Humanities desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

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.

June 30

Greater of two evils

There is a POTUS election with Alice and Bob as the two major-party candidates. Alice is terrible, but Bob is even worse! Clearly Alice is the lesser of two evils (LOTE). But, one might observe, repeated following of the LOTE strategy is what got us into such a lousy choice in the first place. Therefore, if I want to reject the LOTE approach and counteract the effect, I should vote for Bob, the GOTE, and resolve to live with the consequences. Accordingly, I do so, not that it matters because of the paradox of voting.

Is there a name for this strategy, and a rational (or anyway game theoretic) analysis of it? Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 19th-century slogan "The Worse The Better" -- i.e. the more oppressive the government is, the sooner this will cause an uprising to overthrow it, and the sooner the workers' utopia will arrive on earth. As a concrete political strategy, I don't think this had many successes... AnonMoos (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I doubt that there can be a general theoretical underpinning. In some cases there can be a rational argument for choosing something that is worse on the short term if it furthers a better long-term outcome. Some Marxists oppose state intervention to relieve the suffering of the proletariat because they believe their immiseration is a prerequisite for the glorious revolution. Dispensational premillennialists believe that peace can only be reached in the Millenium and that a great kladderadatsch must precede the Second Coming. Some see a Middle East peace plan as only postponing the tribulation and therefore oppose efforts towards a solution. Both are IMO insane, yet rational. --Lambiam 08:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about voting, but in similar vein, Rutger Bregman, in Humankind, reports a several occasions when researchers distorted or misrepresented their own work to make it appear more pessimistic in the hope of stimilating reform. After Robert Martinson and colleagues had compiled their mammoth report The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies "Martinson also published a short summary of their findings in a popular magazine. Title: 'What Works?' Conclusion: nothing works. 'With few and isolated exceptions,' Martinson wrote, 'the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism.' The progressive social scientist hoped - much like Philip Zimbardo - that everyone would realise prisons were pointless places and should all be shut down. But that's not what happened" (Humankind, Ch. 16) Martinson later retracted his summary, and despairing of anybody taking any notice of this retraction, jumped to his death. --ColinFine (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a form of tactical voting that could be analyzed in terms of an iterated prisoner's dilemma. The analysis may be different depending on whether you actually wish to see the worse candidate win (a form of retaliation, in the iterated prisoner's dilemma), or only register dissatisfaction (a protest vote). In a quick search I find a few sources that analyze similar questions in this way: J.G. Geer and M.E. Shere (1992 paper, paywalled), H. Cloléry and Y. Koriyama (2020 IPP policy brief), A. Gelman (2003 paper), J. Uebersax (2013 blog post). It's not obvious that there's a consensus as to whether this is an effective strategy, or whether it's a strategy that many people actually employ. --Amble (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(From OP) Thanks everyone, particularly Amble: I'll look at the references but they sound like the kind of thing in mind. Rather than Prisoners Dilemma (PD) I had seen Alice's nomination as a form of the Ultimatum Game presented by her party's establishment and donors (search term "Lesterland" for more about candidate selection by donors etc). The MOTE vote is then a way to reject the ultimatum. Iterated PD also might fit. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:23D0 (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right that the Ultimatum Game is a better model than the prisoner's dilemma. Thanks! It seems to me that a weakness of the GOTE strategy is that it doesn't necessarily give the parties an incentive to choose better candidates. If I know that the general election will have many disaffected voters following the GOTE strategy, then I will strategically choose a worse candidate in the primary in order to increase my party's chance of winning the general election. (Since it's hard to make everyone happy, but much easier to make everyone angry.) --Amble (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerationism. Iapetus (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World War I: Primary sources for German protests against US trench gun use

What are the primary sources for the German protests against US use of shotguns in World War I? When I found out about it reading Winchester Model 1897#World War I protests, I also found Talk:Winchester Model 1897#Did this "German Protest" ever actually happen? Are there any?--91.221.58.25 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute United States Department of State - PAPERS RELATING TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1918, SUPPLEMENT 2, THE WORLD WAR - Document 911 - File No. 763.72116/588 - The Swiss Chargé ( Oederlin) to the Secretary of State:

The German Government protests against the use of shotguns by the American Army and calls attention to the fact that according to the law of war (Kriegsrecht) every prisoner found to have in his possession such guns or ammunition belonging thereto forfeits his life...

Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The US Government's reply is here, dated Sept. 28, 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, thanks!--91.221.58.20 (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have pasted this onto the talk page query. Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Classical works on revolution and regime change

Aside from Lenin, what works about theoretical framework of revolution, the ways of transition of power from a repressive government and the regime change in general are worth reading? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Lenin is only worth reading if you are interested in regime changes from one repressive regime to the next. --Lambiam 20:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can find your way to some classical works. Allegedly Marx also wrote something about history and if you are really motivated and are looking for a less "abstract" way of thinking, Hegel can keep you occupied for a couple of decades. What is worth reading is pretty subjective. Lenin had a fame of reading a lot of books, so I guess that in his writings you could find quite a lot of references to previous works. Personuser (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old, inappropriate, unfaithfully reported joke: Marx, Engels and Lenin are asked if they would prefer a wife or a lover. Marx, being more traditionalist, opts for a wife, Engels for a lover (we know why). Lenin: “I want both, so my wife thinks I’m with my lover, my lover thinks I’m with my wife and meanwhile I can read.” Personuser (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at 'How to Be a Good Communist,' by Liu Shaoqi (1939): [1] and, 'Report on an investigation of the peasant movement in Hunan,' by Mao Zedong (1927): [2]. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ludendorff's Verlag

Another editor, @Scott Sanchez: originally asked about this at Talk:Erich Ludendorff. Many of Ludendorff's works, as well as those of his wife, Mathilde Ludendorff, were published by Ludendorffs Verlag, of Munich. Other authors were published by the company, as far as I can see all similarly far-right. We are looking for information about the ownership, control, history, etc of the company. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to de:Erich Ludendorff, the company existed from 1931 to 1940 and was run by Mathilde Ludendorff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The German name is "Ludendorff Verlag GmbH" without a genitive "s". This book, edited by Richard S. Levy writes: "Her [Mathilde's] publishing house, the former Ludendorff Verlag, also resumed business under a new name in 1949." Unfortunately, the source does not identify the new name. According to the German Wikipedia, citing Der Spiegel, the Ludendorffs's works were published by the Hohe Warte publishing house ("Hohe Warte" means "High Guarding Post"), founded by her son-in-law Franz von Bebenburg. This may be the publishing house referred to. --Lambiam 21:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the book does identify Hohe Warte as the new name: "Under Allied occupation, Mathilde Ludendorff and her son-in-law, Franz Freiherr Karg von Bebenburg, resumed the publishing house's operations under various names, settling finally on Hohe Warte (Lofty Watch Tower) in October 1949."^[3] The author of the entry, Jay Lockenour, has written a biography of Erich Ludensdorff: Dragonslayer. --Lambiam 21:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Many thanks (but the company did call itself Ludendorffs Verlag (with an s), on book covers, title pages and prospectuses - do a google image search for "Ludendorffs Verlag"). DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And every book the appears from a search I did on "Ludendorff Verlag" (singular/nominative) with a named publisher has the publisher "Ludendorffs Verlag".--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USA: Need help doing a Google search

So Bill Cosby was set free today by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 4-3. I'm trying to find the names of the judges that sided on the majority and minority side. Google search just shows that he won 4-3 in 1 situation and 6-1 in other situations, but doesn't name which judges voted what. Or maybe this is too early for the names yet? Anyone from Pennsylvania area know where to find this? It's not urgent, so. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Majority opinion here: [4] Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justices Wecht (the author), Todd, Donohue and Mundy in the majority. Justice Dougherty concurred in part and dissented in part; Chief Justice Baer joined Dougherty's opinion. Justice Saylor dissented. Link to the concurrence/dissent and link to the dissent. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of justices available here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you do much. This is for my bs research. Some year ago, we had a situation in Chicago were a White police officer kills a Black man, and was sentenced just under 7 years. The new state's attorney general elected was a Black man who felt the sentence was too low, and the charge insufficient, and an appeal to the appellate court can only discuss the range within a charge, not whether the charge is faulty, so he appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, a motion to get the highest court involved. The Sup Ct was complete split, but 4 of the 7 justices voted against hearing. There was 3 Republicans on the bench, and they all voted against him. The 4th was a Dem but married to a corrupt Dem. As for the other 3, that were all Dems, 1 was the only Black judge and he was the only 1 that wrote pages on dissenting, and 1 more White judge who remained partial, agreed in part and disagreed in part. And the last, was a Dem and former defender, she remained uninvolved. Did not vote.

But now I'm looking at this Bill Cosby thing, the sole dissenter was a Republican and former prosecutor. For the 4 defending judges, 3 were Dems, but the only Rep was a former defender. And the 2 that were partially dissenting were Dems, but former prosecutors. Basically, there's only 2 Reps on the Pennsylvania Sup Ct and 1 was a former defender, 1 a former prosecutor. The 3 of 4 majority defenders that were Dems, were all civil law and not any former prosecutors. Basically, if you combine the factor of D and R, and former lawyer vs. former prosecutor, you can outline the resulting 7 judges heh. Apologies if this is a little inappropriate for the forum. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Resolved

Unincorporated NSW

According to the table at Unincorporated Far West Region, all the unincorporated areas of New South Wales had a 2001 population of 2,896 and a 2006 population of 1,122. These figures currently cover the Unincorporated Far West Region plus Lord Howe Island, and its article doesn't mention anything historically significant between 2001 and 2006, so I assume the change happened on the mainland. So, what happened? Did the population living in what's now the Unincorporated Far West Region fall significantly (and if so, why), or did a populated area get excised from it? City of Broken Hill#Demography notes that its population also fell between 2001 and 2006, so I doubt that some populated bits of the unincorporated area got added to the city LGA. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, the U.F.W.R. article mentions four small towns in the region, so I checked their articles, and none of them gives historical populations or mentions any events happening during that time, so if any of them had its population plummet then, I don't know how I'd learn about it. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the boundary of the region changed. I'm not familiar with Australian census results, but I am with New Zealand, and you usually can't safely compare a given figure for population between censuses unless a single reputable source does so (eg the statistics government agency, which can be depended on to adjust older figures for current boundaries). The 2001 Australian figures don't show a map of the area. If there are figures for the area in square km for each census, that might indicate any boundary changes.-gadfium 21:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the issue. I know that some states periodically reorganise their LGAs (Borough of Queenscliffe notes that there were a lot of changes in Victoria's local councils in the 1990s, for example), and knowing virtually nothing about NSW local government in particular, I have no idea if the adjacent shires can just annex bits of the unincorporated area, let alone whether such a thing happened. (Changing boundaries is easily in my mind, since unlike most US states, here in Virginia we've had a number of boundary changes in recent years; Alleghany County had 25% population growth in the 2000s because a separate city joined the county in the 2000s, not because there were lots of births or people moving into the area.) The oldest revision of the U.F.W.R. article dates from 2007, so I can't just rely on "latest data" from before the 2006 data existed. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I checked Local government areas of New South Wales, wondering if they formed a new council from unincorporated territory during that time, but every article about an LGA established in the 2000s notes that the council was formed by changing the boundaries of existing councils, not incorporating a place that somehow hadn't been incorporated before. So if there were boundary changes, they would have had to involve an existing area expanding. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are an extra 1300+ males and 300 females there in 2001 but the number of families was unchanged; possibly a military training exercise, a mining or road-building operation, a prison that has since closed, a movie shoot, even an all-boy's camp excursion. The Australian census is held on a single night. Abductive (reasoning) 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I didn't know I could look up that kind of figures. So if I live in Melbourne but happen to go camping in the NT on census night, I count toward the NT population, not the VIC population? Nyttend backup (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the links in the table. Abductive (reasoning) 17:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an online version of the census, which you could use in place of a personal census taker? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant, since Nyttend (backup) is a USA resident, but is asking about Australian practice. I myself don't know what the Australian census parameters are, but here in the UK the census requires one to enter (or have entered on one's behalf) where one is (or was, or will be) on the night of the census, regardless of whether that is one's usual address. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.163 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Everybody completes a paper form or an eCensus on census night. (Note that I am not an Australian, this is from the Census in Australia article.) At least in the old days, this meant wherever you were was were you were counted. I recall reading that people on moving trains were counted, that there were large numbers of census takers. Abductive (reasoning) 17:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question on the paper version of the 2016 census was "Name of each person including visitors who spent the night of Tuesday, 9 August 2016 in this dwelling:.." So yes, where you happened to be that night is what the census recorded. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have some way to confirm the accuracy of it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the five yearly census of the whole nation, the Australian Bureau of Statistics conducts numerous intermediate smaller surveys. It would compare results of all the surveys. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the penalty for a householder not completing the census, mentioned in the article, there may be (lesser?) penalties for submitting deliberately incorrect or incomplete information. However, the purpose of the census is not to compile a completely accurate and comprehensive record for a repressive regime to track every inhabitant (legally present or not), but rather to compile an anonymised, sufficiently accurate statistical picture of the population to enable future planning of infrastructure and resource allocation. Provided that inaccuracies, whether deliberate or accidental, remain at a low noise level, they won't adversely affect the process. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.163 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Survey to rule them all, and in the bureaucracy bind them. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

A comparison of the data for the two censuses (both already linked in our article) shows the biggest standout figure is that in 2001 (total resident population on census night 2896, 66.5% male) there were 664 persons employed in the defence industry, whereas in 2006 (total population 1122, 55% male) there were just 21 in that category, so a temporary military deployment is a partial answer at least. When you search the census data by maps on the ABS website it is possible to see the boundaries of Unincorporated NSW for 2001 and they do not noticeably differ to those in the 2006 map. 203.87.64.127 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]