text:
Green party

A green party is a formally organized political party based on the principles of green politics, such as environmentalism and social justice.

Green party platforms typically embrace social democratic economic policies and form coalitions with other left-wing parties.

Green parties exist in nearly 90 countries around the world, many of which are members of Global Greens.

Definitions
There are distinctions between "green" parties and "Green" parties. Any party, faction, or politician may be labeled "green" if it emphasizes environmental causes. In contrast, formally organized Green parties may follow an ideology that includes not only environmentalism, but often also other concerns such as social justice and consensus decision-making. The Global Greens Charter lists six guiding principles which are ecological wisdom, social justice, participatory democracy, nonviolence, sustainability and respect for diversity.

History

Political parties campaigning on a predominantly environmental platform arose in the early 1970s in various parts of the world.

The world's first political parties to campaign on a predominantly environmental platform were the United Tasmania Group, which contested the April 1972 state election in Tasmania, Australia, and the Values Party of New Zealand, which contested the November 1972 New Zealand general election. Their use of the name 'Green' derived from the 'Green Bans': an Australian movement of building workers who refused to build on sites of cultural and environmental significance.

The first green party in Europe was the Popular Movement for the Environment, founded in 1972 in the Swiss canton of Neuchâtel. The first national green party in Europe was PEOPLE, founded in Britain in February 1973, which eventually turned into the Ecology Party and then the Green Party. Several other local political groups were founded in the beginning of the 1970s. Fons Sprangers was probably the first Green mayor in the world, elected in 1970 in Meer, and active until 2020 for the Flemish Greens. The first political party to use the name "Green" seems to have been the Lower Saxon "Green List for Environmental Protection", founded on 1 September 1977.

The first Green Party to achieve national prominence was the German Green Party, famous for their opposition to nuclear power, as well as an expression of anti-centralist and pacifist values traditional to greens. They were founded in 1980 and have been in coalition governments at state level for some years. They were in federal government with the Social Democratic Party of Germany in a so-called Red-Green alliance from 1998 to 2005. In 2001, they reached an agreement to end reliance on nuclear power in Germany, and agreed to remain in coalition and support the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in the 2001 Afghan War. This put them at odds with many Greens worldwide.

In Finland, in 1995, the Finnish Green Party was the first European Green party to be part of a national Cabinet. Other Green parties that have participated in government at national level include the Groen! (formerly Agalev) and Ecolo in Belgium, The Greens in France and the Green Party in Ireland. In the Netherlands GroenLinks ("GreenLeft") was founded in 1990 from four small left-wing parties and is now a stable faction in the Dutch parliament. The Australian Greens supported a Labor minority government from 2010 to 2013, and have participated in several state governments.

In 2022 Denmark, the Green Party The Alternative has only one Parliament member, having dropped from the previous nine, and five local parliaments members. In 2022 Portugal, the Green Party People-Animals-Nature also has only one Parliament member, having dropped from the previous four, and another in the Madeira Regional Parliament, while its two other Green parties, Partido da Terra and Partido Ecologista "Os Verdes", only have, respectively, two councilpeople and one mayor.

Around the world, individuals have formed many Green parties over the last thirty years. Green parties now exist in most countries with democratic systems, from Canada to Peru, from Norway to South Africa, from Ireland to Mongolia. There is Green representation at national, regional and local levels in many countries around the world.

Most of the Green parties are formed to win elections, and so organize themselves by the presented electoral or political districts. But that does not apply universally: The Green Party of Alaska is organized along bioregional lines to practice bioregional democracy.

Support
Academic research has uncovered striking international consistency in the typical demographic and attitudinal profile of Green party supporters. In particular, Green voters tend to be young, highly educated, disproportionately female, and employed in the social and cultural services (healthcare, teaching, the arts, etc.), whilst also displaying above-average levels of environmentalism and social liberalism, as well as being left-leaning. Additionally, Green parties also tend to attract greater levels of support in countries defined by high levels of economic development and low levels of unemployment, as well as the presence of tangible environmental disputes (such as nuclear power production) and active major party competition on the environmental issue. The former two factors are believed to generate cohorts of voters with enough material security to devote their attention to 'higher' goals such as environmentalism; the latter two help raise the profile of the Green's own policy positions and statements (providing that the major parties do not act so quickly to the rising salience of environmentalism as to usurp the issue entirely and completely preempt the development of a separate ecological party). Their supporters sometimes blame the economical system for the environmental issues neglecting any green free-market liberal capitalist alternatives.

Alliances
Depending on local conditions or issues, platforms and alliances may vary. In line with the goal of democracy, neighboring ecoregions may require different policies or protections.

Green parties are often formed in a given jurisdiction by a coalition of scientific ecologists, community environmentalists, and local (or national) leftist groups or groups concerned with peace or citizens rights.

A Red-Green alliance is an alliance between Green parties and social democratic parties. Such alliances are typically formed for the purpose of elections (mostly in first-past-the-post election systems), or, after elections, for the purpose of forming a government.

Some Greens, such as those in Hawaii, find more effective alliances (Blue-Green alliance) or indigenous peoples – who seek to prevent disruption of traditional ways of life or to save ecological resources they depend on. Although Greens find much to support in fostering these types of alliances with groups of historically different backgrounds, they also feel strongly about forming diverse communities through encouragement of diversity in social and economic demographics in communities,

Alliances often highlight strategic differences between participating in parties and advancing the values of the Green movement. For example, Greens became allied with centre-right parties to oust the centre-left ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico. Ralph Nader, the 2000 presidential nominee of the U.S. Greens, campaigned with ultra-conservative Pat Buchanan on joint issues such as farm policy and bans on corporate funding of election campaigns, although this "alliance" between Nader and Buchanan was very specifically limited to the purpose of showing that there was broad support for certain specific issues, across the political spectrum.

U.S. Greens grew dramatically throughout 2001. However, stable coalitions (such as that in Germany) tend to be formed between elections with left-wing parties on social issues, and 'the grassroots right' on such issues as irresponsible corporate subsidies and public ethics.

On 13 June 2007, the Irish Green Party, represented by six members of parliament or TDs, agreed to go into a coalition government for the first time in their history, with Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats (the Progressive Democrats later dissolved as a party, though their members remained in parliament). The Green Party held two Cabinet seats, as well as two junior ministries, until their withdrawal from government in January 2011. They lost all of their six seats in the following month's general election, but won two in the 2016 general election, and twelve seats in the 2020 general election, and entered government again in June 2020.

In the Czech Republic, the Green Party was part of the governing coalition, together with the conservative Civic Democratic Party (ODS) and the Christian Democrats (KDU–ČSL) from January 2007 until the government collapsed in March 2009.

Green parties often have to join coalitions/alliances with other parties within parliament as they rarely get a large share of the vote (rarely polling above 10% at a national level). Their involvement in coalition governments is important in getting environmental issues on the political agenda, however they are often limited in the amount that they can succeed given they are not the majority within the alliance.

Africa
Some national Green parties began forming in Africa in the 1980s and 1990s, but they often struggled to gain influence.

Wangari Maathai was perhaps the most prominent and successful member of a Green party in Africa: after founding the Green Belt Movement and the Mazingira Green Party of Kenya, she was elected to the Kenyan Parliament in 2002, became an assistant minister for Environmental and Natural Resources, and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004. Other African Green parties that have achieved parliamentary representation include Les Verts Fraternels of Mauritius, and Frank Habineza's Democratic Green Party of Rwanda. In Senegal, Green party leader Haïdar el Ali was appointed Minister for Ecology in 2012.

Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu
Green parties have achieved national or state parliamentary representation in New Zealand, Australia and Vanuatu. In New Zealand the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand currently holds 15 seats in the New Zealand House of Representatives after the 2023 general election. The Australian Greens hold 11 seats in the Australian Senate and 4 seats in the Australian House of Representatives. Since 2004, they have received more votes than any other third party in every federal election. They also have representation in the upper and lower houses of state parliaments of five states and in the unicameral chamber of one territory. Greens also hold representative positions in local government across New Zealand and Australia (where a number of local government authorities are controlled by Green councilors). The Greens took the seat of Melbourne from the Australian Labor Party in 2010 with candidate Adam Bandt. This was the first time the Greens have won a Lower House seat at a general election (although they have previously won two seats at by-elections).

Proportional representation in the Australian Senate and in New Zealand has strengthened the position of the Australian Greens and the Green Party of New Zealand and enabled them to participate directly in legislatures and policy-making committees. In countries following British-style 'first past the post' electoral rules, Green parties face barriers to gaining federal or provincial/regional/state seats. The Australian Labor Party's practice of allocating a portion of ALP ticket votes to Australian Greens has helped bring AG candidates into parliament.

In the 2008 ACT election in Australia, the Greens won 15.6% of the vote, winning 4 out of 17 seats. Shane Rattenbury was elected the speaker of the assembly, the first time a Green party member had held such a position in any parliament or assembly in Australia. However, they retained only one seat at the 2012 election in the same territory.

The Green Confederation (Confédération Verte) in Vanuatu won 3 out of 52 seats in the last general election in October 2012. Its most prominent member is Moana Carcasses Kalosil, who became prime minister in March 2013. Carcasses, a Green liberal, does not lead a Green government, but a broad coalition government in which he is the only Green minister.

There is a Papua New Guinea Greens Party, but it does not have any members in Parliament. There was briefly a Green Party in Fiji from 2008 to 2013; as Parliament was suspended by the military regime during this time, the party was not able to take part in any election before all parties were deregistered in 2013.

Lebanon
The Green Party of Lebanon was founded in 2008 as a secular party. Its first president was Philippe Skaff, CEO of Grey Advertising. The party debuted with the May 2010 municipal elections. In 2011, the party became the first political party in Lebanon to elect a female leader when Nada Zaarour was elected its president.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia
The Green Party of Pakistan was founded in 2002, and the Green Party of Saudi Arabia emerged 2010. However, due to political repression, some South and Southwest Asian Green parties are underground organizations.

Taiwan
The Green Party Taiwan was founded in 1996. It is a small party which have often associated with Democratic Progressive Party, a major political party in Taiwan.

Belgian and German roots
The first green parties in Europe were founded in the late 1970s, following the rise of environmental awareness and the development of new social movements. Green parties in Belgium first made a breakthrough. Belgium had Green members of parliament elected first in the 1970s, and with seats on the local council, held the balance of power in the city of Liege, so were the first to go into coalition with the ruling party on that council. In 1979 political campaigns and dissident groups feeling underrepresented in west German politics formed a coalition to contest the 1979 elections to the European Parliament.

Although they did not win any seats, the groups in this association formally agreed to become a party and won a breakthrough in the German national elections of 1983. They were not the first Green Party in Europe to have members elected nationally but the impression was created that they had been, because they attracted the most media attention. This was partly due to their charismatic leader Petra Kelly, a German who was of interest to the American media because she had an American step-father. Since its foundation in 1980 and merger with Alliance 90 after the German reunification, Kelly's party, now named Alliance '90/The Greens, has become one of Europe's most important Green parties. It played an important role in the formation of national-level Green parties in other countries such as Spain as well. The forerunner of the Green Party in the United Kingdom was the PEOPLE Party, formed in Coventry in 1972. It changed its name to the Ecology Party in 1973 and the Green Party in 1985.

1984–1989: A new political force
In 1984 Greens agreed a common platform for the European Parliament Elections and the first Green Members of the European Parliament were elected here. Germany, a stronghold of the Green movement, elected seven MEPs; two more came from Belgium and two from the Netherlands. As those eleven MEPs did not entitle the Greens to form a parliamentary group on their own, they concluded an alliance with MEPs from Italy, Denmark, and regionalists from Flanders and Ireland to form the GRAEL (Green Alternative European Link) group, also known as the Rainbow Group. Politically they engaged in the fight against environmental pollution, nuclear energy (1986 saw the Chernobyl disaster), the promotion of animal protection and the campaign against the demolition of Brussels by speculation fuelled by the presence of the European institutions.

Since the 1990s
After years of co-operation between the national Green parties, they formed a pan-European alliance that unites most European Green parties. The Greens are a party within the European parliament with 46 seats, as of June 2009. It has a long-standing alliance with the European Free Alliance (EFA), an alliance of "stateless nations", such as the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru and Scottish National Party. Together European Green Party/EFA have 58 seats and they are the fourth largest party in the European Parliament.

While on many issues European Greens practice the same policies, one issue divides European Green parties: the European Union. Some Green parties, like the Dutch GreenLeft, the Green Party of England and Wales, the Swiss Green Party, the Irish Green Party and the German Alliance '90/The Greens, are pro-European while some, like the Green party in Sweden, are moderately eurosceptic.

Some Green parties have been part of governing coalitions. The first one was the Finnish Green League that entered government in 1995. The Italian Federation of the Greens, the French Greens, the German Alliance '90/The Greens and both Belgian Green parties, the French-speaking Ecolo and the Dutch-speaking Agalev were part of government during the late 1990s. Most successful was the Latvian Green Party, who supplied the Prime Minister of Latvia in 2004. The Swedish Green Party was a long-term supporter of the social-democratic minority government until the election 2006 when the social-democratic party lost. The Irish Green Party is currently in government, having entered a coalition with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in June 2020, with three cabinet positions. It was previously in a coalition government with Fianna Fáil from 2007 until January 2011 when the party withdrew their support for the ruling coalition.

In Scandinavia, left-wing socialist parties have formed the Nordic Green Left Alliance. These parties have the same ideals as European Greens. However, they do not cooperate with the Global Greens or European Greens, but instead form a combined parliamentary group with the Party of the European Left, which unites communists and post-communists. There is one exception, in 2004 the MEP for Danish Socialist People's Party has left the Nordic Green Left parliamentary group and has joined the Green parliamentary group in the European parliament. The Socialist People's Party is currently an observer at the European Green Party and the Global Greens. Outside of Scandinavia, in 2004, Latvia became the first country in the world to have a Green politician become Head of Government, but in 2006 the Green Party received only 16.71 percent of the vote. In the Estonia 2007 parliamentary elections, the Estonian Greens won 7.1 percent of the vote, and a mandate for six seats in the country's parliament, the Riigikogu. Other significant electoral results for European green parties include Germany's Alliance '90/The Greens in the 2002 federal election and France's Europe Ecology – The Greens in the 2012 legislative election, in which they both won more seats than any other third party. In some countries Greens have found it difficult to win any representation in the national parliament. Three reasons can be found for this. It includes countries with a first past the post electoral system, such as the United Kingdom. However, despite the first past the post system in the United Kingdom, the Green Party of England and Wales won their first seat in the House of Commons when Caroline Lucas won the seat of Brighton Pavilion in 2010. In July 2024, after a targeted campaign, 4 Green MPs were elected in Bristol Central, Waveney Valley, North Herefordshire and Brighton Pavilion. The Scottish Greens have had success in the devolved Scottish Parliament having recently signed a deal to enter a governing coalition, whilst the Green Party Northern Ireland has had success in the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections where the first-past-the-post system is not used. In countries where a party with similar ideals is stronger, such as Norway and Denmark, Green parties tend to perform worse. In some Eastern European countries, like Romania, Green parties are still in the process of formation and have therefore not gained enough support. In Poland the Green Party, registered in 2004, won their first three seats in the Sejm in 2019. The Green Party of Bulgaria is a part of the left-wing Coalition for Bulgaria, currently in opposition. It has no parliamentary representation but it did supply one Deputy Minister in the government of Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev from 2005 to 2009.

The European Green Party has worked to support weak Green parties in European countries. Until recently, they were giving support to Green parties in the Mediterranean countries. These Green parties are now making electoral gains, e.g. in Spain, Greece and Republic of Cyprus, or getting organized to do so, e.g. in Malta. Therefore, the EGP is now turning its attention to Eastern Europe – all these countries have Green parties, but in materially poor Eastern Europe the success of Green Parties is patchy except for Hungary, where the local Green party, Politics Can Be Different (LMP), has been elected to parliament and many city councils.

In 2021 Croatian local elections We can! party became the largest political party in the Zagreb Assembly, winning 23 seats in total. Their mayoral candidate Tomislav Tomašević won a landslide victory on 31 May.

Bulgaria
In 2021, after anti-government protests in Bulgaria, Volt Bulgaria became a member of the Stand Up! Mafia Out! alliance. Green Movement (ZD) also became a member of an anti-corruption coalition - Democratic Bulgaria (DB). Eco Voice (Ecoglasnost/Екогласност) remained a member of the BSP for Bulgaria (БСП за България, БСПзБ, BSPzB) coalition. After the elections all of them got into parliament, but a government wasn't formed. After the snap election, which also didn't form a government, Volt Bulgaria left ISBG and joined the We Continue The Change (Продължаваме промяната, ПП, PP) coalition, which won the election and formed a government with BSPzB, DB and the populist ITN. ITN withdrew from the coalition, which later lost a vote of no confidence. For the next elections in 2022, the Party of the Greens (Партия на зелените, ПнЗ, PnZ) joined the Bulgarian Rise (Български възход, БВ, BV) coalition. After a government wasn't formed another round of snap elections were called. This time PP, DB, BZNS and United Agrarians formed the PP-DB coalition which won 2nd place, but managed to agree on a government with the largest parliamentary group - the Christian democratic GERB-SDS coalition.

Germany
As mentioned above, the German green party holds strong influence in terms of green politics in Europe. The German green party: Alliance 90/The Greens (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) was founded in 1993 after the West German green party (Die Grünen, formed in 1980) and the East German green party (Bündnis 90, formed in 1990) joined after the reunification of Germany.

in 1998, Alliance 90/The Greens joined a coalition government with the SPD, forming a Red-Green alliance that would last until 2005. In order to agree to the coalition, Alliance 90/The Greens had 3 priorities: to reduce employment, close nuclear-power stations/Germany to not rely on nuclear power, and for citizenship laws to be reformed. The coalition remained in place following the 2002 election. However, green policies were no longer considered to be a focal point so much, with unemployment growing and other economic issues being more pressing, leading to the rise of the CDU/CSU, and the eventual loss of a majority in parliament.

Turkey
Greens and the Left Party of the Future is a left-libertarian and green party in Turkey. It was founded on 25 November 2012 as a merger of the Greens Party and the Equality and Democracy Party.

Prominent members include Murat Belge, left-liberal political author and columnist for Taraf; Kutluğ Ataman, filmmaker and contemporary artist; and Ufuk Uras, former Istanbul deputy and president of the Freedom and Solidarity Party.

The party is one of the participants in the Peoples' Democratic Congress, a political initiative instrumental in founding the Peoples' Democratic Party in 2012.

The Greens, along with feminists, left YSGP en masse in 2016, citing its lack of democratic decision making practices. They and a new generation of activists reestablished the Green Party (Yeşiller) in 2020.

North America
As of the 41st general election in Canada, held on May 2, 2011, there was only one federally elected member of the Green Party of Canada in the House of Commons of Canada, its leader Elizabeth May. However, at the dissolution of the 41st Parliament on August 2, 2015, the Green Party of Canada held two seats in the House of Commons, the second seat belonging to formerly Independent MP Bruce Hyer who was elected to the House of Commons as a member of the NDP in 2011. Only May won re-election to the 42nd parliament. There remains no federal representation by the Green Party of the United States in the U.S. Congress. Accordingly, in these countries, Green parties focus on electoral reform. In Mexico, however, the Partido Verde Ecologista, often abbreviated as PVEM, has 17 deputies and four senators in Congress as a result of the 2006 elections. Nevertheless, some of its political practices such as plead in favor of the death penalty in Mexico, led to the European Green Party's withdrawal of recognition of the PVEM as a legitimate green party.

Canada
The first Green parties in Canada (both federal and provincial) were founded in 1983. The strongest provincial Green parties are the Green Party of British Columbia, the Green Party of Ontario, the Green Party of New Brunswick, and the Green Party of Prince Edward Island which was elected the Official Opposition in the 2019 election. The first ever BC Green MLA was elected in 2013, and in 2017 they helped the minority NDP form government. In 2014 a Green MLA was elected to the New Brunswick legislature, in 2015 a Green MLA was elected to the Prince Edward Island Legislature, and in 2018 Mike Schreiner became the first Green MPP elected to the Ontario provincial legislature. Federally, the Green Party of Canada received 6.49% of the popular vote and a record three seats in Parliament during the 2019 federal election, breaking ground in Atlantic Canada with the election of Jenica Atwin as the first federal Green from outside of British Columbia. This is up from one seat (later two) and 3.91% won in the 2015 federal election. Although Elizabeth May (the leader of the GPC from 2006 to 2019) was the first elected Member of Parliament, the first seat was gained in the House of Commons on August 30, 2008, when sitting Independent MP Blair Wilson joined the party. As of September 2020, May continues to sit as a Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and has exerted a considerable amount of legislative influence on a number of issues ranging from denying unanimous consent for military intervention in Libya, playing a central role in exposing changes to environmental legislation hidden in the omnibus Budget Bill C-38, to introducing a private member's bill to develop a national strategy on Lyme disease.

In the 2008 Vancouver municipal election, Stuart Mackinnon, a member of the Vancouver Green Party, was elected to the Vancouver Parks Board. Since that time former Green Party of British Columbia leader, and deputy-leader of the federal Green party, Adriane Carr won the Greens' first seat on Vancouver City Council, in 2011 municipal elections.

United States
In the United States, Greens first ran for public office in 1985. Since then, the Green Party of the United States has claimed electoral victories at the municipal, county and state levels. The first U.S. Greens to be elected were David Conley and Frank Koehn in Wisconsin 1986. Each was elected to a position on the County Board of Supervisors in Douglas and Bayfield counties respectively. Keiko Bonk was first elected in 1992 in Hawaii County, becoming Official Chairwoman in 1995. The first Green Party mayor was Kelly Weaverling, elected in Cordova, AK in 1991.

As of April 2018, 156 Greens held elective office across the US in 19 states. The states with the largest numbers of Green elected officials are California (68), Connecticut (15), and Pennsylvania (15). Titles of offices held include: Alderman, Auditor, Board of Appeals, Board of Finance, Board of Selectmen, Borough Council, Budget Committee, Circuit Court Judge, City Council, Common Council, Community College District Board of Trustees, Community Service Board, Conservation Congress, Constable, County Board of Supervisors, County Supervisor, Fire Commission, Fire District Board, Inspector of Elections, Judge of Elections, Mayor, Neighborhood Council Board, Park District, Parks and Recreation District Board, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Housing Authority Resident Advisory Board, Public Service District, Rent Stabilization Board, Sanitary District Board, School Board, Soil and Water Conservation Board, State Representative, Town Council, Transit District Board, Village Trustee, Water District Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals As of October 2016, 100 Greens held elected office across the US. The first US Green elected to a state legislature was Audie Bock in 1999, to the California State Assembly, followed by John Eder to the Maine House of Representatives in 2002 and 2004 and Richard Carroll to the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2008. While in office in 2003 in the New Jersey General Assembly, incumbent Matt Ahearn made a party switch to Green for the remainder of his term.

The Green Party has contested seven presidential elections: in 1996 and 2000 with Ralph Nader for president and Winona LaDuke as vice president, in 2004 with David Cobb for president and Pat LaMarche for vice president, and in 2008 with Cynthia McKinney for president and Rosa Clemente for vice president. In 2000, Nader received more votes for president than any Green Party candidate before or since. Jill Stein ran for president on the Green ticket in 2012 and 2016; the vice-presidential candidates were Cheri Honkala in 2012 and Ajamu Baraka in 2016. Stein, who received over one million votes in the 2016 race, led unsuccessful attempts toward 2016 election recounts in three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In 2020, Howie Hawkins, a founder of the Green Party, was the party's presidential nominee.

Brazil
The Brazilian Green Party was constituted after the military dictatorship period and, like other Green Parties around the world, is committed to establishing a set of policies on ensuring social-equity and sustainable development. One of the party's founding members was the journalist and former anti-dictatorship revolutionary Fernando Gabeira, Alfredo Sirkis and Carlos Minc. Among the main items on the Green Party's agenda are federalism, environmentalism, human rights, a form of direct democracy, parliamentarism, welfare, civil liberties, pacifism and marijuana legalization under specific conditions.

Green Party's candidate Marina Silva won 19.33% of the vote in the first round of the 2010 Brazilian presidential election (more than any other third party), taking enough votes from Dilma Rousseff of the incumbent PT to prevent her from achieving the majority of the vote needed to avoid a second round. Success in the legislature amounted to winning 2 more seats for a total of 15 in the Chamber of Deputies and the loss of their only senate seat.

Marina Silva left the party the following year.

In the 2014 presidential election the Green Party's candidate Eduardo Jorge received 0,61% of the vote. He garnered attention for campaigning on a progressive platform supporting policies such as cannabis legalization and the decriminalization of abortion. Because of his perceived eccentricity and spontaneity while participating in the televised debates, Jorge became the subject of several memes on the internet. The party elected 6 federal deputies and 1 senator.

In 2016, the Greens in Congress voted in favour of the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. The party later went on to support president Michel Temer who succeeded her.

For the 2018 presidential election the party formed the coalition United to transform Brazil with the Sustainability Network (REDE), in support of the candidacy of Marina Silva in her third run for the presidency. Eduardo Jorge was chosen as her running mate. Despite faring well in the initial polls, Silva ultimately received 1% of the vote. The party elected 4 federal deputies.

Colombia
In the 1990s, the Oxygen Green Party was created under the leadership of Ingrid Betancourt but dissolved after her infamous kidnapping. Later, the Visionaries Party was created by Antanas Mockus whose ideals earned him the Bogotá Mayoral Office twice. In the 2010 Colombian presidential election a green party has been created under the name Colombian Green Party, with former Bogotá mayor Antanas Mockus being the leader.

Green parties in government
While most green parties remain minor parties, some have entered into national coalition governments. The following table lists green parties that have entered into government at the national level. It does not include the green conservative parties of Latvia and Lithuania. It also excludes parties that were elected into government as a minor partner in an electoral alliance, such as the Italian Federation of the Greens which governed as a small part of the Olive Tree and Union alliances.

title: Green party


text:
Barber paradox

The barber paradox is a puzzle derived from Russell's paradox. It was used by Bertrand Russell as an illustration of the paradox, though he attributes it to an unnamed person who suggested it to him. The puzzle shows that an apparently plausible scenario is logically impossible. Specifically, it describes a barber who is defined such that he both shaves himself and does not shave himself, which implies that no such barber exists.

Paradox
The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?

Any answer to this question results in a contradiction: The barber cannot shave himself, as he only shaves those who do not shave themselves. Thus, if he shaves himself he ceases to be the barber specified. Conversely, if the barber does not shave himself, then he fits into the group of people who would be shaved by the specified barber, and thus, as that barber, he must shave himself.

In its original form, this paradox has no solution, as no such barber can exist. The question is a loaded question in that it assumes the existence of a barber who could not exist, which is a vacuous proposition, and hence false. There are other non-paradoxical variations, but those are different.

History
This paradox is often incorrectly attributed to Bertrand Russell (e.g., by Martin Gardner in Aha!). It was suggested to Russell as an alternative form of Russell's paradox, which Russell had devised to show that set theory as it was used by Georg Cantor and Gottlob Frege contained contradictions. However, Russell denied that the Barber's paradox was an instance of his own:

This point is elaborated further under Applied versions of Russell's paradox.

In first-order logic

 * $$(\exists x ) (\text{person}(x) \wedge (\forall y) (\text{person}(y) \implies (\text{shaves}(x, y) \iff \neg \text{shaves}(y, y))))$$

This sentence says that a barber $x$ exists. Its truth value is false, as the existential clause is unsatisfiable (a contradiction) because of the universal quantifier $$(\forall)$$. The universally quantified $y$ will include every single element in the domain, including our infamous barber $x$. So when the value $x$ is assigned to $y$, the sentence in the universal quantifier can be rewritten to $$ \text{shaves}(x,x)\iff \neg \text{shaves}(x,x)$$, which is an instance of the contradiction $$a \iff \neg a$$. Since the sentence is false for the biconditional, the entire universal clause is false. Since the existential clause is a conjunction with one operand that is false, the entire sentence is false. Another way to show this is to negate the entire sentence and arrive at a tautology. Nobody is such a barber, so there is no solution to the paradox.

 * $$(\exists x ) (\text{person}(x) \wedge \bot)$$
 * $$(\exists x ) (\bot)$$
 * $$\bot$$

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

title: Barber paradox


text:
Talk:Barber paradox

Question
''The Barber paradox considers a town with a barber who shaves everyone who does not shave himself, and no one else. When you start to think about whether he should shave himself or not you will get puzzled... ''
 * I'm also rather curious to know how this affects the bearded men in the town. Or is this like those physics problems? "Assuming a frictionless, spherical cow..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brion VIBBER (talk • contribs) ., 1:19, March 27, 2002 (UTC)

There can't be any bearded men in town. As stated, the barber shaves everyone who does not shave himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anome (talk • contribs). , 1:31, March 27, 2002 (UTC)
 * Sure, but with what frequency? Who says they don't sport a beard for a while and then go back to the smooth look after a month or two? Which, I suppose, answers my question. Brion VIBBER, 1:50, March 27, 2002 (UTC)
 * There aren't any men with facial hair in the town. The story states, "every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven". AbuMaia (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

the complete sentence is: In this town, every man keeps himself clean-shaven by doing exactly one of two things:. this only sais that the means of shaving is one of two. yet it doesn't assert that they shave. it is same like saying "in this town the shaving is done in only 2 possible ways" - this doesn't coerce everyone is shaving.--Quatso (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

[The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?] The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, reprinted in The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, 1914-19, Vol 8., p. 228 Wiki, 19 August 2021

The statement is incomplete in not specifying if all residents shave, and contrived and misleading.

In a real world scenario, there are 4 classes of residents. U: unshaven S: shaven SS: shaved by self SB: shaved by the barber The barber, a member of U, does not shave himself, a true statement. Facial hair was common in the 1800's and 1900's. Phyti (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Woman?

 * However the most likely solution to this problem is that the barber, despite being male, doesn't shave.

Nope. Then he doesn't shave himself and so he has to.... see above. The possible solution is that the barber is a woman ;-) -- Tarquin 12:51 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * Other possible solutions:
 * A woman shaves the barber.
 * The barber leaves town to shave himself or to be shaved.
 * DesertSteve 04:02 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, because if a woman shaves the barber then he doesn't shave himself and therefore must shave himself. (The barber is said to be male, so my suggestion won't work either, BTW) -- Tarquin

 * The barber shaves every man who doesn't shave himself.

 * A = the set of men who shave themselves
 * B = the set of men who don't shave themselves
 * C = the barber

 * A = M ^ S
 * B = M ^ ~ S

 * Assuming the barber is a man,
 * C = (M ^ S) v (M ^ ~ S)

 * Tis a puzzlement. DesertSteve 04:26 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What are M and S? -- Tarquin 08:13 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * M = Man
 * S = Shaves himself
 * (M ^ S) = man and shaves himself
 * (M ^ ~S) = man and not shaves himself
 * DesertSteve 04:18 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Throwing M and S in doesn't really add anything new. Of course the barber must belong to set A or B. It is that which prevents him from existing, it's the question of whether he shaves himself or not -- Tarquin 09:03 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Not saying anything different, but making it clearer for myself using symbolic logic. Axiomatic set theory is supposed to solve the problem of the paradox, but I'm not sure how. -- DesertSteve 22:12 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * ah... Sorry, we sometimes get people posting on talk pages about how they can "amazingly disprove theorem X" or "solve paradox Y" -- I'm afraid I mistakenly got the idea from your earlier post you were trying to resolve the paradox somehow. (go see the talk page for Relativity, for an example). But by all means, a formulation of the paradox in symbolic logic would be a good addition to the article. I suspect Axiomatic set theory just forbids the paradox from being stated in the first place. -- Tarquin 22:19 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * No problem. If Bertrand Russell couldn't solve it, I don't think I will. :) I added the symbolic logic example to the article.  You're probably right about Axiomatic set theory. -- DesertSteve 23:18 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I removed the symbolic logic description again, since it did not contain the basic feature that makes the paradox work, namely the description of those people shaved by the barber. AxelBoldt 20:13 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The paradox says that the barber is male, not that the barber is a man. What if the barber is Spock? PsyMar 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the paradox says that the town has one male barber, BUT it also states that everyone either shaves themselves or attends this barber, so technically any others are not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.46.250 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The paradox states, "Suppose there is a town with just one male barber..." It doesn't specifically state that the barber lives in town, or even has a permanent shop there. I propose that the barber is actually based in a nearby town, and includes this town in his territory. In this way, the town has just one male barber, who lives elsewhere and can be shaved by a different barber in his home town. AbuMaia (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Using set theory, it can be shown that the resident barber can shave those and only those male residents who do not shave themselves if and only if the barber is not male. Danchristensen (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The oldest of logical paradoxes
Actually, the oldest of this paradoxes dates back to the sixth century B.C., when Epimenides, (a Greek from the island of Crete) is supposed to have made his famous remark:" All Cretans are liars." The meaning of this is, of course: If I am telling the truth then I am lying, and if I am lying then I am telling the truth!!

Paul P Papadakis ppapad@ermis400.gr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.167.16.131 (talk • contribs). , 10:45, August 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * that's not quite the same paradox -- Tarquin 12:18, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is true that it isn't quite the same paradox... but they both have the same problem. Both of these paradoxes are based on the assumption that the individual is infallible, and acts in a manner that does not conflict with his/her talk. The answer to Epimenides is that some, but not all, Cretans lie... and he is one of them. The barber can deal with his stubble any way he pleases. You can't just construct an arbitrary set of rules like this barber paradox and shout 'my god, isn't this a paradox!' - it is not a paradox... it is a situation that would likely result in hypocrisy, but it is not a logical mind-boggler. I do have a solution to the 'paradox' without hypocrisy though, if you will. Since people insist that there is a male pronoun, so it cannot be a 'woman' ...and that it would be disingenuous to suggest that the barber just lets a beard grow... I have a few other solutions. 1)The barber is a female-to-male transgender. 2)The barber is too young to need to shave. 3)The barber was in a horrible fire, and the bottom half of his face was damaged to the point where he could not grow hair there. LOL, this is fun, making up possibilities. Rose Mara 02:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"It's only a paradox because …"
It's only a paradox because the author deliberately introduced a self-contradiction into the rules. Talk about a circular argument. --Sir Cumference of the Round Table —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee M (talk • contribs). , 1:56, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think thats the point...Talltim (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

barber paradoxon
The statement is: The barber shaves everybody who does not shave himself.

Clearly we must distinguish FOUR selections of people (and not two !):

Selection 1: The people who ARE shaved by the barber. Selection 2: The people who are NOT shaved by the barber. Selection 3: The people who do NOT shave themselves. Selection 4: The people who DO shave themselves.

Selections 3 and 4 are NOT redundant repetitions of selections 1 and 2.

The statement, in effect, stipulates that selection 1 and selection 3 are opposites (or complements or mutually exclusive), which is not necessarily true, because they can overlap (in the case of the barber himself), as a matter of fact, it is NEVER true.

The barber, when he DOES shave himself, belongs into selection 1, but NOT into selection 3. When he does NOT shave himself, he belongs into selecton 3, but NOT into selection 1. So trying to resolve the question on the basis of this stipulation only unearths the fault built into the stipulation.

Clearly the statement must be more complex to reflect the obviously intended stipulation: If the barber DOES shave himself, then the barber shaves everybody who does not shave himself, and ADDITIONALLY he DOES shave himself - on the other hand - if the barber does NOT shave himself, then he shaves everybody who does not shave himself, EXCEPT himself.

The people shaved by the barber and the people not shaving themselves are NEVER the same people, so the statement is clearly wrong by way of oversimplification, omitting qualifications and not distinguishing slightly different selections.

In effect, the statement says(albeit in disguised form): It is true, that the barber DOES shave himself, AND it is also true, that the barber does NOT shave himself, then the question is asked: Does the barber shave himself? The obvious answer is yes AND no.

Kutte —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.95.45.30 (talk • contribs). , 15:54, February 11, 2005 (UTC)

"The obvious answer is yes AND no." Hence the paradox. 137.190.86.211 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Jingles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.86.211 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Barber paradox is not such a paradox …
The Barber paradox is not such a paradox but a (twice) sophism, because is logically incorrect. Let us explain,

It has one premise (statement):
 * "The barber shaves every man who does not shave himself, and no one else"

and two alternate (shave/not shave) conclusions:
 * 1."If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself"
 * 2."If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself"

Both conclusions are FALSE because the barber always shaves himself, and the rule is to shave who does not shave himself.
 * 1. The condition is false (the barber always shaves himself), and so its conclusion.
 * 2. The conclusion is false (the rule cann´t be applied to the barber).

The barber is the exception that proves the rule, as would be the men in town who shave themselves, like myself. My sophist conclusion would be that if the barber was Mr B. Russell, he should be wrong and bearded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ex-act (talk • contribs). , 22:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

And my logic conclusion, after the Wikipedia withdraw of my addition to the article, is that human society is not ruled by logic but by myths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.147.2.2 (talk • contribs). , 08:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Needless to say, the above statement is... well. It's needless to say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.30.127 (talk • contribs). , 23:09, January 13, 2006 (UTC)

If the man who is the barber shaves himself, then the barber (who is the man) doesn't shave himself. In fact, the barber does shave every man who does not shave himself, including himself, because the barber doesn't shave him--he shaves himself. o_o 71.35.220.152 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed content which makes no sense to me
I've removed two passage which make no sense to me:

 * "And in fact the Barber paradox is indeed merely a contradiction. As shown in the "impossible situation" analysis above, if the given definition of this barber can be used in a logical analysis, then one is led to the contradiction that the barber both does shave himself and does not shave himself. Thus it must be the case that the given definition cannot be used in a logical analysis. The actual contradiction in the Barber paradox, following Prior's analysis, is in the implicit assertion that the flawed definition of the barber can be used in a logical analysis.

 * "Even more than merely a contradiction (two opposite statements cannot be both true simultaneously) the so called Barber paradox is a real sophism, because both conclusions are wrong as shown in the article´s discussion.

Paul August ☎ 14:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

actual quote?
at the moment, the article says: The paradox considers a town with a male barber who shaves daily every man who does not shave himself, and no one else.

I am assuming that "daily" is NOT in the original quote.

As it is now, there is no paradox. If the barber shaves himself (e.g. non-daily), then he doesn't need to shave himself daily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brewthatistrue (talk • contribs). , 23:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * The current version does indeed allow confusion. I assume what the original author meant was "...who shaves daily every man who does not shave himself, and does not shave anyone else", which keeps the paradox, but if you interpret the last part as "...and does not shave daily anyone else" then you are right, there is no paradox. I'm removing "daily" from the article — it doesn't contribute anything. — Asbestos | Talk  10:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Human is not the same as Profession
One of the published solutions to this paradox is to distinguish between cases where the word Barber  means that-human-that-works-as-a-barber and where it means the-barber-during-his-working-hours.

Then the paradox can be rewritten as:

A human, who is employed as a barber, is required, during his working hours, to shave those who don't shave themselves.

The same human is free to do whatever he wants, including shaving himself, during his free time, because during that time, he is not considered a barber.

Can someone recal who wrote this solution? --Whichone 23:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It could be that the barber isn't a man yet but still a kid. Or maybe the barber is from an alien race or something. I think those are not valid solutions because they take advantage of the fact that the meaning of the words is open to interpretation. In that case the statement would not be impossible, it would be insufficient information to answer the question.83.118.38.37 10:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Paradox resolves with attention to language.
Surely the source of this paradox is the ambiguity that arises from using the word “shave” in two senses.

TO-SHAVE-ONESELF requires a mirror, and is usually done standing. Typically only one person is involved. Invariably, at the end of the act, the person doing the shaving has a smooth face.

TO-SHAVE-SOMEONE-ELSE requires a chair, and involves two people- one standing, one sitting. A mirror is not necessary, and at the end of the process, the person doing the shaving will have as much stubble as they had at the beginning of the process.

Yes, the end result is similar, but that is only true at the level of stubble. At the level of talking about the actions and movements of humans, (which is the level of the paradox) the two processes are clearly not the same- it is a quirk of language only that they are covered by the same verb in English- to shave.

Furthermore, if one visited this town, one would not find anything paradoxical or unusual about it. Certainly, the barber shaves himself, with razor, mirror, and no help. The problem, then, is in the ambiguity of the language used to describe what happens in the town, and this must be resolved by revising the language used in that description.

OK, rename the process of shaving-someone-else barbing; the infinitive is “to barb”.

The paradox is now simply exposed when rewritten;

HE BARBS ALL AND ONLY THOSE MEN WHO DON'T SHAVE THEMSELVES. - To me, the rule stated in the article seems to mean the following:

"For all man A, IF the barber shaves A THEN A does not shave himself."

And not:

"For all man A, the barber shaves A ONLY IF A does not shave himself."

Therefore, there would be no contradiction if the barber does not shave himself at all. 218.250.168.18 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are changing the rules of the paradox. In the paradox "X shaves Y" is a relation which can be applied even if X and Y are the same (just like X<X and X<=X are both well-formed relations - a false and a true one, respectively). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Electrology?
If the Barber has had his beard removed by electrology then he would not need to shave. It appears that being clean shaven is somewhat compulsory in this town so removing hair permanently would save a lot of time and effort. Strangely, I don't think this causes any problems to the paradox; he still shaves all the men who do not shave themselves... What if they don't need to shave? Then they do not shave themselves and he must shave them, but they've no hair and so he can not! What does he do then? Kiffer.geo 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

wiki broken references
I just broke the references (visually). I don't know how to fix them properly. Somebody else do it please! Thanks. Jemmy Button 10:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

True origin of the Barber paradox?
The intro. on the article page states:

"The Barber paradox is a puzzle (falsely) attributed to Bertrand Russell."

If the Barber paradox is falsely attributed to Bertrand Russell, then who is in fact the true originator of the paradox? I think it would be nice to see a reference rather than a mere assertion. PaaulG (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of
Does anyone else find the disambiguation text at the top of the article to be a wry, if accidental, witticism? 137.190.86.211 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Jingles

Woman? (again)
I've heard a similarly-worded brainteaser (perhaps a derivation?) in which the barber's gender isn't specified, and the answer is that the barber's a woman. If this is well-known, it should be noted in the article. --68.161.161.206 (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I've noted it as a variant now. Chuck Adams (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation
Everyone seems to assume that people NEVER change between self-shave and no-self-shave. The way I see things, such a barber is possible -- but he shaved himself once, then either never shaved again, or grew a beard long enough to qualify as "not self-shaving" (at which point he sliced it off). -- DragonAtma 162.83.232.5 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer
He doesn't shave himself, he has someone else shave him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.130.157 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me
If we assume that the question poser is TRYING to say what it LOOKS LIKE he's trying to say, this seems to be yet another simple attempt at a proof of the existence of a paradox: It's possible to state something that sounds logical which can't be reasoned out logically. I say that because it's clear that they've tried to eliminate several logical solutions: first, the question specifically states that there is only one barber, eliminating the multiple-barber solution. Second, it states that in the village, all men are clean-shaven. This eliminates the possibility that the barber doesn't shave, the next easiest logical solution. Third, it specifically states that all shavers are male, thus eliminating the next most reasonable solution, that the barber is a woman (and hence doesn't need to shave...we'll ignore the fact that many women shave their legs/armpits/other parts of their body, and that some women even shave their faces).

But my contention would be that the question is soluble by an near-infinite variety of answers, which goes to show that it's a paradox only as long as the question poser refines his question. This is indicated by the specifics noted above....but it can go on indefinitely. Okay, I'll engage, it seems a simple game to play. Here's my first solution: The barber is a boy. The question states that there is "just one male barber" in the village, and that "every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven." A boy is male, and is clean-shaven without the need for shaving. A barber who is a boy resolves the paradox, not just by dodging the semantics but by not needing to shave.

In anticipation of the next obvious restatement, that the barber in town is an "adult male" rather than just "male", let me offer the next solution: The barber has alopecia. He's an adult male who doesn't need to shave to keep himself clean-shaven.

Again I'll anticipate the next rephrasing: the town barber is "an adult male (or "a man") with no known diseases/afflictions." Okay...assuming that eliminates a genetic anomaly who simply has no hair (which might easily be considered a convenience rather than an affliction), let me ask the next question...."How long has the barber been in town, and how long can he go before he is no longer considered 'clean-shaven'?" Middlenamefrank (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Semantics
Is this paradox an illustration of the difficulty of clearly and definitively defining a set? Are we maybe arriving at the conclusion that no language is sufficient to conclusively enough define a set to make a paradox like this bullet-proof? Are we saying that there is no set without 'fuzzy elements'? If so, is this merely a language-based conclusion or is it mathematically true? Perhaps EVERY set has 'fuzzy elements' which depend on how the set is defined, with the definition being literally impossible to nail down. Middlenamefrank (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

okay...
Why can't the barber shave himself. It says nothing in the rule that he can't shave himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.196.127 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Every man either shaves himself, or is shaved by the barber. The barber only shaves those who do not shave themselves.  There is the rule you're looking for.  If he's extremely strict about the rule to only shave those who do not shave themselves, he cannot shave himself.  If he cannot shave himself, then as the barber he has to shave himself.  But since he has to shave himself, he cannot shave himself. AbuMaia (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Function analysis
Since this paradox was constructed as a mechanism to evaluate the notion of a universal set including itself as a set, it's possible to evaluate this through functional analysis.

Using this approach it becomes immediately obvious the *function* fails by virtue of it querying itself irregardless of the conditional requirement that "IF the person shaves themselves I must not shave them" versus "IF the person doesn't shave themselves I must shave them."

The true nature of the paradox is, "Does the barber requery the actor to determine if the person shaves themselves or not?" If the barber does then so long as the answer is consistent he acts.

The problem is if he queries himself he can never stop.

typedef bool (Person)(bool, void *); bool NonBarber(bool x, Person f) { return x; /*Do I *NOT* shave myself?*/ } bool Barber(bool x, Person f ) { printf("The Barber is told the person %s shave themselves ...\n", x ? "DOESN'T": "DOES"); if(f(x, f) == x) { printf("The Barber CONFIRMED the person %s shave themselves ...\n", x ? "DOESN'T": "DOES"); return x;  } return false; } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) {  printf("NonBarber: Does the barber shave me? %s \n\n", Barber(true, (Person*) &NonBarber) ? "true" : "false"); printf("NonBarber: Does the barber shave me? %s \n\n", Barber(false, (Person*) &NonBarber) ? "true" : "false"); printf("Barber: Does the barber shave me? %s \n", Barber(false, (Person*) &Barber) ? "true" : "false"); return 0; }
 * 1) include
 * 2) include
 * 3) include

Now if we take the paradox in its original format and add the conditional component to the Barber function we see it makes little to no difference because it's the self-reference that causes the problem:

bool Barber(bool x, Person f ) { printf("The Barber is told the person %s shave themselves ...\n", x ? "DOESN'T": "DOES"); if(f == (Person*) &Barber) { if(x == true) //if the person DOESN'T shave their self I must shave them. {      x = false; //, but since the person is me I must shave myself. }    else //if the person DOES shave themselves I can't shave them. {      x = true; //, but since it's me I can't shave myself because I only shave men who don't shave themselves. }  }   if(f(x, f) == x) { printf("The Barber CONFIRMED the person %s shave themselves ...\n", x ? "DOESN'T": "DOES"); return x;  } return false; }

All this does is cause the barber to switch back and forth because he's looking for a consistent answer, but can't find one because he's not allowing himself the autonomy to arbitrate. So he asks the question over and over again.

Put another way if one of the townsmen said, "I shave myself." Then the barber as a rule-based person would state, "I can't shave you. Are you sure?" The townsmen might recant, "Actually I don't shave myself" and the barber would then requery, "Oh ok, you're sure you don't shave yourself?" The townsmen as a joker would continue this skit and say, "Actually I do shave myself." This scenario loops indefinitely (just like the original paradox) because the townsmen is refusing to be consistent.

Likewise as an actor the barber too has to be arbitrary to decide if he shaves or not.

Meaning the whole paradox is to say anything that's self-referential that uses itself for the original input and checks against itself *must* arbitrarily choose a stopping point or it will continue forever. --Xtraeme (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also if the barber ever arbitrarily stops then his answer will depend on either when he stops, if he chooses to return the last answer or the original answer, and when he applies the conditional logic.

int g_count = 0; bool g_hitend = false; const int max_iters = 2; bool Barber(bool x, Person f ) { bool answer = false; if(g_count > 0 && f == (Person*) &Barber) { if(x == true) //if the person DOESN'T shave themselve I must shave them. {      x = false; //, but since the person is me I must shave myself. }    else //if the person DOES shave themselves I can't shave them. {      x = true; //, but since it's me I can't shave myself because I only shave men who don't shave themselves. }  }   printf("The Barber is told the person %s shave themselves ...\n", x ? "DOESN'T": "DOES"); if((++g_count) < max_iters && (answer = f(x, f)) != x)  { printf("The Barber found person inconsistent, said %s & then %s shave himself...\n", x ? "DOESN'T": "DOES", answer ? "DOESN'T": "DOES"); }  if(g_count < max_iters && g_hitend != true) {    printf("The Barber CONFIRMED the person %s shave themselves ...\n", answer ? "DOESN'T": "DOES"); }  else {    if(g_count-- == max_iters) {      g_hitend = true; }    printf("The Barber gave up, assumed person %s shave themselves ...\n", x ? "DOESN'T": "DOES"); return x; //will always give an answer that's the same as the original query (due to initial conditional block) }  return answer; //ditto. }

another possibility that debunks this paradox
What happens if the barber has a disorder that prevents him from growing a beard??

 * Nothing changes. It doesn't matter whether he has a beard or not. If he has no beard and therefore does not shave, then he must shave himself, which he can't, not only because there is no beard to shave, but also because he only shaves those who do not shave. Skrofler (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is only a paradox via an unexpressed assumption
The paradox is such only because it assumes that the barber has never shaved himself. If we posit that the barber has shaved himself in the past (and that "shaved himself" only obtains when his past shave was fully complete), then there is no contradiction: he would not shave himself because he has, at least one time in the past, shaved himself and, as such, would fall within the set of those men who do shave themselves which preclude him from the class of men who do not shave themselves. The paradox demonstrates, in at least one way, the anomalies which can occur in logically abstract vacuums not temporally situated or conditioned

Functional Entities
The “Barber Paradox”, like all logically inconsistent statements, is a result of poor reasoning or an imperfect understanding of language. In this particular example, the author failed to understand that a ‘barber’ is merely a functional entity, and as such, co-exists alongside many other functional entities within one and the same human being, for example, the same man may at the same time be: ‘a villager’, ‘a husband’, ‘a father’, ‘a brother’, and ‘a barber’. The so-called paradox arises because we erroneously attribute to one functional entity (the barber), a function that rightfully belongs to another (the villager), the function in question being, “to shave oneself”. Now, it is the function of a barber to shave another, and generally for some sort of remuneration, however, when the same villager shaves himself, it is not as a barber that he performs the task, for if shaving oneself was the function of a barber, then every villager that shaved himself would also be rightfully called a barber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RGGehue (talk • contribs) 02:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Another solution to this is that Bertrand Russell knows what language is, but you don't know what logic is.
 * Logic is essentially an abstract language that is independent from human thought. Logic would still exist if there were no humans, but human language wouldn't. Human language is dependent on human thought. You are erroneously mixing the two together. While we must use human language to talk about logic, the language of logic doesn't change by this, and you cannot skew the language of logic by applying rules that only pertain to human language. Skrofler (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't state the barber is always the barber
One possible solution i see is that when it is his turn, the barber (person) steps down and another person takes his place, he transfers his tittle, possibly temporarily, to another person. The barber(professional) shaves the ex-barber(person), or the currently non-barber shaves himself while not holding the title. --TiagoTiago (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, should've paid more attention to what others wrote, this has already been suggested. --TiagoTiago (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect statement.
"1.Shaving himself, or 2.going to the barber.

Another way to state this is: The barber shaves only those men in town who do not shave themselves. "

Totally disagree with this statement and the article in general. In the first case as stated is a logical or, the second case is a logical xor.

Russell's paradox is really not a paradox. It's a trick of laguage. The fact is we use 'or' to mean both logical or and logical xor. You can't really know if the first way is either 'or' or 'xor', it depends on context. The trick is you think it's or but then Russell says oh no it's really xor. It's a trick of language rather than a paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.156.11 (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It is my opinion that the paradox arises because the statement is incomplete. It says that either a man is shaved by himself or by the barber. But there are two more groups: those who have no growth of beards, and the barber. We need no women or gorillas as barbers. In politics one hears similar errors often, incomplete pre-definitions. If A and B is different, and C is not A, then C is B. But there can be D and E also, omitted. In mathematics, if there is a paradox, the statement is often wrong or incomplete.BIL (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Location
The wording of this paradox points out a keen flaw. It states that if he does not shave himself, he must go to the barber. However, this person is already the barber and, therefore, does not have to actually go anywhere, resulting in the second reason being automatically false and the first reason remaining true. -- Jahkayhla (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
The beginning of this article reads: "Another way to state this is: The barber shaves only those men in town who do not shave themselves." This is inaccurate and pointless. Pointless due to the fact that there is already a better definition two lines prior to this one. Inaccurate in that this phrasing of the paradox does not preclude the barber from simply growing a beard. In which case he would not need to be shaved. In which case there would be not paradox. Hence, "Another way to state..." must go. Oulipal (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Women are the key sometimes

 * the answer is simple there is two barbers in the town one male, one female the male barber goes to the female barber to get shaved. this works because it states that their is just one male barber it says nothing about if there can be another barber that is female it only says there cant be 2 male barbers and that it also says all men Shave themselves, or go to the barber. so the male barber goes to the female barber to get clean-shaven. (edit on 1:41 Feb 27, 2012...MAGJR...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.99.98 (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The answer has been stated above by another
In plain English, the man shaves himself. The reason is because that when he is shaving himself, he isn't being a barber. The reason this appears as a paradoxical riddle (it isn't) is because we have been conditioned to think of people as their profession, which is the source of the confusion. There is no confusion when you realize this.

As suggested on this post by others, it is a slight misuse of the language to identify someone "as" their profession. A wife will tell a new acquantance that her husband is a lawyer, when it would be more responsible to say that "he works as a lawyer".

Also, I heard some guy on youtube solve this supposed 'paradox' by giving an example (no kidding this is the example he used, albeit a little crude, but effective): If a prostitute does herself, she is masturbating, but when a barber shaves himself, what is he doing? The man on youtube's point is that we trick ourselves with labels. You don't need a degree in philosophy to solve this.

Again, he isn't being a barber when he shaves himself...

Paradox incorrectly stated
The author writes: "The barber shaves only those men in town who do not shave themselves."

This is incorrectly stated. It should be: The barber is a man in town who shaves those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves.

The first-order logical equivalent would then be:

Man(barber) & For all x (Man(x) -> (Shaves(barber,x) <-> ~Shaves(x,x)))

where:

Man(x)     = x is a man in town

Shaves(x,y) = x shaves y

--Danchristensen (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A Resolution
We obtain a contradiction if we postulate the existence of a man in town who shaves those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves. Therefore, no such man can existent. The paradox arises out of nothing more than a poorly phrased, self-contradictory definition of the role of the town barber.

--Danchristensen (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, in fact the symbolic statement given in the article contains an existence quantifier. If you negate it, then the whole thing goes away. It's like saying "There is a square triangle". The correct response is, "No there isn't". Or is there some other way to express this "paradox" symbolically, so that such a simple negation doesn't make it go away? 198.70.193.2 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Danch, for expressing it better than I ever could. So if we're agreed that this is essentially an exaggerated logic system based on a simple impossibility, how is it a paradox, or even worthy of thought? --Sgtlion (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Prolog?
The Prolog section seems completely out of place, but maybe I am missing something. Is it common for Wikipedia to express logic problems using Prolog? Is that really useful? Is the barber paradox a common Prolog exercise? If so, a reference would make this look less like original research. 173.172.70.38 (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, so I have moved it under the one for first-order logic. 86.127.138.234 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-Paradoxical Multiple Barber Scenarios
Suggested definition of the multiple barber scenario:

"For every men in the village, he does not shave himself if and only if there exists a man in the village (a barber) who does shave him ."

From this definition, if there is only one barber, we will always obtain a contradiction, as in the Russell's original BP.

If, however, there are exactly two barbers, B1 and B2, such that B1 shaves every man in the village and B2 shaves B1, then, contrary to the article, the paradox does not remain. No man shaves himself, and a barber shaves every man in the village.

Likewise if there are no barbers and every man in the village shaves himself, the paradox does not remain.

There are probably many more such non-paradoxical multiple barber scenarios.

--Danchristensen (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Are there reliable sources which contain this? Paradoctor (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative for "In first-order logic?"
Informally, if the barber is a man in the town, then no matter who shaves whom among the men in town, we can show that it would be impossible for that barber to shave those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves.

To formally prove this, we begin by supposing that the barber is a man in the town:

 * $$Man(barber)$$

We suppose further that Shaves is a relation on the men in town:

 * $$\forall a,b: [Shaves(a,b)\rightarrow Man(a) \land Man(b)]$$

Now, we suppose to the contrary that the barber does indeed shave those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves:

 * $$\forall a:[Man(a) \rightarrow [Shaves(barber,a) \leftrightarrow \neg Shaves(a,a)]]$$

From these assumptions, we can trivially obtain the contradiction:

 * $$Shaves(barber,barber) \leftrightarrow \neg Shaves(barber,barber)$$

Therefore, by contradiction, we can generalize as follows:

 * $$\forall barber: [Man(barber) \land \forall a,b: [Shaves(a,b)\rightarrow Man(a) \land Man(b)]$$

 * $$\rightarrow \neg \forall a:[Man(a) \rightarrow [Shaves(barber,a) \leftrightarrow \neg Shaves(a,a)]]$$

In the notation of set theory:

 * $$\forall Man: \forall barber \in Man:\forall Shaves\subseteq Man \times Man: \neg \forall a\in Man:[(barber,a)\in Shaves \leftrightarrow \neg (a,a)\in Shaves]$$

where

 * $$Man$$ is the set of men in town

 * $$(x,y)\in Shaves$$ means $$x$$ shaves $$y$$

--Danchristensen (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Start Class" "Low Importance"
One of the guidelines is to be welcoming to new users. Another is that this Talk forum is not about the subject matter generally, but rather about the article specifically. I do not find either of those guidelines to be appropriately applicable to the particular instance of this particular article.

This Article Is Really Bad. It is "Start Class" For A Reason. Its being "Low Importance" is arguably tragic since Russell's Paradox is in fact very important.

Especially objectionable is the notion that this version is easier than the "real" Russell's paradox on sets. If you say that the set version "follows from plausible axioms", then it will be equally true that the (possible) existence of this barber seems initially plausible as well. Any man in the town could undertake to shave all&only those who don't shave themselves (while explicitly disdaining those who do). This produces no contradictions or difficulties at all EXCEPT FOR ONE person. Since hunting high and low throughout the community will NOT reveal this person to the barber, this possiblity will remain plausible. If he's skilled as an activist then he could mount a successful campaign to enact an ordinance granting him a legal monopoly insisting that he's the only barber in town and that everybody who wasn't shaving himself HAD to come to him (and that everyone who was, could not). That would all be well and good until he (belatedly) got around to asking, "Hmm, should I shave MYself?" He won't find the counter-example or the contradiction UNTIL he looks IN THE MIRROR. That he himSELF should be the impediment to achieving his OWN goal will ALWAYS be IMplausible, at least in advance -- to the naive.

More to the point, this paradox is paradoxical for all binary relations equally -- it never matters what the relation is. "Shaves" is NOT different from "is an element of", with respect to this paradox. There is no r that R's all and only those r's that don't R themselves -- if there were, would that r succeed or fail in R'ing itself? Pretending that some R's are more relevant than others here is the opposite of educational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30CA:6270:1C3F:A888:4F37:7EB9 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 * The point here is that, if the barber is a man in town, then, no matter who shaves whom, that barber would not be shaving those and only those men in town who do not shave themselves, since this would result in the well known contradiction.

 * --Danchristensen (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Russel's endorsement or lack thereof
The first paragraph states: "It was used by Bertrand Russell himself as an illustration of the paradox", while later in the article it says: "However, Russell denied that the Barber's paradox was an instance of his own" followed by a quote saying the latter. The first sentence seems misleading and should be removed and/or reworded.

Furthermore in the same two places it says: "he attributes it to an unnamed person who suggested it to him." and "It was suggested to him as an alternative form of Russell's paradox," the first stating the authorship as an assertion of Russel's, the second as a fact. Which should be preferred? -- Hiferator (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

question
Why doesn't he just shave himself when he's off the clock?Sarahmuffins (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no paradox, just an ambiguity
I ask: "Is the barber one of the people of the town?" If "yes", then we can say "the barber doesn't" without encountering any paradox. If "no", then we say "The barber does" with no difficulty. Emehri (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverted without reason
The edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barber_paradox&diff=prev&oldid=1039617866 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barber_paradox&oldid=1039630498 revert my edits (and also a bot's edit) without a valid reason. --2001:56A:72E9:D900:795A:4EA2:35BC:319C (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the change was no improvement of the article. The paradox states that a male barber exists who shaves all man that do not shave themself. Siply claiming that he does not exist violates one of the premisses of the paradox and is therefore not a solution. Gial Ackbar (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DONTREVERT says "Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." Therefore "no improvement" is an invalid reason. If you believe that the lack of existence of a barber is not a valid resolution for the paradox, then rename the section or reword it, rather than reverting a bunch of unrelated changes along with it. --2001:56A:72E9:D900:795A:4EA2:35BC:319C (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The linked page is just an essay, not a policy page. Also, it did make the article worse. It brought in what appears to be Fringe theories in an article that should use established mathematicl facts. Furthermor, I would advide you to get faamilira with WP:BRD and especially the WP:3RR-rule. Gial Ackbar (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The section on first-order logic uses established mathematical facts. How does it appear to be "fringe theories"? --2001:56A:72E9:D900:795A:4EA2:35BC:319C (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the part I'm having problems with. It is the part that claims that the "Solution" would be that the barber does not exist. However, I far as I have always known it, the paradox has no solution as it contradicts itself. Gial Ackbar (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then it can be solved by rewording the text to say that there is no solution, rather than by reverting unrelated changes along with it. --2001:56A:72E9:D900:795A:4EA2:35BC:319C (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not only remoed the parts claiming that this is the resolution. In fact, proving the nonexistence of the barber only proves that this is a paradox as the existence of the barber is also required. I hope everyone is hapy with that version. Gial Ackbar (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you planning to write the "Non-paradoxical variations" section that the comment references? --2001:56A:72E9:D900:795A:4EA2:35BC:319C (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent axiom sets
The paradox can be stated as: 1/ There exists a town where all shaved men are shaved in one of two ways 2/ They are self shaved 3/They are shaved by a barber who only shaves those not self shaved =>a barber cannot shave himself 4/ There is only one barber

In this form it is simply an inconsistent axiom set ie two or more axioms conflict; fairly obviously 3/ and 4/ no ?

Consider the Liar's Paradox 1/ I am a Cretan 2/ "All Cretans are liars" 3/ A liar always tells the opposite of the truth

Again an inconsistent axiom set; ie two or more axioms conflict fairly obviously 1/ and 2/ no ?

Rhnmcl (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Second try The paradox can be stated as: (a) 1/ There exists a town where all shaved men are shaved in one of two ways 2/ They are self shaved or 3/They are shaved by a barber, who only shaves those not self shaved =>a barber cannot shave himself 4/ There is only one barber 5/ Only the barber may shave men ,other than himself 3/,4/ & 5/ => the barber is unshaved

(b) 1/ There exists a town where all shaved men are shaved in one of two ways 2/ They are self shaved or 3/They are shaved by a barber, who only shaves those not self shaved =>a barber cannot shave himself 4/ There is only one barber 5/ Only the barber may shave men ,other than himself 6/ there are no unshaved men in the town 3/,4/, 5/ & 6/ => CONFLICTING AXIOMS => INCONSISTENT AXIOM SYSTEM yes ?

Consider the Liar's Paradox 1/ "I am a Cretan" 2/ "All Cretans are liars" 3/ A liar always tells the opposite of the truth 1/ & 2/ => CONFLICTING AXIOMS => INCONSISTENT AXIOM SYSTEM yes ?

Rhnmcl (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Exception
Exception does not prove the rule. Exception disproves the rule 2600:100D:B149:9EA:E9C0:B9E0:FCE0:5A57 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement made about Martin Gardner...
I don't see in "Aha!" where Martin Gardner attributes the paradox directly to Russell. This should be clarified, or removed. Johnedwardmiller (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Shave half a beard
Does it make a difference if the men shave half their beard? 199.247.64.167 (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Barber paradox


text:
Talk:Frequency-change signaling

This appears to be a specialist term for frequency modulation when used in analog supervisory signaling. (See note 2 in the article body).

This is arguably rapidly becoming a historical term.

 * There is no note 2 in the article body. I think Frequency-shift keying is a closer synonym.  But it's pretty archaic, appearing pretty much nowhere except in dictionaries and glossaries.  Probably not worth an article.   Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Frequency-change signaling


text:
User:Christian List

I was born in Odense on the island of Funen in the country of Denmark. Currently living in Madison, Alabama.

Graduated in 2001 from Odense University, as a Master of Science in Computer engineering.

da:Bruger:Christian List

title: User:Christian List


text:
25th century BC

The 25th century BC comprises the years from 2500 BC to 2401 BC.

Events

 * c. 2900–2334 BC: Mesopotamian wars of the Early Dynastic period.
 * c. 2500 BC: Rice was first introduced to Malaysia
 * c. 2500 BC: Scribal schools flourish throughout Sumer.
 * c. 2500 BC: Assyria is established.
 * c. 2500 BC: Cylinder seal from Sumer and its impression are made. It is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
 * c. 2500 BC: Excavation and development of the Hypogeum of Ħal-Saflieni at Paola, Malta, a subterranean temple complex subsequently used as a necropolis.
 * c. 2500 BC: The Pyramid of Khafre, Giza, is built.
 * c. 2500 BC: The sculpture Khafre Enthroned is made.
 * c. 2500 BC: People in Peru rely on fish and mussels for food.
 * c. 2500 BC: Evidence of long-distance trade routes in South America.
 * c. 2500 BC: Skara Brae is abandoned after approximately 600 years of occupation.
 * c. 2500–2250 BC: Ebla tablets are collected in the ancient city of Ebla, Syria. Discovered by Italian archaeologist Paolo Matthiae and his team in 1974–75, is considered to be the first, if not the oldest, inactive library being the St. Catherine's Monastery Library (565) the oldest active one.
 * c. 2500–2000 BC: Mohenjo-daro is about 7 sqmi in size and has a population of c. 20,000 to 50,000.
 * c. 2494–2345 BC: "Sculptors at work", relief from Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty. It is now at Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Egypt.
 * c. 2494–2345 BC: The Seated Scribe, a sculpture found at Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty of Egypt is made. It is now in Musée du Louvre, Paris.
 * 2492 BC: Traditional date for the legendary foundation of Armenia by Hayk.
 * c. 2450 BC: End of the Early Dynastic IIIa Period and beginning of the Early Dynastic IIIb Period in Sumer.
 * c. 2450 BC: Kish is lost to Hamazi tribesmen of the Kurdistan mountains; Elam under the Awan dynasty occupies parts of Sumer. (Roux 1980)
 * c. 2410 BC: By this time, kings in Sumer have ceased to be automatically high priests of the city deity. (Roux 1980) Infiltration and conquest of Mesopotamia by ancient Semitic-speaking peoples begins. (1968 RD Almanac)
 * c. 2400–2200 BC: Construction of Stonehenge
 * Megalithic culture begins to spread through Europe and the western Mediterranean. (1968 RD Almanac)
 * Earliest signs of Corded Ware culture from the Caucasus. (Encyc. Americana)
 * Southeastern Spain is settled from the Mediterranean, by people using Prehistoric Egyptian-style pottery. (Encyc. Americana)
 * Amorites and Canaanites occupy Syria and Lebanon. (Encyc. Americana)

Inventions, discoveries, introductions

 * The Indus Valley civilisation, at its peak, covered an area of around 480,000 km2, an area just over half the size of present-day Pakistan. Its heartland lay in the Indus River in Pakistan, but settlements spread as far as the Makran coast, Balochistan, Afghanistan, eastern Punjab, Kutch and Saurashtra. They included cities like Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, Kalibangan, Dholavira, ports like Lothal, Sutkagen-dor and Sokhta Koh and numerous villages as well. They used irrigation to farm and constructed cities. The two main cities had sewage systems, bronze, trade tokens (early coins), and hieroglyphs. There were even baths at one of the villages, besides the great baths of brick in each city.
 * Sahure is the earliest known king to make use of a high-seas navy to transport troops over the sea.
 * The earliest known example of a sewn boat is constructed in Egypt.
 * Cycladic marble figures depict the use of both the musical pipe and the cithara. (Archaeology of the Olympics 1988)
 * Earliest surviving ski is left in a bog at Hoting, Sweden, about this time. (Encyc. Americana)
 * Sumerians use domestic donkeys on war chariots (Standard of Ur), not onagers as early interpreters claimed. (Clutton-Brock)
 * Agriculture at Huaca Prieta includes cotton and calabashes. (Bailey 1973)
 * Statue of Ebih-Il, at Mari

title: 25th century BC


text:
Indigo children

Indigo children, according to a pseudoscientific New Age concept,  are children who are believed to possess special, unusual, and sometimes supernatural traits or abilities. The idea is based on concepts developed in the 1970s by Nancy Ann Tappe, who wrote that she had been noticing indigo children beginning in the late 1960s. Her ideas were further developed by Lee Carroll and Jan Tober. The concept of indigo children gained popular interest with the publication of a series of books in the late 1990s and the release of several films in the following decade. A variety of books, conferences, and related materials have been created surrounding belief in the idea of indigo children and their nature and abilities. The interpretations of these beliefs range from their being the next stage in human evolution to the belief that they are more empathetic and creative than their peers.

No scientific studies give credibility to the existence of indigo children or their traits. Some parents choose to label their children who have been diagnosed with learning disabilities as an indigo child to alternatively diagnose them. Critics view this as a way for parents to avoid considering pediatric treatment or a psychiatric diagnosis. Some lists of traits used to describe indigo children have also been criticized for being vague enough to be applied to most people, a form of the Forer effect.

Origins
The term "indigo children" originated with parapsychologist and self-described synesthete and psychic Nancy Ann Tappe, who developed the concept in the 1970s. In 1982 Tappe published a comb-bound which she expanded and republished in paperback in 1986 as Understanding Your Life Thru Color. In these works Tappe introduced the concept of "life colors", defined in Understanding Your Life Thru Color as "the single color of the aura that remains constant in most people from the cradle to the grave". The concept of "life colors" was popularized nationally by Tappe's student Barbara Bowers, who published What Color Is Your Aura?: Personality Spectrums for Understanding and Growth in 1989,  and by Bowers' student Pamala Oslie, who published Life Colors:  What the Colors in Your Aura Reveal in 1991.

Tappe stated that during the late 1960s and early 1970s she began noticing that many children were being born with indigo auras (or, in her terminology, with indigo as their "life color"). The idea was later popularized by the 1998 book The Indigo Children: The New Kids Have Arrived, written by husband and wife self-help lecturers Lee Carroll and Jan Tober.

In 2002, the first international conference on indigo children was held in Hawaii, drawing 600 attendees, and there have been subsequent conferences in Florida, Oregon, and elsewhere. Several films have been produced on the subject, including two films by New Age writer James Twyman: a 2003 feature film Indigo and a 2006 documentary The Indigo Evolution.

Sarah W. Whedon suggests in a 2009 article in Nova Religio that the social construction of indigo children is a response to an "apparent crisis of American childhood" in the form of increased youth violence and diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Whedon believes parents label their children as "indigo" to provide an alternative explanation for their children's improper behavior, which is stemming from ADHD.

Attributed characteristics
Descriptions of indigo children include that they:
 * Are empathic, curious, and strong-willed
 * Are often perceived by friends and family as being strange
 * Possess a clear sense of self-definition and purpose
 * Show a strong innate subconscious spirituality from early childhood (which, however, does not necessarily imply a direct interest in spiritual or religious areas)
 * Have a strong feeling of entitlement, or deserving to be here

Other attributed traits include:
 * High intelligence quotient
 * Inherent intuitive ability
 * Resistance to rigid, control-based paradigms of authority

According to Tober and Carroll, indigo children may function poorly in conventional schools due to their rejection of rigid authority, their being smarter or more spiritually mature than their teachers, and their lack of response to guilt-, fear- or manipulation-based discipline.

According to research psychologist Russell Barkley, the New Age movement has yet to produce empirical evidence of the existence of indigo children, as the traits most commonly attributed to them are closely aligned with the Forer effect—so vague that they could describe nearly anyone. Many critics see the concept of indigo children as made up of extremely general traits, a sham diagnosis that is an alternative to a medical diagnosis, with a complete lack of science or studies to support it.

Indigo as an alternative to diagnosis
Retired professor of philosophy and skeptic Robert Todd Carroll notes that many of the commentators on the indigo phenomenon are of varying qualifications and expertise, and parents may prefer labeling their child an indigo as an alternative to a diagnosis that implies poor parenting, narcissistic parenting, damage, or mental illness. This is a belief echoed by academic psychologists. Some mental health experts are concerned that labeling a disruptive child an "indigo" may delay proper diagnosis and treatment that could help the child or look into the parenting style that may be causing the behavior. Others have stated that many of the traits of indigo children could be more prosaically interpreted as simple unruliness and alertness.

Relationship to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
Many children labeled indigo by their parents are diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Tober and Carroll's book The Indigo Children linked the concept with diagnosis of ADHD. David Cohen points out that labeling a child an indigo is an alternative to a diagnosis that implies mental illness, which may appeal to many parents. Cohen has stated, "The view in medicine is that ADHD is a defect. It's a disorder. If you're a parent, the idea of 'gifted' is much more appealing than the idea of a disorder." Linking the concept of indigo children with the distaste for the use of Ritalin to control ADHD, Robert Todd Carroll states "The hype and near-hysteria surrounding the use of Ritalin has contributed to an atmosphere that makes it possible for a book like Indigo Children to be taken seriously. Given the choice, who wouldn't rather believe their children are special and chosen for some high mission rather than that they have a brain disorder?" Stephen Hinshaw, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, states that concerns regarding the overmedicalization of children are legitimate but even gifted children with ADHD learn better with more structure rather than less, even if the structure initially causes difficulties. Many labeled as indigo children are or have been home schooled. Many children labeled as indigo children have the same identifying criteria as those children who have experienced being raised by a narcissistic parent, and are considered to have been emotionally abused.

A 2011 study suggested parents of children with ADHD who label their children as "indigos" may perceive problematic behaviors emblematic of ADHD to be more positive and experience less frustration and disappointment, though they still experience more negative emotions and conflicts than parents of children without a diagnosis.

Commercialization
The concept of indigo children has been criticized for being less about children and their needs, and more about the profits to be made by self-styled experts in book and video sales as well as lucrative counseling sessions, summer camps, conferences and speaking engagements.

Discussion as a new religious movement
Nancy Ann Tappe originally noted that one type of Indigo child (the "interdimensional child"), despite being seen as a bully, was expected to lead new religious movements.

One pagan author, Lorna Tedder, anecdotally notes that every pagan woman she knew who had or was going to have a child believed their child was an Indigo child.

S. Zohreh Kermani states that "Despite their problems with authority, uncontrollable tempers, and overbearing egos, Indigo Children are many pagan parents' ideal offspring: sensitive, psychic, and strong willed", but also notes the concept is less about the child's psychic abilities than the parent's own hopes and desire for "distinction from the less-evolved masses."

Daniel Kline, in an essay titled "The New Kids: Indigo Children and New Age Discourse", notes that the magical belief that the innocence of children equates to spiritual powers has existed for centuries, and that the indigo child movement is rooted in a religious rejection of science-based medicine. In particular, he wrote that Nancy Ann Tappe derived some of her ideas from Charles Webster Leadbeater (her main innovation being emphasizing the connection between children and the color indigo), and that the New Age adoption of the concept is a reaction against diagnoses of ADHD and autism. Kline also discusses how Carroll and Tober have tried to distance themselves from religious beliefs about indigo children in order to maintain control of the concept (even recanting their previous affirmations about auras), and how skeptics and New Agers alike both make rhetorical appeals to science (despite the latter's rejection of it) to legitimize their ideological beliefs regarding the existence of indigo children.

At the 2014 University of Cambridge Festival of Ideas, anthropologist Beth Singler discussed how the term indigo children functioned as a new religious movement, along with Jediism. Singler's work focuses on the Indigo movement as a part of an overall discussion on "wider moral panicsaround [sic] children, parenting, the diagnosis of conditions such as ADHD and autism and conspiracy theories about Big Pharma and vaccinations."

title: Indigo children