of that viewpoint in the published sources, as such it doesn't warrant 40% of the space in the reception section and so fails WP:DUE. At this stage I see no evidence that 4th Estate is a well-regarded academic press. I see no evidence that Wheen's work has been subject to any fact checking at all (as opposed to editorial checking for style) or that it has been otherwise vetted by the scholarly community. I see no evidence that his comments on "After Virtue" are anything other than provided in passing, even were his work to meet all the other criteria for RS. In short, I don't see that the viewpoint meets WP:DUE, I don't see that Wheen's book complies with WP:RS, specifically WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The policy is not that only opinions of "respected philosophers" should be mentioned in articles about books by philosophers. The policy is that only books vetted by the scholarly community are considered RS for articles on scholarly matters, and that we can only present viewpoints in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. As an example, the number of books published by creationist publishing houses critical of "Origin of Species" at least equals if not outnumber works that are supportive of it. We don't actually give them any weight in the "Origin of Species" article because they aren't RS for a scholarly article, such as "Origin of Species". What a minister thinks of the work doesn't signify unless it is vetted by the scholarly community and published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. If you can find a review by an economist, or even a journalist, published in a scholarly source, then by all means it should be included. If you can find a scholarly article by a blacksmith or a peacock breeder that references Wheen's work on this issue, that should definitely be included. But the opinion of a journalist with no training or standing in the field of philosophy published in the popular press just doesn't have any weight in a discussion of a scholarly work and to include it violates WP:RS and WP:DUE. That's my opinion, which is what was requested. 3os are not binding and you are free to take this to another dispute resolution if you wish, but my opinions has been provided.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

To reply:

Endymion.12, for some reason best known to yourself, you stated that you "work in academia". I explained that I do not care where you work to disabuse you of the idea that other editors care where you work, or about other such facts about your life. Please do remember that talk pages are for discussing the article, not for sharing random facts about yourself that may not interest other people.

Mark Marathon: I find your comment that you find no evidence that "I do not see any evidence that Wheen's viewpoint constitutes ~40% of the prominence of that viewpoint in the published sources, as such it doesn't warrant 40% of the space in the reception section and so fails WP:DUE" unfortunate. You are, I think, interpreting WP:DUE in a mechanical fashion that it was never meant to be interpreted. I see no reason to suppose that for each "viewpoint" editors are meant to determine precisely how prominent it is in reliable sources and give it a precise, corresponding amount of space in the article. As such, I cannot take your comment particularly seriously. Your implied comparison of Wheen's views to creationism would carry more weight than it does if there were any evidence that Wheen's views are considered equally as fringe as creationism; I see no such evidence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I will not restore the material about Wheen at this time, but the main reason is that the content is poorly cited - apparently to a newspaper article discussing Wheen's book, rather than to the book itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The last comment is ridiculous, since reviews are the only sources we ought to be using here. Mumbo-jumbo is a WP:PRIMARY source for discussion concerning Mumbo-jumbo, and any discussion ought to be rendered from (secondary) reviews.
 * I referred to the fact that I work in academia in the context of explaining that I have extensive journal access which I will use when re-writing the "reception" section, primarily using literature reviews. To "determine precisely how prominent [a source] is in reliable sources and give it a precise, corresponding amount of space in the article was precisely the intention of the WP:DUE policy. You've sadly missed the point concerning the Creationism analogy. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No policy dictates that "reviews are the only sources we ought to be using here", which is a ridiculous comment in itself. If you look, you will see that the "Summary" section is cited to After Virtue, which of course is a book, not a "review". That Wheen's book would be a primary source for discussing itself is irrelevant, since no one was proposing to use it as a source for discussing itself; I was proposing using it as a source to discuss After Virtue. For that purpose it is a secondary source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You should only be using reviews or secondary/tertiary literature to discuss primary texts. The "reception" section should discuss the reception of the book and not the book itself, hence my comment. Mumbo-jumbo is not a valid source (RS) for discussing After Virtue itself (outside the "reception" section). I'm going to stop responding here because this is becoming tedious. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not need advice from you about how to use primary versus secondary sources. The comment you made above ("reviews are the only sources we ought to be using here") was quite confused and strange, so I thought it might be best to point out that it was simply mistaken. Rather than acknowledge that you were mistaken, you've made another confused and strange comment in response. You're right, this is tedious. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:After Virtue


text: Category:Mind Funk albums

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

title: Category:Mind Funk albums


text: User talk:202.67.89.126

title: User talk:202.67.89.126


text:
Category:Canadian bloggers

A Canadian blogger is the author of a weblog who lives in Canada, has Canadian citizenship, or writes primarily on Canadian subjects. One could also be considered a Canadian blogger if one has a significant Canadian connection, though this is debatable.

title: Category:Canadian bloggers


text:
Talk:Bill Murray

Cult following
Just curious ... Murray has quite a bit of a cult following (i.e. he has achieved substantial popularity and following outside of just having been in some popular films). I'm surprised that the article does not at least mention this. For example,
 * [Why is the Internet obsessed with Bill Murray?]
 * [The Dao of Bill Murray]
 * [The Big Bad Book of Bill Murray]
 * [T-shirt meme]
 * ...

-- MC

Fun fact
Did you know that Bill was the only choice for Garfield? If he had said no, they would've gone with a Bill Murray impersonator. It's true! I heard it on a documentary I was watching on TV this morning!

 * I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious place but every once in a while I like seeing these little jokes in the talk pages as long as every single article doesn't have one PlasmaticGrain (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"It is prohibited to add the term actor and voice actor in the initial parts of an article."
IP, please explain the assertion above on which you are basing your removals of content from this and other articles concerning voice actors. What is the policy you are referring to, and where does it appear? Are you disputing that Bill Murray is a voice actor and a comedian?  General Ization Talk  05:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Inviting you to this conversation, since you are the editor who contributed the content that the IP apparently feels should be removed. has pointed out on my Talk page that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," so please explain here why you feel the information should be included. I'm equally interested to hear from the IP why they think it should not.  General Ization Talk  05:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that when I review all the articles of English actors is that I realize something, the initial term as they now call it "actor and voice actor" did not go there in some initial sentences, nor in the data infoboxes of information, but some users insisted that those articles that I mentioned before should be re-added the same terms of actors as in previous editions, because one of them already ventured into the dubbing of animations and video games, notably they have made voices of animated characters up to the date, that is, only a brilliant person like TyMega or Bigshowandkane64 added two terms at the same time, as well as adding so many occupations without having indicated news sources to support some of the arguments, has given us all a headache here. 179.52.205.145 (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that you decided that should be a policy, and to apply it to other editors' edits as well as your own, is that correct? Do you understand that that is not how things work here? In articles (such as this one) where the subject is clearly documented as having worked in and been notable for both acting and voice acting, there is no reason that both occupations should not appear in the lead.  General Ization Talk  12:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that proscribes having both "actor" and "voice actor" in the lead. Whether it has both really depends on what best suits the actor in question. What is the proportion of each and how notable is both in the actor's career?  Otherwise, "voice acting" is clearly just a subset of "acting".
 * Personally, I would say in Murray's case he is far more significant as a actor than voice actor, so adding "voice actor" to the lead sentence doesn't inform the reader of anything much notable, and is just unnecessary clutter for a concise lead. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd contend that voice acting is a rather specialized subset of acting. When I see that someone is described as an actor, I have no reason to assume that they have been or would be notable as a voice actor unless the article describes them as such. Murray's filmography lists him as playing a featured role as a voice actor in no less than 5 productions since 2000, so I think it's reasonable to attribute this skill and experience to him in the lead. I agree that each actor's experience and product should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is why I'm objecting to the IP's self-developed "policy" of mass-removing the term (and others, such as "comedian" from this article) from more than 75 articles over the span of 2 days.  General Ization  Talk  13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have not understood my point of view, you say that I have self-developed a policy of mass elimination of other articles to what I edited so as not to generate more confusion if I do not try to create policies that prevent an obsessive user from adding so many occupations and no one else have indicated references that are worth it, such as, for example, Scott McCord becomes a musician himself but in that case I have not found that on Google for the Internet although apparently not because it was edited in IMDb, well, no there is notability to confirm if some of them are notable or not the works for they role in animations, video games or that they are singer-songwriters, musicians even pianist, well there are many what I mention and then we leave it like that. 179.52.205.145 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that you are unable to find sources that describe Bill Murray as a voice actor and/or a comedian? I could easily point you to quite a few. Also, if you think another editor is "obsessive" (which I contend you cannot know, especially if you have not discussed their editing with them), you can have a conversation with them rather than reverting their edits without proper review.  See WP:HARRASS.  General Ization  Talk  16:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Alternatively, you could inquire at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as to what our actual policies are, and/or whether another editor is not following them.)  General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Feuds
So with the feuds sub article on the page I was wondering if it is really that necessary to showcase them to those who worship him like the pope or Jesus Christ Kirbopher2004 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Divide to reduce length?
I just made some editing suggestions and found this article very slow-loading because of its length. Would it benefit from being split into a separate Filmography article, for example? – AndyFielding (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bill Murray


text: Category:Central Vermont Railway

title: Category:Central Vermont Railway


text:
Michael Copon

Michael Copon is an American actor and producer. He is known for playing Felix Taggaro in the television series One Tree Hill, Vin Keahi in the television series Beyond the Break, and Lucas Kendall in Power Rangers Time Force.

Early life
Copon was born and raised in Chesapeake, Virginia. His father is Filipino. He graduated from Deep Creek High School in 2000.

Career
In 2001, Copon portrayed the Blue Power Ranger, Lucas Kendall, on the Power Rangers Time Force television series. He reprised this role in two episodes of Power Rangers Wild Force. In 2004, he appeared in a music video for the song "Backflip" by Raven-Symoné which was directed by Sanaa Hamri. Copon portrayed the recurring character Felix Taggaro on the television series One Tree Hill. From 2006 to 2009, Copon recurred on the drama series Beyond the Break on The N network. In between that time (in 2005) he appeared (and subsequently won) the competition on VH1's But Can They Sing?

In 2008, Copon played the love interest of Ashley Benson in straight-to-video movie Bring It On: In It to Win It. Copon followed this up in 2008 playing the title role in straight-to-video movie The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior.

On September 8, 2010, Copon released "Let's Get Nasty" on iTunes and in the same year he appeared on a TV commercial ad as a spokesperson for an Asian TV station foundation called Bantay Bata. Copon starred in the thriller Killer Holiday, and he also produced and did stunts in the film. Copon is also a member of the Hollywood Knights celebrity basketball team which raises funds for various schools and charitable organizations in the Greater Los Angeles area.

In summer 2012, Copon started co-hosting a weekend radio show on Positive Hit Radio the Current, WJLZ 88.5 FM, in Virginia with Trina Olson called Saturday Night with Trina & Mike. The show airs Saturday nights from 5PM to 10PM ET and features Christian rock and hip hop music. The show is streamed live on the station's webpage.

Copon is executive producer of Michael Copon Studios.

Video games

 * Power Rangers Time Force (2001) as Blue Ranger

As a producer

 * Killer Holiday (2013) – Producer
 * Fearless (2015) – Producer

title: Michael Copon


text:
Wauchope

Wauchope may refer to

Places

 * Wauchope, New South Wales
 * Wauchope, Saskatchewan
 * Wauchope Forest, Scotland
 * Wauchope, Scottish Borders
 * Wauchope, Dumfries and Galloway
 * Wauchope, a small town in Davenport, Northern Territory, Australia

People

 * Andrew Gilbert Wauchope (1846–1899), British soldier; killed in action at Magersfontein, South Africa
 * Andrew Ramsay Don-Wauchope, Scottish rugby player
 * Archibald Wauchope of Niddrie, Scottish landowner
 * Sir Arthur Grenfell Wauchope (1874–1947), British soldier and colonial administrator.
 * Robert Wauchope (archaeologist) (1909–1979), American archaeologist
 * Robert Wauchope (archbishop) (fl. 1539–1551), Archbishop of Armagh
 * Robert Wauchope (Royal Navy officer) (1788–1862), Royal Navy Admiral and Inventor of the time ball

Other uses

 * Don-Wauchope baronets

title: Wauchope


text: Category:Richard Pryor albums

title: Category:Richard Pryor albums


text:
Talk:Star Wars (radio series)

Bill Murray filled in for Perry King a couple of shows I believe. - Sparky 07:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Canonicity
I'm struggling to find a reliable source that actually says that the radio dramas are no longer canon. This Lucasfilm announcement from 2014 is clear that former Expanded Universe works dealing with narrative post-Return of the Jedi are no longer considered canon, but it's not so clear about stories set earlier in the saga timeline. It also makes no mention of the radio dramas at all. Can anyone shed more light on this? Cnbrb (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be impossible for Lucasfilm/Disney to articulate in general terms all the media and projects that are not canon; instead, look instead to the affirmative list that has been embraced by the Empire. Absent an explicit inclusion of the radio dramas, it's safe to conclude they're not part of the fold. --EEMIV (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, personally I would agree with that. It's just that in terms of Wikipedia, there would have to be a more concrete statement either way. Drawing an inference from Lucasfilm's press release strays into synthesis, so I was hoping to find a better reliable source. Canonicity is an interesting question, especially with any potential overlaps with the upcoming Rogue One story, and it would be nice to improve the article with something clearer. I just wondered if there might be something buried away in an old SW Insider or something....? Cnbrb (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And interestingly, this author interprets the Lucasfilm announcement differently, stating that "the 'Expanded Universe' of Star Wars outside of the films, radio and television series, is noncanonical..." (my italics) - which rather underlines the ambiguity of the announcement.Cnbrb (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Title
I don't know what the "re-issued on NPR several years later" verbiage refers to, but no matter -- the title of the ORIGINAL broadcast in 1981 was "The New Hope". I own cassette recordings that I taped myself in 1981, and they clearly say "The New Hope" before and after every episode. Kingpin (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is already covered in the article. Cnbrb (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Star Wars (radio series)


text:
Talk:Electronic Road Pricing

Citing of sources
Hi, came across this very interesting article and would like to find out if the facts and figures quoted are verifiable? According to Verifiability:

''The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia. Verifiability is an important tool to achieve accuracy, so we strongly encourage you to check your facts.''

as well as from Cite sources:

Wikipedia articles should cite their sources, preferably reliable sources.

For example, "For example, the ERP gantry along the Central Expressway (CTE) has been said to have caused traffic to increase substantially in north-south trunk roads, such as along the Thomson Road and Serangoon Road corridors." - said by who?

=Travisyoung= 07:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I based that on newspaper articles read over the years, with quotes from members of the public who were interviewed. If a source is needed, time will be required to search for it.--Huaiwei 07:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[Anon] 11:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?

 * "Implemented by the Land Transport Authority in September 1998 to replace the Singapore Area Licensing Scheme, it was the first city in the world to implement electronic toll collection."

It is a bold claim to state without a source, and may be verifiably inaccurate. Thanks.

Is ERP unique to Singapore?
User:Huaiwei sparked the conflicts in this edit, which he removed all content about ERP in Hong Kong while marking in the edit summary that the edit was an " Expand ". I went on to add the section on Hong Kong back, and expanded it. After that, Huaiwei had taken a Singapore-centric point of view that she/he moved the content on the Hong Kong system to the "implementation in other cities" section. He did the same again and said " the ERP is not unique enough for HK to have it mentioned in the first para. ", and " The ERP remains in existance only in Singapore thou ".

To my understanding Hong Kong was the first place on Earth to have considered to adopt the ERP, and to have conducted feasibility studies and pilot test. As the only city to have a running system called ERP fails to claim the uniqueness of ERP to Singapore, and justify her/his Singapore-centric point of view in editing. — Instantnood 07:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there is a misunderstanding here. There are two types of "ERP" we are talking about:

 * 1) "ERP", is an abbreviation for "electronic road pricing", refers to a technology, and a adjective phrase of a system/trial/plan etc.
 * 2) "ERP", is an abbreviation for "Electronic Road Pricing", refers an actual system used in Singapore (or in other countries, if it happened to be similarly named)
 * In the other version, where it says "Hong Kong ... conducted a trial run on an ERP system", this refers to the first meaning (i.e. technology); because the use of the "an", instead of "the", indicates so. This article with the title "Electronic Road Pricing" refers to the second meaning, the name of an actual system. I suggest the creation for another article with "Electronic road pricing (technology)" if deem necessary to do justice to the first meaning. --Vsion 07:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The system proposed and tested in Hong Kong is called Electronic Road Pricing. It happened that the Singaporean system used the same name a decade later, which, unlike the one in Hong Kong, has successfully been implemented. There's already an article on the technology in general at electronic toll collection. :-) — Instantnood 08:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * It was User:Huaiwei who changed the meaning in his edit :-) . — Instantnood 08:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that the text on HK should be moved to electronic toll collection or to its own page. As far as I read it, the ERP system discribed in this page is addresing the Singaporean system directly, and it is the official name of an implimented system. On the other hand, the trails on-going in HK dosent neccesarily mean the final system will be named as such. London, for example, chose to give it a different name. Meanwhile, I also dont think terminologies like this are "claimed" by the first users, if it is extablished as such (When did Singapore first come up with the idea, for eg?). The term ERP has similarly been used by many other cities, but it is now most closely associated with the system in Singapore.--Huaiwei 08:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The Hong Kong system has always been known as Electronic Road Pricing. Whether or not it is successfully implemented is irrelevant. By proposing to have this page solely for the system in Singapore you are effectively claiming its use on Wikipedia exclusively for the first and only user of a system with such a name. The opinion " is now most closely associated with the system in Singapore " is plain Singapore-centric. — Instantnood 09:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry lah, when the HK's ERP system is up, and the name doesn't changed, there will be a disambiguation page. Just like what was done for Mass Rapid Transit. :-) --Vsion 10:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey it's irrelevant whether it's an active system or not. There can be article for anything that is proposed, under planning or defunct. :-) — Instantnood 10:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is merely under planning, then what makes it any different from the plenty of other cities who are planning the same system, also called the ERP sometimes? These cities can be listed under the "Implementation in other cities" section, since a mere proposal usually dosent warrant an entire page on it. I dont know why this article should be interpreted as claiming it being "the first and only user of a system with such a name." Where is the evidence that HK came up with that name? And meanwhile, try using google, and we can all see that the ERP is much more associated with Singapore then any other city on earth.--Huaiwei 10:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That does not justify "Electronic Road Pricing" is unique to Singapore. Try search on Google and you can tell if Electronic Road Pricing in Hong Kong is notable. — Instantnood 12:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well well well, 236,000 (ERP + Singapore) vs 196,000 (ERP + Hong Kong). Does it speak for itself? :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * An SAR's evidence. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a third meaning of ERP: "Enterprise Resource Planning" which contributed most of the hits, you should instead try "Electronic Road Pricing" + Hong Kong  and "Electronic Road Pricing" + Singapore. Anyway I accept that the Hong Kong's ERP proposal  is called "Electronic Road Pricing" (based on the 2001 document), but since it is a proposal that has yet been approved, shouldn't it be titled something like Hong Kong Electronic Road Pricing proposal? -- Vsion 07:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course I use the full name...Abbreviation is implemented here mainly due to handiness, or rather, my laziness. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean you used the full name for the search engine test right? :-) — Instantnood 07:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not too sure if folks noe how to use google search properly, but when I used vision's suggestion, I get 990 results for "Electronic Road Pricing" + Hong Kong. "Electronic Road Pricing" + Singapore? 6,990 results (7 times more). And if I do a "Electronic Road Pricing" + Hong Kong - Singapore and vice versal search, I get 581 and 4,810 (8.27 times more) respectively. Does it speak for itself? :-) --Huaiwei 16:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course you can consider "times" "a lot" comparatively, but do you think "hundreds" is scarce as well? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * She/he is trying to claim sole right of the use of the term as article title on Wikipedia and to justify her/his Singapore-centric point of view in editing this article. :-) — Instantnood 16:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hahaha...if anyone is claiming sole right, no other city will be mentioned in this page at all. That is hardly the case, so I dont see how this anal retentive comment can appear.--Huaiwei 16:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So how much worth is 1000 when the other is 1,000,000,000? How much worth is your A- grade, when the rest of the class gets A+ before grade moderation? Practically nothing, if the grades are subsequently moderated.--Huaiwei 16:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's patent statistical trick, babe. Take homosexuality population as an example; it seems insignificant when compared with the total population on Earth. Should we ignore it, then? Certainly not. No matter how "small" the figure of a matter is, if it's of certain importance in particular aspects, I do believe it worth being recorded anyhow. ;-)
 * Furthermore, why not make ERP a general page, then divide original contents into pages like ERP (Singapore). Everything else is a comprimise. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not a statistical "trick". Its another typical example of our tendencies in "twisting information to suit our agendas". I do it, and so does every single one of you. the only issue is most of you refuse to admit it. Yes, of coz "homosexuality" is significant socially and should not be ignored. Here, was Hong Kong being ignored at all in this page? Dosent look like it at all. I repeat the need to remove knee-jerk emotive reactions when dealing with issues. If any of you are going to over-react and keep claiming that there is complete deletion or that kind of thing again when it is not so, I am simply going to just ignore your whines and grines. As for why the ERP is not made a genral page, simple. The ERP as it stands now physically exists only in Singapore, and should refer to the system here. Feasibility studies, until they come to fruitation, do not claim ownership of terminologies and phrases any more so then existing ones. It is not just this issue. We have all seen plenty of governmental proposals which gives their projects certain names. Are all of these names maintained when the proposals are realised? London didnt keep the same name despite using a system similar to Singapore's, and they get to keep their own page under a different name because it exists too.--Huaiwei 14:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather say it's a on-purpose twist, I would call it a reckless pooh-pooh of the fir in the eye. First, I have to re-emphasise that I did not "whine and grine" against any so-called complete deletion from alpha to omega, just wondering why someone would blame me for that non-existant complaint. Personally I don't like the ERP of Hong Kong is in the same page of that of Singapore; two sharing the same shoes is nothing to be pround of, after all. Unfortunately, our naughty SAR government acted out like an annoying copycat and applied the same name as the Singaporean system to its project. This is the fact. I have shown an official page to you guys already. What can I do then, huh? To tell Donald Tsang to erase the name from his Holiness' agenda? Not likely. Hong Kongers lack creativity, mind you. *sigh* -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Sometimes your comments does bring a smile to my face, despite it all. I mean...obviously not on the comment over the HK govt or watever (we hadent even yet established who used that term officially first, so dont be so quick to lambast yr govt, yeah? :D), but on just how honest your comments are. Well..your whining came in when you somehow sounds like there is an attempt here to totally deny any mention on HK. That isnt the case, was it? Whatever the case, I am not too concerned about multiple cities/locations appearing on one page, but if you guys are "used" to taking owneeship of everything, including that of wikipages, then why not just start a new page called Electronic Road Pricing in Hong Kong, or even Road tax collection in Hong Kong, for a more detailed article which can discuss existing measures to curb traffic flow there, as well as add content on the ERP studies, how they are expected to help, why they were not implimented before, and any futher prospects of it being implimented? I would think this is far more informative to the reader then this one little article. In fact, I am thinking of doing one for Sg too! :D--Huaiwei 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * ERP, although not implemented, is one of the main topics of the development of transport policy in Hong Kong. The pilot study in the 1980s was also a focus among academics and planners from different parts of the world who were specialists in transport and urban planning. It does not seem logical to claim its sole usage as a title to refer to the system in Singapore, just because it's the only active system under this name. It is irrelevant no matter it's a proposed, under planning, active or defunct system. — Instantnood 16:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC) (modified 16:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC))
 * Why should it not be relevant? A "main topic" dosent mean the name will be kept all the way to the finishing line. i have seen numerous governmental proposals seeing a name change, or multipl name changes, after a long period of idea conceptualisation and eventual implimentation. Do we need to make one page for each subsequent name change? Directs will do, if no one else uses that name. But when one existing system actually does use it, then who takes natural precedence? The answer is pretty obvious.--Huaiwei 16:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Preferences should not be automatically given to an active system. And as a matter of fact ERP is the only name used in Hong Kong over the the past two decades. — Instantnood 16:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh? So why should preference not be automaticaly given to an active system?--Huaiwei 11:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my response below. — Instantnood 16:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

(response to Jerry's comment at 15:19, 27 July 2005) Well.. quite the opposite.. it was Hong Kong the first place to propose the system, and to conduct a pilot test. Singapore later proposed the same thing under the same name (well, let's not say copied, or anybody a copycat), and implemented it. If the ultimate consensus is to split the article into Electronic Road Pricing (Hong Kong) and Electronic Road Pricing (Singapore), this page should then be a disambiguation (like what is done to MRT). — Instantnood 16:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Er? So when did Singapore started the ERP project, and when did it start using the term? I didnt have the information yet, so I am quite interested to know from what source you based this comment on. Meanwhile, the page Mass Rapid Transit has a major difference from what you propose: all three entities are existing systems. We dont seem to have planned, proposed, or scrapped MRT systems listed there, do we?--Huaiwei 16:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To repeat, whether it's proposed, under planning or scrapped is not necessarily relevant. — Instantnood 16:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * And to repeat, notice you still hadent said WHY its not relevant.--Huaiwei 11:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for haven't stated it explicitly. Notability is not necessarily related to, and shouldn't be solely determined based on whether the system is an active one. I've already stated why Hong Kong is notable in the study of ERP, and why ERP is notable to Hong Kong. — Instantnood 16:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, we all know why ERP is notable to HK. But you seem to refuse to comment on how much this "notability" compares to any other city, Singapore included. Singapore's ERP system is notable precisely because it is in existance, and its implimentation has been of great interest for other cities all over the world. That London decided to base their system on Singapore's shows an endorsement for its global notability and credibility. That even HK is often quoted for citing the systems in Singapore (and nowadays London) for its own feasibility studies again highlights this notability. Was the opposite phenomena (of Singapore citing HK) as prominent? No. Go ahead and try to proof this wrong. None of you are able to even show that the ERP is generally more notable in HK then it is in Singapore, either locally or on the global scene in fact, let alone this one. So if you want to dismiss the significance of physical existance compared to mere existance on paper, and claim that a feasibility study since 20 years ago (it was not even a continous study, btw, but was restarted many years later) is more "notable", then please show us why that should be so, particularly on the web or in general texts via any medium you can think of. If not, then i am afraid your comments hold little water and are hardly worthy for consideration here.--Huaiwei 17:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By comparing prominance and notability you're indeed speaking based on a judgment that can hardly be truly objective. How would you comment which is more notable? Georgia the country in the Caucasus or Georgia the American state? Macedonia the ancient Greek kingdom or Macedonia the Former Yugoslav Republic? — Instantnood 19:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I would say Macedonia the ancient empire and Georgia in the Caucasus. And also, if ERP is implemented in Hong Kong, Singapore's ERP is also unique as Singapore is the only country whose government apply ERP so frantically! sigh. You have to pay on pratically every road! *Every Road Pay* suits ERP. The new highway, KPE, has 16 ERP gantries.Joshywawa (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed
There was a dispute regarding the focus and the way of presentation of this article, which has not yet been settled. The current content and title do not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the versions. You may also read the other version and the difference between the two. See also the edit history. — Instantnood 08:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Value-laden Words
In the first line of the "Impact" section I removed the word "understandably" because it (intentionally or not) justified the 'drivers' opinion. If the article is going to support the opinion that the ERP is justifiably unpopular then it would have to argue that it is bad, at least for drivers. I think the value judgement was unintentional so I simply removed it instead of asking for a citation; similar to use of the word "most" in the same sentence. --TimTL 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect the Article to a Singapore's ERP
Despite the discussion above, it is now the time to rename this article to "Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing", since this general term applies to other systems now inmplemented troughout the world (such as Oslo, Santiago de Chile, London, and Stockholm). This will help to create a more general article on urban roads congestion pricing which also is incorrectly title as "Road Pricing". Just wiki road pricing or electronic toll collection to verify this claim. I updated the article to include London and Stockholm, which are also true congestion pricing schemes. The required references were provided.[User:Mariordo|Mariordo]] 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I am adding the "globalize" banner to request an administrator the title change. Mariordo 14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear to have missed the main gist of the discussion above. Electronic Road Pricing is the name of the specific electronic toll collection system in Singapore, hence its capitalisation. Until there exists another electronic toll collection system with the same name, there is no need to disambg this, nor is there a need to "globalise" it. Discussions on the London and Stolkholm systems goes under electronic toll collection, which is the general article, not here.--Huaiwei 15:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "Congestion Pricing" is a concept from economics. Singapore was the first to apply it for a CBD in an urban area. Now there are other schemes. Congestion pricing from the point of view of economics has been used a lot in commercial aviation, that's why you pay more during rush hours and during the holidays. As Singapore proved, you can have congestion pricing without the electronic toll collection. The more general article would be about congestion pricing, not the technologies, that, is already in electronic toll collection. Think about it.Mariordo 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have thought we are discussing the name of a "Congestion pricing/electronic toll collection/etc" system in operation in Singapore, but it is becoming apparent to me that you are still talking about the concept. Your comment do not seem to be different from my opinion that general discussions should go somewhere else, be it Congestion pricing (which redirects to Road pricing) or electronic toll collection. Meanwhile, I find your definition of "congestion pricing" a little odd. Congestion pricing in layman terms refers more to an effort to slap charges on users to discourage usage during peak periods to prevent congestion. Your analogy with airline ticket prices is more related to the basic business fundamental of raising prices when demand is here and supply is low in a bid to increase revenues. The essence of distributing demand over time may be similar, but the agenda to do so is profoundly different.--Huaiwei 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that wiki articles are aimed for the whole world, they are made with contributions from users all over the world, and we have to be objective and neutral. I do not participate in edit wars, nor do I like to go into discussions just for the sake of debate. Let me put additional arguments for the need to change the article's name to identify it only with Singapore, and the make it compatible with the main article regarding Road pricing:
 * There are already city specific articles on urban congestion pricing schemes implemented around the world, as you know, such as London congestion charge, Stockholm congestion tax, New York congestion pricing. Singapore is just another case. All these specific articles should branch out from a main article, such as Road pricing or "Road congestion pricing" which I am intending to contribute with.
 * The subject of congestion pricing could be discussed in other languages (I intent to do it in Spanish and Portuguese), which unfortunately do not have a word by word translation of the term "congestion pricing" or to "electronic road pricing", therefore, country or city tags are a must to explain the concept and the specific cases.
 * For example, Curitiba, in Brazil, was the first city to successfully implement a high-capacity bus lane system in the world, now known as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Together with Singapore's congestion pricing schemes, they are both well-known in the transportation community as textbook examples of good practices, and it took almost two decades to be successfully implemented in other cities of the world. Take a look at the BRT article, Curitiba appears listed as just one of the cases, as it should be. Curitiba also has an specific name for its system, "Rede Integrada de Transporte" (RIT), which translates to Integrated Transport Network. As it is the case with Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing, the wording defines a general term, that can be used by others. So, in a worldwide article, I think these schemes must be referred with a city tag, such as Curitiba's RIT or Singapore's ERP.

Finally, in commercial aviation I was referring to congestion pricing by the airport authorities, this is charging higher fees for use of the airport facilities during congested hours, which of course are passed by the airlines to ticket prices. This is not the place to start a discussion about theory of economics. Let's try to reach a concensus and bring some other users to this discussion.

PD: the content of the ERP article is very interesting, but as someone above commented, it needs references. Mariordo (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My quick comment with regards to the RIT. The RIT article happens to be at Rede Integrada de Transporte and not at Bus rapid transit. Rede Integrada de Transporte do not even translate as bus rapid transit. This cannot compare to the situation above regarding the ERP, because Bus rapid transit is not the official name of the RIT and is not the only operating BRT system in the world which uses the BRT name. The name Electronic Road Pricing is used by only one operating electronic toll collection system in the world. Until another similar-named system appears, there is little valid reason to "globalise" this article, because it is simply not a general article in the first place. It seems that the arguments are simply not moving forward, for the same arguments are being regurgitated again and again.

 * As for aviation, please think again. All things remaining the same, is your airline ticket for a peak hour flight more expensive than one during off-peak hours? Certainly not. Which particular fees do you refer to, that you claim will affect ticket prices in a direct way such that there is price differentiation based on flight time? And where is your evidence that these higher fees are slapped on to discourage peak hour usage, instead of a simple case of demand out-stripping supply?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I already said, my point is that both schemes must be referred with a city tag, such as Curitiba's RIT or Singapore's ERP. And tickets might be more expensive only at airports using a congestion pricing strategy to regulate peak demand.
 * I agree with you we are going around and around with this issue. Let's wait to see if someone else enters the discussion.Mariordo (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to the RIT, I would disagree, unless another system of equal or higher notability claims the name of Rede Integrada de Transporte. Ditto to the ERP case. I kinda wonder what you would say about article names like MTR then, where I tried on three occasions but failed to move the article to Mass Rapid Transit or even MTR (Hong Kong?--Huaiwei (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Singapore or ERP was not the first electronic toll collection system of the world on urban corridors
Indeed the first successful implementation of a congestion pricing scheme in the world was Singapore's Area Licensing Scheme in 1975 (see Road pricing Singapore's experience).

And thanks to technological advances in electronic toll collection (ETC), remote detection with GPS, and video surveillance technology, charging congestion prices became relatively less cumbersome than in the past, therefore, several cities in the world now use it (for congestion pricing or for regular road tolling), as one section of the ERP article explains and references to other wiki articles of cities with urban traffic congestion pricing schemes. Also, as the article says, Singapore upgraded its system in 1998, but it is not truth, as the opening paragraph says, that "It is the first city in the world to implement an electronic toll collection system". The type of ETC must be explained, let's see why.

As anyone can check following the next references (see and ). ETC was implemented first in Norway's three major cities: Bergen (1986), Oslo (1990), and Trondheim (1991). Let's make clear that Singapore is the first city in the world to implement an electronic toll collection system  but only for congestion pricing purposes ( this is, around a screenline CBD zone where the scheme is enforced). Since Singapore uses also the ERP to toll urban corridors, a distinction must be made. Also, the Norwegian system charges over urban freeways and in the beginning was not 100% free-flow (now at least Oslo is and Singapore's ERP was from the beginning), nor the Norwegian ring toll was intended for congestion pricing, but rather for generating revenues for a urban highway fund.

Therefore, that sentence needs to be re-written to limit the scope of the world's first. Before doing that (I have been trying to improve the reference of the ERP article, since it is a keystone reference for transportation planners, economist and engineers), I prefer to raise the issue, and listen to other points of view, before editing the sentence in question. Mariordo (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You raised a valid point, but the solution may be much simplier. Check around various sources, and most will refer to the ERP as "the first of its kind in the world" or something similar. "first of its kind" is the key word which may be suitable for the opening paragraph, but elaborated in length later in the article.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Before working a bit on this article (to include some references, the evolution, some specific numeric results), I decided to improve first the Singapore Area Licensing Scheme, adding some more info and references. Huaiwei, I would like you to take a look, and edit any mistake I might inadvertently made, since I never visited Singapore, though I am very familiarized with demand management in your country. Also, that is an example of the intended editing I planning to do for the ERP article, and much of the reference are the same (actually, there are some more). Thanks. Please if you find anything controversial, let's talk it over on the ALS Talk page. Mariordo (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Modern Influences?
ERP has created a major impact to the Singaporean society, and as usual, local filmaker Jack Neo has decided to take advantage of the event, and make a movie of it. It's chinese; but it's called Money No Enough 2. I'm not talking in Singlish, but it was officialy called that. So, should I change and add a section?Is "zheliel" me? 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

USERBOXES!
ERP now has it's own userboxes!

Is "zheliel" me? 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Oops! I left out my signature lol. Is "zheliel" me? 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? (Citation needed)
"The ERP was implemented by the Land Transport Authority in September 1998 [1] to replace the Singapore Area Licensing Scheme [2] after successfully stress-testing the system with speeding Lamborghinis, Porsches and Ferraris."

I find this claim a bit dubious at best. Until I see some proof of it elsewhere I'm removing it for now and replacing the highlighted part with something more generic. --A.K.R. (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Electronic Road Pricing. Clearly meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria; only one in opposition and not for reasons based in policy or guidelines. If there is a generic use of the term, it seems to be very obscure. Born2cycle (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Electronic Road Pricing (Singapore) → Electronic Road Pricing — Only one of such system is actually implemented and most people who come to the page are actually looking at for the Singapore system rather than the proposed Hong Kong system which has not been implemented nor received any recent updates. Thus there isn't really a need to have a disambiguation page between the two. Also to differentiate between the two we can add the following header to this page:  Kiasu Kiasi Man  12:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment it seems as though there should be a topic article about electronic road pricing at the primary name, with the Singapore and HK articles as subarticles of it. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment any separate article created about it would simply be content forking from the singapore article given its the only system that's in existence. So there really isn't a need nor is it possible to create a separate article without content forking from this article. Kiasu Kiasi Man 14:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support per nomination. Until a second scheme comes into being a general article is not required, as it would only draw from the Singapore example anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. I have no problem with the IP editors suggestion above, but it would require re-writing and I don't see anyone doing that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oppose. The articles names as they are now (Singapore & Hong Kong) are easier to find for the general public and less confusing. The Hong Kong ERP certainly failed, but it is history, and as such, can not be ignored. Also, the term "electronic road pricing" is very generic (see congestion pricing, road pricing, electronic toll collection), so the country name serves a purpose.-Mariordo (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the Singapore instance is primary) and WP:TWODABS (no dab page is needed with only two pages — just use hatnotes). —   AjaxSmack   17:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Electronic Road Pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070819051556/http://www.dn.se:80/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1298 to http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1298&a=676098

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Electronic Road Pricing. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lta.gov.sg/motoring_matters/index_motoring_erp.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302045327/http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____17154.aspx to http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____17154.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070709043015/http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____10911.aspx to http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____10911.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715053128/http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se:80/ to http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410143342/http://www.lta.gov.sg/motoring_matters/index_motoring_erp.htm to http://www.lta.gov.sg/motoring_matters/index_motoring_erp.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130803020914/http://tripsum.xeesa.com:80/ to http://tripsum.xeesa.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic Road Pricing. 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/20110707153706/http://yongerp.appspot.com/ to http://yongerp.appspot.com/

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) 16:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest adding a map
A map showing where the tolling locations are at along with the affected roads would be useful. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electronic Road Pricing


text:
Mueller calculus

Mueller calculus is a matrix method for manipulating Stokes vectors, which represent the polarization of light. It was developed in 1943 by Hans Mueller. In this technique, the effect of a particular optical element is represented by a Mueller matrix—a 4×4 matrix that is an overlapping generalization of the Jones matrix.

Introduction
Disregarding coherent wave superposition, any fully polarized, partially polarized, or unpolarized state of light can be represented by a Stokes vector ($\vec{S}$); and any optical element can be represented by a Mueller matrix (M).

If a beam of light is initially in the state $$\vec{S}_i$$ and then passes through an optical element M and comes out in a state $$\vec{S}_o$$, then it is written

 * $$ \vec{S}_o = \mathrm{M} \vec{S}_i \ .$$

If a beam of light passes through optical element M1 followed by M2 then M3 it is written

 * $$ \vec{S}_o = \mathrm{M}_3 \left(\mathrm{M}_2 \left(\mathrm{M}_1 \vec{S}_i\right) \right)$$

given that matrix multiplication is associative it can be written

 * $$ \vec{S}_o = \mathrm{M}_3 \mathrm{M}_2 \mathrm{M}_1 \vec{S}_i \ .$$

Matrix multiplication is not commutative, so in general

 * $$ \mathrm{M}_3 \mathrm{M}_2 \mathrm{M}_1 \vec{S}_i \ne \mathrm{M}_1 \mathrm{M}_2 \mathrm{M}_3 \vec{S}_i \ .$$

Mueller vs. Jones calculi
With disregard for coherence, light which is unpolarized or partially polarized must be treated using the Mueller calculus, while fully polarized light can be treated with either the Mueller calculus or the simpler Jones calculus. Many problems involving coherent light (such as from a laser) must be treated with Jones calculus, however, because it works directly with the electric field of the light rather than with its intensity or power, and thereby retains information about the phase of the waves. More specifically, the following can be said about Mueller matrices and Jones matrices: Stokes vectors and Mueller matrices operate on intensities and their differences, i.e. incoherent superpositions of light; they are not adequate to describe either interference or diffraction effects.

(...)

Any Jones matrix [J] can be transformed into the corresponding Mueller–Jones matrix, M, using the following relation:
 * $$ \mathrm{M = A(J \otimes J^*)A^{-1}}$$,

where * indicates the complex conjugate [ sic ], [A is:]
 * $$\mathrm{A} =

\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 &  1 \\    1 &  0 & 0 & -1 \\    0 &  1 & 1 &  0 \\    0 & i & -i &  0 \\ \end{pmatrix} $$ and ⊗ is the tensor (Kronecker) product.

(...)

While the Jones matrix has eight independent parameters [two Cartesian or polar components for each of the four complex values in the 2-by-2 matrix], the absolute phase information is lost in the [equation above], leading to only seven independent matrix elements for a Mueller matrix derived from a Jones matrix.

Mueller matrices
Below are listed the Mueller matrices for some ideal common optical elements:

General expression for reference frame rotation from the local frame to the laboratory frame:

\begin{pmatrix} 1 &               0 &               0 & 0 \\    0 &  \cos{(2\theta)} & \sin{(2\theta)} & 0 \\ 0 & -\sin{(2\theta)} & \cos{(2\theta)} & 0 \\ 0 &               0 &               0 & 1  \end{pmatrix} \quad $$

where $$\theta$$ is the angle of rotation. For rotation from the laboratory frame to the local frame, the sign of the sine terms inverts.

{1 \over 2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\   1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\    0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\    0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \end{pmatrix} $$
 * Linear polarizer (horizontal transmission): $$

The Mueller matrices for other polarizer rotation angles can be generated by reference frame rotation. {1 \over 2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\   -1 &  1 & 0 & 0 \\     0 &  0 & 0 & 0 \\     0 &  0 & 0 & 0  \end{pmatrix} $$
 * Linear polarizer (vertical transmission): $$

{1 \over 2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\   0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\    1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\    0 & 0 & 0 & 0  \end{pmatrix} $$
 * Linear polarizer (+45° transmission): $$

{1 \over 2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\    0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \\    -1 & 0 &  1 & 0 \\     0 & 0 &  0 & 0  \end{pmatrix} $$
 * Linear polarizer (−45° transmission) : $$

{1 \over 2} \begin{pmatrix} 1              & \cos{(2\theta)}             & \sin{(2\theta)}            & 0 \\ \cos{(2\theta)} & \cos^2(2\theta)            & \cos(2\theta)\sin(2\theta) & 0 \\ \sin{(2\theta)} & \cos(2\theta)\sin(2\theta) & \sin^2(2\theta)            & 0 \\ 0              &      0                      &         0                  & 0  \end{pmatrix} \quad $$ where $$\theta$$ is the angle of rotation of the polarizer.
 * General linear polarizer matrix: $$

\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0                                                       &      0                                                          & 0 \\    0 &  \cos^2(2\theta) + \sin^2(2\theta)\cos(\delta)           & \cos(2\theta)\sin(2\theta)\left(1 - \cos(\delta)\right)   &  \sin(2\theta)\sin(\delta) \\ 0 & \cos(2\theta)\sin(2\theta)\left(1 - \cos(\delta)\right) & \cos^2(2\theta)\cos(\delta) + \sin^2(2\theta)             & -\cos(2\theta)\sin(\delta) \\ 0 & -\sin(2\theta)\sin(\delta)                              & \cos(2\theta)\sin(\delta)                                 &  \cos(\delta) \end{pmatrix} \quad $$
 * General linear retarder (wave plate calculations are made from this): $$
 * where $$\delta$$ is the phase difference between the fast and slow axis and $$\theta$$ is the angle of the fast axis.

\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\    0 & 1 & 0 &  0 \\    0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\    0 & 0 & 1 &  0  \end{pmatrix} $$ \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\    0 & 1 &  0 & 0 \\    0 & 0 &  0 & 1 \\    0 & 0 & -1 & 0  \end{pmatrix} $$ \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 &  0 \\    0 & 1 &  0 &  0 \\    0 & 0 & -1 &  0 \\    0 & 0 &  0 & -1  \end{pmatrix} $$ {1 \over 4} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\   0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\    0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\    0 & 0 & 0 & 1  \end{pmatrix} \quad $$
 * Quarter-wave plate (fast-axis vertical): $$
 * Quarter-wave plate (fast-axis horizontal): $$
 * Half-wave plate (fast-axis horizontal and vertical; also, ideal mirror): $$
 * Attenuating filter (25% transmission): $$

Mueller tensors
The Mueller/Stokes architecture can also be used to describe non-linear optical processes, such as multi-photon excited fluorescence and second harmonic generation. The Mueller tensor can be connected back to the laboratory-frame Jones tensor by direct analogy with Mueller and Jones matrices.
 * $$ \mathrm{M}^{(2)} = \mathrm{A}\left(\chi^{(2)*} \otimes \chi^{(2)}\right): \mathrm{A}^{-1}\mathrm{A}^{-1}$$,

where $$M^{(2)}$$ is the rank three Mueller tensor describing the Stokes vector produced by a pair of incident Stokes vectors, and $$\chi^{(2)}$$ is the 2×2×2 laboratory-frame Jones tensor.

Other sources

 * E. Collett (2005) Field Guide to Polarization, SPIE Field Guides vol. FG05, SPIE ISBN 0-8194-5868-6.
 * Eugene Hecht (1987) Optics, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley ISBN 0-201-11609-X.
 * N. Mukunda and others (2010) "A complete characterization pre-Mueller and Mueller matrices in polarization optics", Journal of the Optical Society of America A 27(2): 188 to 99
 * William Shurcliff (1966) Polarized Light: Production and Use, chapter 8 Mueller Calculus and Jones Calculus, page 109, Harvard University Press.
 * William Shurcliff (1966) Polarized Light: Production and Use, chapter 8 Mueller Calculus and Jones Calculus, page 109, Harvard University Press.

title: Mueller calculus


text:
Bayfront MRT station

Bayfront MRT station is an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) interchange station on the Downtown line (DTL) and Circle line (CCL). Located in the Downtown Core of Singapore, the station is underneath Bayfront Avenue and serves the main tourist attractions of Marina Bay Sands and Gardens by the Bay.

The station was first announced in 2005 as part of the Downtown Extension of the CCL, which was later revised to be the first stage of the DTL. In 2007, it was also announced that the station would interchange with the CCL branch to Marina Bay station. CCL services to the station first commenced in January 2012, while DTL services began in December 2013. The station features an Art-in-Transit artwork When the Ships Comes In by Lee Wen.

History
On 14 June 2005, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced that Bayfront station would be part of the Downtown Extension (DTE) from Milennia station (now Promenade) to Chinatown. The station would serve the upcoming integrated resort, now known as Marina Bay Sands. Initially planned to be a branch of the Circle line (CCL), the DTE was revised to be the first stage of the Downtown line (DTL) in 2007. The station would also be an interchange station with the 2.4 km CCL branch to Marina Bay station.

The initial Chinese name for Bayfront station (贝弗兰) generated some controversy. Deputy local news editor of the Chinese-speaking newspaper Lianhe Zaobao Chua Chim Kang criticised the translation, calling it "meaningless" and perceived it as an "erosion" of the Chinese language. LTA subsequently changed the provisional Chinese name for the station to its existing translation that reflected the "maritime flavour" of the area served by the station, with "海湾" meaning "bay" and "舫" meaning "small boats".

The contract for the station's construction and associated tunnels was awarded to Sembawang Engineers & Constructors for sgd463000000 (US$ million) in November 2007. The northern end of the station was designed by the developer of the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort. The station construction required coordination with Marina Bay Sands to integrate the station design with the resort. As announced on 28 November 2011, the station opened on 14 January 2012, with an official opening ceremony the day before. The DTL platforms commenced operations on 22 December 2013.

Station details
Bayfront station is a cross-platform interchange between the CCL and DTL with two island platforms. From the north, the CCL and DTL go towards Promenade MRT station. To the south, the DTL goes towards Downtown station while the CCL goes towards Marina Bay station. The official station code is CE1/DT16.

Located under Bayfront Avenue close to Marina Bay, Bayfront station serves Marina Bay Sands and Gardens by the Bay. The station has five entrances. Other landmarks surrounding the station include Helix Bridge, Art Science Museum, Merlion Park, Red Dot Design Museum, and The Fullerton Hotel.

Public art

When the Ship Comes In by Lee Wen is displayed along the station concourse as part of the Art-in-Transit programme, a showcase of public artworks on the MRT network. The work depicts a series of ships hand-drawn by Singaporean children aged 7 to 12. Based on fantasy or other existing ships, the designs included boats powered by whales and dragons, or those made of food and recycled bottles.

The display pays tribute to the importance of Singapore as a port of call. The children's artwork recalls the history and projects the children's hope for the future. The artwork title is inspired by a Bob Dylan song of the same name, and the artist hoped to reflect the song's message of the value of life.

Over one thousand ship designs were created through workshops held in various primary schools and coordinated by the artist and his friends, including Chye Teck and Chun Kaiqun. Due to the limited space of the canvas, only some were selected based on the creativity of the design rather than how well-drawn the ships were. These were scanned into digital images, before the work was silkscreened on vitreous enamel panels.

title: Bayfront MRT station


text: User talk:203.123.23.139

title: User talk:203.123.23.139