Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 December 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 13

Albert The East German of Leith

Hi. Albert here. Just wondered if anyone would like another view on Leith. I did graduate from the Citadel in 1978 and have a History Degree. Many of the facts have been created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.240.138 (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about Leith? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to contribute a new article, it is well worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article. There are a lot of steps, but you can get help and mentoring at the Wikipedia:Teahouse.70.67.222.124 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you think a Wikipedia article contains "created facts", point them out on that article's Talk page. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For Pictures please open an account unter a name of your choice, both under/in commons.wikimedia.org ((pictures/media Library of wikipedia) which is by the way also available with german language commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite) and aswell right here in the "article" Section, so that you can edit with your name attached instead of an IP and have your very own personal discussion page for questions, conversations and addressing you (check out mine to see how that looks User talk:Kharon). Of course you a also welcome to open an account in the german wikipedia, to edit articles here.

Become a Wikipedian! Its free, its easy to set up and you will find allot of friendly "wikipedians" everywhere here. Im German too, by the way. In case you need help or answers to anything, you are invited to ask on/use my User talk:Kharon( von mir aus auch in Deutsch). I check in here almost every day. --Kharon (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Write-in votes

What basis does Donald Trump have for saying that write-in votes "played a very big factor" (sic) in the defeat of Roy Moore? How many write-in votes were there, and who were they for? Without knowing these things, it seems to me that there's no way of telling which candidate benefited most from write-ins. --Viennese Waltz 08:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Trump makes up a lot of stuff.[1] Although he could be talking about write-in candidates drawing enough votes to affect the race, as per this speculation from a news page.[2] This item[3] shows the vote tally, with over 22,000 write-ins. Jones beat Moore by about 21,000. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, those links are helpful. OK, so if all of those 22,000 write-ins had voted for Moore instead, then he might have won. But we don't know what the likelihood of that is unless we know who the write-ins were for. Your second link mentions a sculptor and a football coach, and goes on to say that the write-ins won't be counted unless their number exceeds the difference between the two candidates, which it seems like it will. Even then, they won't be counted for a week, so until then there's no way of knowing to what extent they influenced the result. Conclusion: Trump is talking nonsense, as usual. --Viennese Waltz 09:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Bingo. I took a quick look for maybe some poll data about who those folks "would have" voted for (if anyone), had there been no write-in candidates, but I didn't find anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• There are only two ways (technically feasible ways, if implausible) that those write-in votes could change or influence this. On the whole, write-ins just have no effect on a first-past-the-post system with a large turnout.

1. A 21k difference between the two candidates, and 22k write-ins, where almost all of those write-ins were votes for Moore who chose to write-in instead. Once counted, they could change the balance of what was a very close result (21k on 650k is only 1.5%, that's closer than the brexit referendum). However the idea of that many Moore voters choosing to write instead would be unprecedented. As it's possible though, those votes will probably need to be counted.
2. "22k Moore voters were persuaded to write-in for Vermin Supreme or Courteney Cox instead of Moore." That would indeed have "played a very big factor", as Trump claimed. However that's their vote (and valid in the US) and it's their choice to turn from Moore, even at the last minute. Certainly large numbers of Moore voters seem to have shifted to Jones just to give the results we have seen, and shifts to a write-in, or not voting, are no stranger than this. Trump has no right to complain about any of this, although that's unlikely to stop him. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand the last sentence of your first point. Why do those write-in votes need to be counted? Since they were by definition not votes for either Moore or Jones, what possible difference could they make to the final outcome? EDIT: Are you saying that someone might write Moore's name on the ballot paper, and put their X there, instead of next to his printed name? --Viennese Waltz 16:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Alabama, but in my state, it is the duty of election officials (I'm one of those) to establish the true intent of the voter, even if the ballot wasn't marked the way it was intended to be marked. In my state, if the voter writes in the name of a candidate who's name is preprinted on the ballot, instead of just marking the box next to the preprinted name, it still counts as a vote for that candidate. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Are they so by definition? Moore could walk away from this now, concede defeat and ride off into the sunset (although he rides worse than I do). However his campaign seem to be pushing for a count of everything, as pointless as that might seem.

As I read the rules (which is scantily), it's possible that nearly all of these write-in votes could be votes for Moore. That would be bizarre, but can't be ruled out - so they'd have to be counted to prove that they weren't. I hope they make Moore do it himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The end of the world

When will the world end?--193.163.223.192 (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you looking for a scientific answer or a religious answer? Blueboar (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If ‘scientific answer’ encompasses millions of years, then my answer would be ‘religious answer.’--193.163.223.192 (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Under which religious tradition? --Jayron32 15:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Christendom.--193.163.223.192 (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

When it's done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not until AFTER Jerusalem is recognized as the capital of Israel. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, some American weirdo evangelical cults want that followed by Armageddon which they see as a war with atom bombs - it is what they believe is foretold for the end of days and when they will experience the Rapture. See for example Armageddon? Bring It On: The Evangelical Force Behind Trump's Jerusalem Speech. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

When all The Nine Billion Names of God have been listed. Or are you asking about the end of the Earth? See Future of Earth about that. It'll probably be destroyed by the sun in 7.5 billion years but will be lifeless in four billion years. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke meets Rod Serling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Real Soon Now. Wnt (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

When the stars are right. Iapetus (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ded link.--193.163.223.192 (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The answer is "in a little over half an hour". See Milliways. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The "religious" answer, which actually applies in most religions, is very simple: We don't know - so be ready for it; live your life as if it was just about to happen. Wymspen (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As noted in Second Coming, Jesus Himself does not know when the end of the world will be. If He doesn't know, it's not likely any mortal being would. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And from that supposing the universe would end anyway in a heat death a few thousand billion years we can work backwards via the Unexpected hanging paradox to know the universe will never end. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• The answer for the OP can be found at the Wikipedia article Eschatology, which is a big enough topic to lead them wherever they need to go, barring a response to clarifying questions asked of them above. --Jayron32 17:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cruelty to a fish?

I just saw this about people being charged with "aggravated animal cruelty" for dragging a shark behind a boat. Question is -- what distinguishes this legally from the common hobby of angling where people drag fish out of the water by a hook in the mouth? Or fishing with minnows where you put the hook in one eye and out the other? Is there some special rule for "big" fish, regardless of phylogenetic position, or is this just the general case where doing anything weird in public gets you sent to jail, regardless of legislation? Wnt (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no difference - in Britain angling has not been made illegal because it's a vote loser. Sometimes there's a party political divide - many Tories support hunting, Labour doesn't. 86.171.242.205 (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It's probably the "aggravated" that's at play. Being wantonly cruel, with no benefit to anyone or anything, is usually viewed distastefully. Compare having a dog euthanized (or even shot) with dragging it to death behind a car. Like most things on a scale without rigorously defined gradations, there's an element of "I know it when I see it" at play. Matt Deres (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The legal concept at play here is mens rea. The difference between normal fishing and aggravated animal cruelty is the state of mind of the person committing the act. Acts for the purpose of being cruel are taken as different than acts for other purposes. --Jayron32 15:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There are many places in the U.S. where, by official edit, only "catch and release" fishing is permitted. But what is the point of catch and release fishing other than to torment the fish for no reason? So far this is backing the weird = prison mnemonic, but I'm not sure there's nothing you missed. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"Compare having a dog euthanized (or even shot)"

Euthanizing a dog is legal in Greece, and is considered inevitable when it is suffering from terminal diseases or extreme pain. Shooting the dog is illegal and can lead to heavy fines or short-term imprisonment. The European Union has passed several directives concerning the Protection of animals, and most of its member states changed their legislations in order to criminalize various forms of animal abuse. Here is an overview on European legislations concerning animal welfare: https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-european-animal-welfare-laws-2003-present-explaining-downturn Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that shooting a dog was illegal in Greece. Are there other countries where there is a blanket law against shooting dogs? Obviously, one would not do so without good reason. Dbfirs 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Obviously the shark isn't thinking "cruelty" because it doesn't have language or the ability to conceptualize cruelty. But humans do, so some of us recoil at causing an animal suffering for the sake of causing it suffering. We do know that vertebrates have a common pain/pleasure mechanism and that children who torture animals are more likely to become killers, with one study discovering 35 out of 35 serial killers began with animal victims. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yah, and everyone who rams a crowd of people with a delivery truck started off in a driver's ed class... Wnt (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That's got to be tongue in cheek right? Cause obviously "took drivers ed" is a slightly worse predictor, at least in the US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I bet 35 out of 35 people who drove into crowds for ISIS (if we're up to that yet...) had some form of driver education. Seriously, A -> B does not mean B -> A. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Do not trust @Wnt:. He has a nose, just like 99.9999% percent of all terrorists... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Wnt is sensitive on this subject because of the number of dogs he has buried in his basement or due to an encounter in his tender years with an abusive failed phys. ed. major who was hired by a driving school. In any case, driver's ed is not a slightly less risky version of beginner's terrorism; so the analogy, if perhaps telling in a confessional sense, fails logically. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Is "a driver's ed class" what we in Britain know as "a driving lesson"? 86.169.56.46 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In the New Jersey high school of my youth one period a day 4 periods a week was set aside for physical education. One marking period (a quarter) of the junior year (when people were of the age to get road learner's permits) was set aside for driver's ed, which consisted of lectures, films, and simulated driving in car mock-ups where speed, signalling, and steering were monitored by the instructor. The law, safe driving, rules of the road (like right of way) and decision making (hit a bush, rather than a wall or a cow if forced into an accident) were all taught. It was a very practical and ethical course. The fun part was when we were watching a driving movie from our vehicles and the hoods (bonnets) popped open while we were on the highway. You had to duck and peer through the gap and safely navigate yourself to the side of the road.

Actual driving lessons began on the road after you passed a written exam at the county office and were issued a learner's permit. You could hire an agency, but were allowed to practice with any fully-licensed driver in the passenger seat during daylight hours. I was taught by my father and chaperoned by my mother. I taught many friends and both my sisters.

We also had a few quarters set aside for sex ed, starting at puberty and then in more detail as we matured. Unfortunately there was no drivers/sex ed class, which might have saved me a bit of trouble on a few occasions. One thing I did learn from a cop was that if you leave your windows cracked they don't get all steamed up, which is a dead giveaway. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Did no other well-known movies have the windows fog up besides Titanic? I'd have 10 more years of education if you girls would just be interested before I lose interest (right, when I'm too old for you that's when you gain interest. Sheesh.) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I never saw Titanic. Living through 9/11 made the idea of romanticized mass slaughter as entertainment quite offensive. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• BTW, Wnt, where did you learn the barbaric practice of baiting minnows through the eyes? I suppose that kiled them. My father taught us to put the hook through the gill operculum and out the mouth so the minnow was not punctured and swam upright. My policy (to my father's chagrin) was to release each minnow that survived a cast. And we always either ate what we caught, or in the case of dogfish, brained them and used them as bait. The bait bucket was kept well watered, and again, to my father's dismay, I released the survivors at the end of an outing, when he'd have left them to eat each other until the following day. I don't even throw out acorns; I take the can full of them to the woods to feed the squirrels or fend for themselves, rather than make a trip to the landfill. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Have there been any proposals to allow United States senators to vote in absentia?

Hello. If Doug Jones is confirmed as the winner, GOP will have a 51-49 edge plus VP Mike Pence's tie-breaking vote. Currently five U.S. states prohibit their governors from filling Senate vacancies, meaning that if even just one of their four Republican current senators passes away or resigns in 2018 (like Al Franken did) AND if any senator skips a session, then the Senate will likely experience partisan deadlocks pending the outcome of the special election.

So, have there been any proposals to allow US senators to vote in absentia for valid reasons like being in hospital? I googled but couldn't find any. I've also read the U.S. Constitution, which AFAIK does not require Senators and Representatives to vote in person.

P. S. Sorry if my question is against the guidelines. --Синкретик (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Constitution says that the House and Senate can define their own procedural rules, so any such proposal would likely have come from within. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Proxy voting is allowed in senate committees, but not during regular senate sessions. There have been, as recent as 2014, serious discussion of allowing remote voting (i.e. using technology to participate in proceedings from a remote location without being bodily present), but that doesn't appear to, as yet, have gone anywhere. As Bugs notes, Article One of the United States Constitution, section 5, clause 2 notes that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings", which means that either house can (and can independently, separate from each other) decide at any time to change its voting rules to allow proxy voting and/or remote voting or other means of taking votes in absentia. They just currently do not allow it. If a senator is in the hospital, on main floor votes, he or she simply does not get a vote. --Jayron32 15:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Here in Australia, whilst an MP cannot "vote in absentia", there is a fairly strong tradition of "pairing" for an MP absent due to no fault of their own. If a Liberal MP is unavoidably missing, the Labor party will agree to have one of their own members take absence as a "pair", and vice versa. However, this only works in countries which operate on party discipline, meaning members vote along party lines. I can't easily see it working in the USA, where MPs are allowed to vote however they like, rather than along party lines. It's also just a sort of "gentleman's agreement" thing - there is no obligation for the other party to offer a pair, and for major critical issues, they may well decline to do so. I don't know if absence due to the circumstance you describe would be one where a "pair" would be offered or not. Eliyohub (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

One nitpick: In America, they're called congressmen and senators. "MP" in America would typically be understood to mean "Military Police". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Since Vice-President Mike Pence can cast a tie-breaker vote if the Senate is deadlocked (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4 of the US Constitution), I don't see how this issue would arise. Ties effectively mean whichever party holds the Presidency wins the vote. 129.67.118.236 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it also means that it takes less republicans to "defect" in order to get past the tie limit. A 50-50 vote goes to Pence, but a 49-51 vote doesn't. Every less Republican in their party requires more vote discipline, and there's already 3-4 Republicans who have already shown a willingness to break party ranks regularly. Now you need one less of those. --Jayron32 00:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The VP does not get to vote unless the vote is a tie, so is a senator is missing or abstains and the result is 49-50, the VP does not vote. -Arch dude (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Logically speaking, there's not even any point in the VP voting unless it's already tied. If it's 49-50, the result of the VP voting would either be 50-50 or 49-51. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A vote needs a yes majority to pass. If the VP was allowed to cast a vote after 50 yes and 49 no then he could prevent a pass with a no vote. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Since the founding fathers didn't want ties in the Senate, they authorized the VP to vote only if there's a tie among the real senators. No point in allowing the non-senator to create a tie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The obverse often happens (or has happened) as a courtesy both in the US and elsewhere. When a voter from one party needs to be absent, the other party often agrees (has agreed) to have one of their own abstain to maintain the balance. See, as Eliyohub alludes to, Pair (parliamentary convention). μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Paternity rights for human owners of pets and other animals

Actual happening:

Neighbor 1 had a tomcat named Buffalo. Neighbor 2 had a "queen" (unspayed female cat) named Princess. Neighbor 1's cat got neighbor 2's cat pregnant, and she went on to have a litter of three kittens. (Both were later spayed, but it was too late at that point. They were both very young when this happened).

My hypothetical question is, would neighbor 1 (Buffalo's owner) have any legal claim to one of the kittens, or the value thereof?

As it actually happened, neighbor 1 almost certainly never found out that his then-tomcat had knocked another cat up. But I'm curious about the theoretical aspects to the legal issue, had the owner of the tomcat found out, and demanded his "share".

Moggies (non-purebred cats) are not very valuable, so with them, this issue is relatively unlikely to arise. But there are other animals whose (stud) bloodlines are valuable, such as elite stud racehorses. What if a mare gets an unplanned knocking-up by one of these elite studs jumping a fence and impregnating the mare, in the absence of a breeding agreement between the owners? Does the stud's owner have any legal claim to the foal(s), or a portion of the value thereof? (For the sake of this question, assume the stud was the trespasser onto the mare's property, not vice versa. Or they managed to have their illicit liaison on "common property").

(I've heard of GM crops fertilizing non-GM crops, and legal questions arising as to intellectual property rights, but this may be an urban myth, and I'm not sure if the situations are analogous).

@John M Baker: I'm pinging you just because you're our resident lawyer, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts. All others welcome to share their views too. Eliyohub (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the offspring or increase of tame or domestic animals belongs to the owner of the dam or mother. 3B C.J.S. Animals § 6. It doesn't sound like anything here would affect that general rule. Title to the property is irrelevant. John M Baker (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Pick of the litter" is a pretty standard arrangement if the owner of the sire asks for it. That's custom, not law. When my father bred our blonde shepherd with a white stud he offered the owner pick of the litter and the sire's owner took it, although she produced no white pups. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There is an ancient tradition in many pastoral and agricultural communities whereby a young man, aspiring to a flock and farm of his own, would take care of a herd for an established farmer: say for the sake of argument 100 ewes. He would accompany them to pasture (see transhumance), guard them from predators, and watch over the lambing season. At the end of the year, he would return with the enlarged flock: for the sake of simplicity, 100 ewes and 100 lambs. This increment, 100 healthy and surviving lambs, would be split 50/50 between the farmer and the herdsman (see sharecropping), and eventually he would build up capital. So in a sense the new animals had split ownership. I can't remember the term for this, but it was referred to in the Old Testament, and variants exist around the world. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking for, but struggling to find, solid sources that convincingly can argue as to which philosophers/enlighment individuals influenced Jefferson and the written content in the American Declaration of Independence

I'm looking for, but struggling to find, solid sources that convincingly can argue as to which philosophers/enlightenment individuals influenced Thomas Jefferson and the written content in the American Declaration of Independence.

I'm a student, doing a major assignment, and John Locke, Voltaire (freedom of speech), Montesquieu (separation of powers) and the philosphy that is Natural Law are all suggested to be major influences. But I need to prove it, or at least make solid arguments which I can back up with sources. Obviously, I can't use Wikipedia as a direct source, for obvious reasons, but that don't mean I can't use it as channel to find good sources.

Needless to say, I'm not asking for anyone to do my homework - I'm merely hoping that among all the knowledgeable people here on wiki, some can point me toward some good and relevant sources, which I can study.

Thanks, Richard --84.211.184.66 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This page at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy looks like a good start; especially since it has a solid bibliography at the end which will provide you with more sources. --Jayron32 17:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron. I'll get to it. 84.211.184.66 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Jefferson actually lifted one of the most famous phrases directly from Locke ("life, liberty and property"), and IIRC, Franklin suggested to change the last item to "pursuit of happiness". I assume you know that while Jefferson wrote most of the actual text, it formally was a committee, with Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, that did the work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget Richard Price. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography: [4]. Both Adams and Franklin relied on Price during their years in London. See also Richard Price and the Ethical Foundations of the American Revolution (Bernard Peach, 1979). Or on the other hand Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy, and Theology (Allen Jayne, 2015).Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Thanks again for the new contributions. :) 84.211.184.66 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Flight attendant food and beverage trolley

What is the right term for the airplane food and beverage trolley? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course I found it two seconds after posting here and twenty minutes after starting the search. :) Airline service trolley

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be edited to acknowledge different English varieties. In American English, a "trolley" is something that you ride in. The thing the flight attendants push around is a "cart". --Trovatore (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

True, Trovatore . I'll add some a.k.a.s when I get a chance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

In less enlightened times in the UK, air hostesses used to be called "trolley dollies". Ericoides (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Name of a specific negotiating tactic

Is there a commonly used name for a negotiating tactic in which you on purpose makes an opening offer that the opposing side would consider outrageous and unacceptable on purpose but then tone its content down to trick the opponent into accepting the offer that you want all along? I have heard of this being used in the Battlefront 2 lootbox controversy. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Something like a bargaining chip?

"something that one side can use to persuade the other side to reach an agreement" ^[5]

—107.15.152.93 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

70.95.44.93 -- this is a common stereotype of middle eastern bazaar haggling (see the scene of Arshish selling Shasta near the beginning of The Horse and His Boy), but I'm not sure I ever heard any name for it other than "starting high" (if you're the seller) or "starting low" (if you're the buyer). Conceptually related is the Overton window.. AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes it's called highball/lowball tactic. Mentioned, for example, in our article on Negotiation, subsection "Tactics" or "Ethical and Unethical Bargaining Tactics: An Empirical Study". We also have an article on low-ball. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

As tactical move its called Straw man proposal. As "straw man tactics" or argument see Straw man. --Kharon (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The name "opening gambit" is also used for this tactic. --Xuxl (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Also relevant is the notion of Anchoring. An example used in commerce, a bit like what you describe, is the placement of very expensive items prominently on menus so that everything else looks more reasonable by comparison. 169.228.153.91 (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)