Talk:Lesser of two evils principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Lesser of two evils principle is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

FYI: The phrase, "Logicians sometimes consider the lesser of two evils principle to be an instance of the false dichotomy fallacy, and that this fallacy is particularly severe among those advocating third parties," makes no sense, either logically or grammatically (redundancy). -- Anon.

Contents 1 The plural of "coup d'etat" 2 This article is too US-centered 3 Shaky? 4 Political? 5 unsourced speculation 6 the u.s. has publicly admitted supporting saddam vs. '91 shia revolt 7 Major problems with this article

[edit] The plural of "coup d'etat"

The expression means "state coup". Therefore, "coups d'etat" sounds (at least to me) far more logical than "coup d'etats"... Jancikotuc 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is too US-centered

I doubt anyone has ever measured where the "lesser of two evils" principle is more used for anyone to claim the U.S. is particularly fond of it.

No. The article at the moment is very very poor and you're right in highlighting this as being a major cause of it. I have removed some of the U.S. bias from the Modern Usage section 138.253.249.67 (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shaky?

Is there any justification for referring to the democratically elected government of Chile as "shaky?" If so, it should be cited.

[edit] Political?

The phrase "the lesser of two evils," despite its widespread use during the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, is much more than a political phrase. This phrase can be used in everyday situations, and treating it as a primarily political reference is a misrepresentation.

Agreed. The entire article is very, very poor and gives a completely false impression of what the term means and what it is used for. 138.253.249.67 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced speculation

The section "origins" has a lot of unreferenced speculation. Like the supposed justification for the US not getting involved in Saddam Hussein's supression of the Shia revolt. That US politicians thought Saddam was preferable is very dubious, and is offered as pure speculation. The coalition wouldn't have agreed to go into Iraq, and the US would have had to go in unilaterally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.114 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the u.s. has publicly admitted supporting saddam vs. '91 shia revolt

It's not pure speculation. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.43.105 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't work like that. It's not the job of the reader to "look it up" - it's the job of Wikipedia to be the place that people go to to look things up. If there isn't a citation or reference then it must be deleted. 138.253.249.67 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major problems with this article

This article claims that "lesser of two evils is a political term but does not provide any evidence of this or any citations. As such, the Cold War information has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.249.67 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)