text:
Talk:Principle of indifference

-Ann O'nyme

 * Hrm, yeah, not too novice-friendly. A nice example would go a long way. I'll do that eventually, if someone doesn't beat me to it.
 * Cyan 18:25, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I've got a book by Martin Gardner on paradoxes (the name eludes me at this time) that presents a user-friendly discussion on the Principle. If I remember, I'll paraphrase an example or two from it.
 * CHz 20:12, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The book is "aha! Gotcha" by Martin Gardner. Here's the full citation:

 * Gardner, Martin (1982). aha! Gotcha. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 0-71-671361-6.

 * The following example occurs on pages 107-108:

 * "Let's see how contradictions arise if the principle is carelessly applied to our questions about Titan and atomic war. What is the probability there is some form of life on Titan? We apply the principle of indifference and answer 1/2. What is the probability of no simple plant life on Titan? Again, we answer 1/2. Of no one-celled animal life? Again, 1/2. What is the probability there is neither simple plant life nor simple animal life on Titan? By the laws of probability we must multiply 1/2 by 1/2 and answer 1/4. This means that the probability of some form of life on Titan has now risen to 1 - 1/4 = 3/4, contradicting our former estimate of 1/2.

 * "What is the probability of an atomic war before the year 2000? By the principle of indifference we reply 1/2. What is the probability of no atom bomb dropped on the United States? Answer: 1/2. Of no atom bomb on Russia? Answer: 1/2. Of no atom bomb on France? Answer: 1/2. If we apply this reasoning to ten different countries, the probability of no atom bomb falling on any of them is the tenth power of 1/2, or 1/1024. Subtracting this from 1 gives us the probability that an atom bomb will fall on one of the ten countries--a probability of 1023/1024.

 * "In both of the above examples the principle of indifference is aided by an additional assumption in yielding such absurd results. We have tacitly assumed the independence of events that clearly are not independent. In light of the theory of evolution, the probability of intelligent life on Titan is dependent on the existence there of lower forms of life. Given the world situation as it is, the probability of an atom bomb falling on, say, the United States is not independent of the probability of such a bomb falling on Russia."

 * (forgive any typographical errors: I'm tired)

 * This is a great example that explains both how the Principle is applied and how it can be incorrectly used. I don't think I can rephrase in any better way, so does anyone have an objection to me slapping this into the article?

 * I was also thinking about adding a simplified definition, maybe something like "In layman's terms, the Principle of indifference states that, if we have a list of several independent events and have no reason to believe that any are more or less likely to occur than others, then we should assume that each has an equal chance of occurring." Any thoughts? CHz 05:31, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Quoting such a large chunk of text may be a copyright violation, so check up on fair use rules before you paste it into the article. Also, feel free to go ahead and make any changes you think are appropriate - typically, people use the talk page for proposing really big changes, but relatively small improvements can be discussed after the fact, if anyone feels it's necessary. Cheers, Cyan 15:45, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * You do have a point there; I forgot all about fair use. You can tell I'm still gettin' used to all this. "Just because you quote something and give the source doesn't mean your reference is legal." I'm working on some legal examples for the page. I should hopefully have them up within the next couple of days, providing I don't go on unexpected vacation again like I did on Monday-Thursday. CHz 03:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Ta-da! I'm finally done. I aded a somewhat simpler definition, extended the sections on coins and dice, and added a new section on misuse. Feel free to dissect my work as you see fit. I do have a tendency to write things that make perfect sense to me but no sense to anyone else. CHz 03:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not bad, not bad. However, I believe that one of the explanations is flawed. I am refering to the section under the heading "Ranges". You wrote, "These conflicting results arise because the middle of the ranges is not the "best" guess." I believe this is incorrect. From the point of view of decision theory, there is no best guess until a loss function is specified; once it is, the best guess is the one that minimizes the expected loss. If the loss function is symmetric, then the median (also the mean) of the bounded uniform distribution is the optimal guess.

The unknown box example does demonstrate why the principle of indifference cannot be applied to a continuous variable. The reason why it fails is that the example implicitly assumes a uniform epistemic probability distribution both for the length of a side and for the volume; these two assumptions are contradictory. Choosing the middle value as the best guess for both variables and arriving at a contradiction is simply a consequence of these two implicit, contradictory assumptions.

In general, for continuous variables, the principle of indifference does not indicate the which variable (e.g. in this case, length or volume, or surface area, even) is to have a uniform epistemic probability distribution. This is the reason why the principle of indifference can't be applied to continuous variables.

What do you think? -- Cyan 05:43, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I struggled with that section a bit while writing. I read about the unknown cube paradox in a book, but it didn't have an explanation about how to resolve it, so I had to come up with my own. (It also didn't help that I couldn't find any information on applying the principle of indifference on continuous variables.) I tried to get around the loss theory issue (in my mind, anyway) by assuming that "better" means "more likely." The statement "The principle of indifference is normally misused by being applied to dependent events. It is also used as part of a faulty argument involving ranges of values." (which has a grammar error in the first sentence... whoops) could be changed to "The principle of indifference is normally misused in one of two ways: it is misapplied to dependent events and continuous variables."

 * And, of course, your explanation is good. It stands up to examination more than mine does. =P CHz 04:40, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Shall I work my explanation into the text of the article, or do you want to do it? -- Cyan 04:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, you seem to have somewhat more experience with the application of the principle of indifference to continuous variables, so it's probably best that you do it. I don't mind you tampering with my baby... CHz 03:59, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay, all done. -- Cyan 04:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * "Not bad, not bad." I just rephrased the introduction to the "Ranges" section; no new content. (I like the addition of surface area, by the way.) CHz 04:12, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello. This is a nice article. I think the part about continuous variables can be improved. The principle of indifference doesn't imply that all functions of a quantity must be uniformly distributed if one of them is. If I assume surface area is uniformly distributed, then the p.i. does not apply to volume, since I am not assuming that ranges of the volume of equal size have equal probability. Likewise if I assume volume is uniformly distributed, the p.i. doesn't apply to surface area. The point is that if I make an assumption about one variable, I'm no longer ignorant about the other; the p.i. has nothing to say about the other, so I can't construct a contradiction. I agree that there is some subtlety to working with continuous variables, but it doesn't follow that the p.i. is not applicable. I invite your comments. FWIW, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:04, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You are correct, of course. I think that historically, the essential complaint is that nothing in the P.I. tells one which parameterization of the problem is the one in which P.I. applies. If one uses it in a real data analysis problem, one immediately invites the criticism, "Why did you choose to make that parameter's prior uniform? Why not its square, or its square root, or some other arbitrary function?" A principle that applies to continuous parameters really ought to provide the answer to this criticism, but P.I. doesn't. (The principle of transformation groups claims to, but I haven't tried to write that article because (i) I have misgivings over some of the applications, and (ii) my math skills aren't quite there yet. Good username by the way. "Heresiarch." Heh.) -- Cyan 17:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I have a comment on the "life on Europa" example. The inconsistent result is due to the erroneous assumption of independence, as pointed out by Gardner himself -- he's quoted above as saying "We have tacitly assumed the independence of events that clearly are not independent." So although this example is a cautionary tale -- you have to be careful about dependence -- it's not clear to me that this example tells something about the principle of indifference. Is there some way to rephrase it so that the problem is clearly with the p.i. and not with an unjustified assumption about independence? Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Well, to me the example seems perfectly clear, but that's likely a side effect of the fact that I wrote that portion. How about this revision to the last paragraph?

 * "This probability of 3/4 contradicts the previous probability of 1/2. These contradictory results occur because (assuming evolution is valid) the principle of indifference has been applied to dependent events. The probability of multi-celled life is not independent of the probability of single-celled life; multi-celled life would develop from single-celled life."

 * How's that? CHz 04:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree the example is perfectly clear, but what is clear is that a mistaken assumption of independence leads to a mistaken conclusion. I don't see that the example, either in the original version or the rephrased version above, says anything about the principle of indifference. Whether the probabilities were assigned by the p.i. is immaterial; the answer will be wrong whatever kind of assignment is made. Can we find an example that speaks directly about the p.i. ? Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * On a related note, the p.i. can certainly be applied to dependent events, so that can't be the source of the problem. For example: you roll two dice and then you get to spin a roulette wheel with a number of segments equal to the sum of the dice. The second outcome depends on the first, yet a conventional analysis (as correct as can be without making a detailed physical analysis) would be to apply the p.i. twice. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying for a month; I somehow managed to remove this article from my watchlist. And then I went on vacation. =P

I read your comment yesterday and did some thinking about it: working it out, realizing I need a probability textbook, and so forth. Suddenly, while I was working on something else, I got a flash of inspiration, so I ran over to the computer and typed up the next two paragraphs in a minute or two. I then went back to what I was doing. It made sense when I wrote it, and hopefully it'll make sense to you.

 * I think I figured out why the principle of indifference works on the dice-and-wheel example but not the Europa one. The problem lies not in the application on dependent events in general but rather on dependent events that are unaccounted for. In the dice-and-wheel example, the p.i. can be used with no problems on the roll (although a single die might be better because the probability distribution of the total of two rolled dice isn't uniform) and can therefore also be applied to a wheel whose number of segments is equal to the number rolled by the dice. In this case, the certainty of the probabilities of one event allows the p.i. to be applied to another event dependent on it.

 * In the Europa example, however, the principle of indifference can't simply be applied to the existence of single-celled or multi-celled life because each is dependent on a large list of other factors that need to be accounted for, including temperature, moisture, the existence of certain elements, etc. The probability of life cannot be boiled down to a simple "either there is or there isn't" dichotomy, which is why the p.i. cannot be applied without further information.

Does that sound right? CHz 17:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Following up on this discussion from last spring -- I've struck out the section titled "Dependent Events". The essential difficulty is that Gardner's puzzle hinges on an inappropriate assumption of independence, and doesn't say anything about the principle of indifference. It may be possible to reformulate the puzzle to directly address the p.i., but, absent any evidence that such a mistake or misapplication has been made more than once, we're veering off into original research. The implication in the previous revision was that application of p.i. to dependent events is a common mistake (the article said "normally misused") but I've yet to see that in a decade of reading, and there's no evidence presented that this misuse occurs "in the wild". If anyone has such evidence, we can discuss how to restore the section, otherwise, I just don't see the point of it. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After reading the article, I don't understand why the principle of indifference would apply to discrete variables but not to continuous variables. First, the example with a cube is confusing, as it doesn't justify "simply picking the mid-values" from different probability distributions and then expecting them to be related to each other somehow. Second, I don't see how the choice of parameterization isn't as much of a problem for discrete variables. If you simply discretize the cube (it's made of atoms anyway, measure the lengths in atoms instead of centimeters, then you get integers), you get exactly the same problem. 82.103.214.43 18:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. I think the whole cube example should be removed, because it confuses the issue regarding continuous variables. Consider the same example but with the restriction that the side length must be an integer: assuming equal probabilities for the lengths 3, 4 and 5, the expectation value is 4 for the side length, 100 for the surface area, and 72 for the volume. These values are just as mutually contradictory as in the continuous case, without assuming uniform distributions for the area and volume ranges.

 * The issue with continuous variables is not that equiprobability isn't uniquely definable, but rather that the probabilities of most elementary events are zero, so one must use probability density functions instead. When a discrete uniform distribution is transformed by applying some function to the underlying variable, it is intuitively obvious that the resulting discrete distribution is also uniform only when the transformation is linear. The same holds for continuous uniform probability distributions, but it is not as obvious since we generally don't have good intuition for the continuous case. For example, I am not sure if non-uniform equiprobable continuous distributions can exist at all, but it's intuitively obvious that non-uniform equiprobable discrete distributions exist. --Shastra 15:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

not quite meaningless for frequentists
Although often stated in Bayesian terms, the principle of indifference isn't "meaningless" from a frequentist perspective. It translates to the principle that one ought to choose the uniform distribution as a density estimator, unless given some basis (such as experimental data) from which to choose a different density estimator. Of course, it fares no better as an estimator than as a means of assigning degrees of belief. --Delirium 06:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the set of all admissible hypotheses H, let h denote any one element of the partition of H and d the projected design, then we are allowed to assign the same probability to any h if prior information is considered irrelevant and d is impartial with respect to H.
 * In other words, the principle prescribes a uniform distribution over a partition of hypotheses where there is no reason to believe one more likely to be true than any other, in the sense of both irrelevance of prior information and impartiality of the method of inquiry. Notice that this is a general principle that concerns any inquiry (historical, judicial, and so on).
 * In statistics, there is a way to see whether d is impartial with respect to the parameter θ. We need to observe the likelihood functions generable from the design with respect to θ itself. In particular, d is impartial if any likelihood, represented in function of θ, is symmetrical (by providing an equal support to equal deviations from its maximum), and it does not change shape and spread whatever the data may be.
 * This criterion allows us to make the new principle of indifference operative. Namely, we can look at likelihood curves (for different sets of data) and see what they say about the impartiality of the projected design.
 * Box and Tiao (1973) introduced a criterion essentially analogous. According to these authors, the prior distribution for a parameter, let us say θ, is assumed to be locally uniform if different sets of data translate the likelihood curve on the θ-axis, leaving it otherwise unchanged (that is, the data only serve to change the location of the likelihood). On the other hand, if θ is not data translated, Box and Tiao suggest expressing the parameter in terms of a new metric f(θ), so that the corresponding likelihood is data translated.
 * Anyway, in order to ensure the impartiality of d with respect to θ, it is sufficient that, for all possible likelihood functions that can be obtained from d, the respective maxima of likelihood remain constant with respect to θ itself. In other words, the prior is uniform if the maximum of each possible curve of likelihood is constant, or it is situated on the same level of any other.
 * On the other hand, the uniform prior is simply a particular case. In fact, as we showed in a Symposium held to Virginia Tech in Blacksburg (Virginia) on 1-5 June 2006, the prior for a parameter θ can be assumed proportional to the corresponding maximum value of likelihood for all possible likelihood functions obtainable from the projected design.

MAJOR INCONSISTENCY- whoever wrote this page, please make sure it is self-consistent!!!
The introduction states that Principle of indifference is meaningless under "frequency interpretation of probability". Then, as the examples, coin toss and statistical physics are given. Well -- those are exactly the examples where "frequency interpretation" is the only appropriate interpretation!

To be clear: I hold a PhD in Physics, and "frequency interpretation" is the only probability this science uses. We are not setting to evaluate the probabilities unless those could be verified by a reproducible frequency check. I wanted to understand what the "Principle of indifference" is, and this article was completely useless. Please revise it!

 * _________________________________________
 * MY ANSWER ==

 * I support the logical view about probability and the analytical solution of induction. In my view, any application of probability theory must be based exclusively on the axioms of the discipline. Namely, I agree with Lindley: "according to this view, all manipulations in inference are solely and entirely within the calculus of probability. The mathematics is that of probability".

 * The theory of statistics, as a mathematical discipline, can and should be developed from axioms in exactly the same way as Geometry and Algebra. This means that after we have stated the axioms, all further exposition must be based exclusively on them. Under such axioms, statistical inference correctly describes the inductive situation.

 * The analytical solution to statistical induction requires a notion of probability taken as logical relationship between hypothesis and evidence (real evidence, not hypothetical evidence). Carnap particularly emphasized this point: ``the omission of any reference to evidence, is often harmless''.

 * The concept itself of conditional probability implies a reference to evidence. In particular, sampling without replacement from a finite population confirms, if it ever was necessary, that probability depends from that which we known from the results of previous trials. For instance, a card is selected at random from a standard deck of 52 cards. The probability of holding the seven of diamonds is 1/52. Well, this probability remains unchanged even if we take one card out of the pack without knowing which card it is. Though the cards are 51, information has not changed, hence probability also has not. This is a result of standard procedures and not one associated to a special notion of probability.

 * According to Carnap, the problem of determining the degree of confirmation of a hypothesis $h$ based on the evidence $e$ is not of an empirical nature, but it is a logical problem which can be answered analytically.

 * As you can read in Carnap, since the classic period, many writers have said of certain probability statements that they are `based on frequencies' or `derived from frequencies'. Nevertheless, often, and practically always, these statements, if made before Venn's time, speak of logical probability. They are logical probability statements referring to an evidence involving frequencies.

 * The situation for our principle is similar to the one that arises when we assign probability in casting dice. The assignment of an equal probability to each face of a die is based on the assumption that the casting is fair. In the same way, we can assign the same prior probability to every hypothesis if the design (or the method) used in the inquiry is `impartial', in the sense of ensuring the same support to all hypotheses.

 * The unsuccessful performance of the classical principle of indifference is just due to non-recognition of this side of the matter: the impartiality of the design or method of inquiry.

 * In statistics, there are two kinds of alternatives to the new principle of indifference: a calculus with a subjective assignment of probabilities (as it was suggested, for instance, by de Finetti); a calculus independent from probability axioms (Likelihood approach, Neyman-Pearson theories and the like).

 * As Carnap wondered (1962, p. 518), why did statisticians spend so much effort in developing methods of inference independent of the probability axioms? It seems clear that the main reason was purely negative; it was the dissatisfaction with the principle of indifference (or insufficient reason). If we should find a degree of confirmation which does not lead to the unacceptable consequences of the principle of indifference, then the main reason for developing independent methods of estimation and testing would vanish.

 * Under the new principle of indifference, the main reason for using statistical methods independent from probability axioms has vanished.

 * CONCLUSION
 * Your question: "I wanted to understand what the "Principle of indifference" is"
 * Answer: This Principle allows us to be consistent with probability axioms. Inconsistency is somewhere else. For instance, by rejecting that principle.

Rodolfo de Cristofaro decrist@ds.unifi.it

I like this quote
"Evidently we require not mere absence of knowledge of reasons favoring one alternative over another, but knowledge of the absence of such reasons." W C Kneale, Probability and Induction (1949)

I like this quote. Do you? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Misclassified
It appears this article is misclassified (Philosophy... ). "The Principle of Indifference" is key to the study of Bayesian Probability. Given that there has been no substantial discussion or revision of this article in several years (2006 or so), I suggest the article be restarted in the appropriate classification.Dennis Lindley has written definitively on the subject and I'll be looking in his direction to restart it elsewhere (Bayesian, Probability, ...).

I was looking to refresh my memory when I found this article and have now bitten off more than I intended.

Jmiche (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I think it's fair to consider it a philosophy of probability (or science) matter, but also to consider it a probability or statistics matter. Given that, according to the article, its earliest recognizable formulation was by logicians, and the restatement by an economist, it isn't misclassified as much as it is used by multiple areas of study. JJL (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Principle of transformation groups and the box example
The "solution" to the box example using the principle of transformation groups is horrendous. I'm removing it until I or someone gets a chance to re-write it. Here's the text:

 * To apply this to the above box example, we have three problems, with no reason to think one problem is "our problem" more than any other - we are indifferent between each. If we have no reason to favour one over the other, then our prior probabilities must be related by the rule for changing variables in continuous distributions.  Let L be the length, and V be the volume.  Then we must have
 * $$f(L)=|{\partial V \over \partial L}|f(V)=3 L^{2} f(L^{3})$$
 * Which has a general solution: $$f(L) = {K \over L}$$ Where K is an arbitrary constant, determined by the range of L, in this case equal to:
 * $$K^{-1}=\int_{3}^{5}{dL \over L} = log({5 \over 3})$$
 * To put this "to the test", we ask for the probability that the length is less than 4. This has probability of:
 * $$Pr(L<4)=\int_{3}^{4}{dL \over L log({5 \over 3})}= {log({4 \over 3}) \over log({5 \over 3})} \approx 0.56$$.
 * For the volume, this should be equal to the probability that the volume is less than 43 = 64. The pdf of the volume is
 * $$f(V^) {1 \over 3} V^{-{2 \over 3}}={1 \over 3 V log({5 \over 3})}$$.
 * And then probability of volume less than 64 is
 * $$Pr(V<64)=\int_{27}^{64}{dV \over 3 V log({5 \over 3})}={log({64 \over 27}) \over 3 log({5 \over 3})}={3 log({4 \over 3}) \over 3 log({5 \over 3})}={log({4 \over 3}) \over log({5 \over 3})} \approx 0.56$$.
 * Thus we have achieved invariance with respect to volume and length. You can also show the same invariance with respect to surface area being less than 6(42) = 96.  However, note that this probability assignment is not necessarily a "correct" one.  For the exact distribution of lengths, volume, or surface area will depend on how the "experiment" is conducted.  This probability assignment is very similar to the maximum entropy one, in that the frequency distribution corresponding to the above probability distribution is the most likely to be seen.  So, if one was to go to N people individually and simply say "make me a box somewhere between 3 and 5 cm, or a volume between 27 and 125 cm, or a surface area between 54 and 150 cm", then unless there is a systematic influence on how they make the boxes (e.g. they form a group, and choose one particular method of making boxes), about 56% of the boxes will be less than 4 cm - and it will get very close to this amount very quickly.  So, for large N, any deviation from this basically indicates the makers of the boxes were "systematic" in how the boxes were made.
 * For the volume, this should be equal to the probability that the volume is less than 43 = 64. The pdf of the volume is
 * $$f(V^) {1 \over 3} V^{-{2 \over 3}}={1 \over 3 V log({5 \over 3})}$$.
 * And then probability of volume less than 64 is
 * $$Pr(V<64)=\int_{27}^{64}{dV \over 3 V log({5 \over 3})}={log({64 \over 27}) \over 3 log({5 \over 3})}={3 log({4 \over 3}) \over 3 log({5 \over 3})}={log({4 \over 3}) \over log({5 \over 3})} \approx 0.56$$.
 * Thus we have achieved invariance with respect to volume and length. You can also show the same invariance with respect to surface area being less than 6(42) = 96.  However, note that this probability assignment is not necessarily a "correct" one.  For the exact distribution of lengths, volume, or surface area will depend on how the "experiment" is conducted.  This probability assignment is very similar to the maximum entropy one, in that the frequency distribution corresponding to the above probability distribution is the most likely to be seen.  So, if one was to go to N people individually and simply say "make me a box somewhere between 3 and 5 cm, or a volume between 27 and 125 cm, or a surface area between 54 and 150 cm", then unless there is a systematic influence on how they make the boxes (e.g. they form a group, and choose one particular method of making boxes), about 56% of the boxes will be less than 4 cm - and it will get very close to this amount very quickly.  So, for large N, any deviation from this basically indicates the makers of the boxes were "systematic" in how the boxes were made.
 * And then probability of volume less than 64 is
 * $$Pr(V<64)=\int_{27}^{64}{dV \over 3 V log({5 \over 3})}={log({64 \over 27}) \over 3 log({5 \over 3})}={3 log({4 \over 3}) \over 3 log({5 \over 3})}={log({4 \over 3}) \over log({5 \over 3})} \approx 0.56$$.
 * Thus we have achieved invariance with respect to volume and length. You can also show the same invariance with respect to surface area being less than 6(42) = 96.  However, note that this probability assignment is not necessarily a "correct" one.  For the exact distribution of lengths, volume, or surface area will depend on how the "experiment" is conducted.  This probability assignment is very similar to the maximum entropy one, in that the frequency distribution corresponding to the above probability distribution is the most likely to be seen.  So, if one was to go to N people individually and simply say "make me a box somewhere between 3 and 5 cm, or a volume between 27 and 125 cm, or a surface area between 54 and 150 cm", then unless there is a systematic influence on how they make the boxes (e.g. they form a group, and choose one particular method of making boxes), about 56% of the boxes will be less than 4 cm - and it will get very close to this amount very quickly.  So, for large N, any deviation from this basically indicates the makers of the boxes were "systematic" in how the boxes were made.
 * Thus we have achieved invariance with respect to volume and length. You can also show the same invariance with respect to surface area being less than 6(42) = 96.  However, note that this probability assignment is not necessarily a "correct" one.  For the exact distribution of lengths, volume, or surface area will depend on how the "experiment" is conducted.  This probability assignment is very similar to the maximum entropy one, in that the frequency distribution corresponding to the above probability distribution is the most likely to be seen.  So, if one was to go to N people individually and simply say "make me a box somewhere between 3 and 5 cm, or a volume between 27 and 125 cm, or a surface area between 54 and 150 cm", then unless there is a systematic influence on how they make the boxes (e.g. they form a group, and choose one particular method of making boxes), about 56% of the boxes will be less than 4 cm - and it will get very close to this amount very quickly.  So, for large N, any deviation from this basically indicates the makers of the boxes were "systematic" in how the boxes were made.
 * Thus we have achieved invariance with respect to volume and length. You can also show the same invariance with respect to surface area being less than 6(42) = 96.  However, note that this probability assignment is not necessarily a "correct" one.  For the exact distribution of lengths, volume, or surface area will depend on how the "experiment" is conducted.  This probability assignment is very similar to the maximum entropy one, in that the frequency distribution corresponding to the above probability distribution is the most likely to be seen.  So, if one was to go to N people individually and simply say "make me a box somewhere between 3 and 5 cm, or a volume between 27 and 125 cm, or a surface area between 54 and 150 cm", then unless there is a systematic influence on how they make the boxes (e.g. they form a group, and choose one particular method of making boxes), about 56% of the boxes will be less than 4 cm - and it will get very close to this amount very quickly.  So, for large N, any deviation from this basically indicates the makers of the boxes were "systematic" in how the boxes were made.

Problems: (1) It's super confusing. (2) It doesn't at all make clear that this is based on a symmetry transformation (which, for the box?). (3) This is wrong/misleading: "So, for large N, any deviation from this basically indicates the makers of the boxes were "systematic" in how the boxes were made." (4) Should use different letter for pdfs f(L) and f(V), say g(V). (5) Needs to actually call them pdfs. (6) Many others... Jess (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"A symmetric dice has n faces..."
Under 'Dice' the part: "A symmetric dice has n faces..." has me wondering: should that read "A symmetric die has n faces..."

Fix? 71.139.161.9 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

History section has problems
This section omits Gerolamo Cardano.

Before anyone else, Cardano expressed the Principle of Indifference in his Book on Games of Chance. He called it a principle of equality. His book was not published for 100 years.

He should probably be added, but I think it may take a bit of rewriting of the section.Tadamsmar (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Meaningless in frequentist statistics?
Lede, second paragraph: "The principle of indifference is meaningless under the frequency interpretation of probability,..."

I would have thought that evidence that two distributions are different would be admissible as "relevant evidence" in the sense of the principle. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Principle of indifference


text:
William Tubman

William Vacanarat Shadrach Tubman (29 November 1895 – 23 July 1971) was a Liberian politician. He was the 19th president of Liberia and the longest-serving president in the country's history, serving from his election in 1944 until his death in 1971.

Tubman is regarded as the "father of modern Liberia" in that during his presidency sufficient foreign investment was attracted to modernize the country's economy and infrastructure. During his tenure, Liberia experienced a period of prosperity. He also led a policy of national unification in order to reduce the social and political differences between his fellow Americo-Liberians and the indigenous Liberians.

Early life and family background
William Tubman was born on 29 November 1895, in Harper which is located in southeastern Liberia. At birth he was one of 5 children who had grown up poor. He was also a descendent of early American slaves. Tubman's grandfather, Alexander Tubman, was a stonemason, general in the Liberian army, and a former Speaker of the Liberian House of Representatives, as well as a Methodist preacher. Tubman's father was a strict disciplinarian. He required his five children to attend daily family prayer services, and to sleep on the floor because he thought beds were too soft and "degrading to character development". Tubman's mother, Elizabeth Rebecca (née Barnes) Tubman, was from Atlanta, Georgia. Alexander's parents, Sylvia and William Shadrach Tubman, were freedmen, part of a group of 69 freed slaves whose transportation to Liberia in 1844 was paid by their former mistress Emily Harvie Thomas Tubman, a widow and philanthropist in Augusta, Georgia.

Emily Tubman was instrumental in the manumission of enslaved African Americans and paying for their transportation to Liberia for "repatriation". Initially, she had great difficulty freeing her slaves in ante-bellum Georgia. Despite appeals to the Georgia State Legislature and financial donations to the University of Georgia, her efforts to manumit numerous slaves were disapproved. After the Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, the state legislature had greatly restricted manumissions, requiring a legislative act for each, and posting of expensive bonds by the owner to guarantee the free black would leave the state within a short period of time.

Tubman sought the help of her friend and mentor, Henry Clay of Kentucky, president of the American Colonization Society. This organization, made up of both abolitionists and slaveholders, had proposed colonization in Africa as a solution for freedmen, rather than allowing them to remain in the United States. Their presence was considered to unsettle slaves in the South, and in both the North and South, lower-class whites resented competing with them for jobs. Clay assured her that sending her former slaves to Liberia would be a safe and suitable option. After arriving in Liberia, this group of freedmen took "Tubman" as their surname and settled together. They named their community Tubman Hill after their benefactress.

Education
William Tubman, the second son, went to primary school in Harper, followed by the Methodist Cape Palmas Seminary, and Harper County High School. Beginning in 1910, when he was 15, he participated in several military operations within the country through 1917, being promoted from private to officer.

Planning to become a preacher, at age 19 Tubman was named as a Methodist lay preacher. After studying law under various private tutors, he passed the bar examination and became a lawyer in 1917.

Early career
Tubman was soon appointed as a recorder in the Maryland County Monthly and Probate Court a tax collector, teacher, and as colonel in a militia.

He was a Freemason and belonged to lodges of Prince Hall Freemasonry.

Elective office
Having joined the True Whig Party (TWP), the dominant party of Liberia since 1878, Tubman began his career in politics. In 1923, aged 28, he was elected to the Senate of Liberia from Maryland County, holding the record as the youngest senator in the history of Liberia. Identifying as the "Convivial Cannibal from the Downcoast Hinterlands," he fought for constitutional rights for the members of indigenous tribal groups, who comprised the overwhelming number of Liberians.

Re-elected as senator in 1929, Tubman became the legal adviser to vice president Allen Yancy. He resigned from the Senate in 1931 to defend Liberia before the League of Nations amid allegations that his country was using slave labor. Tubman was reelected to the national legislature in 1934; he resigned in 1937 after being appointed by President Edwin Barclay as associate justice of the Supreme Court of Liberia, where he served until 1943. An official biography speculates that Barclay appointed Tubman to the Liberian Supreme Court to remove him as a competitor for the presidency.

President of Liberia
In December 1942, Liberia had to elect a successor to President Edwin Barclay. Six candidates ran for office; the two favorites were Tubman and Foreign Minister Clarence L. Simpson. Tubman was elected president on 4 May 1943, at the age of 48, and was inaugurated 3 January 1944.

While the United States, its ally, began to base military operations in the country after it entered World War II, Liberia did not declare war on Germany and Japan until 27 January 1944. In April 1944, Liberia joined the Allied cause by signing the Declaration by United Nations.

Choosing to sever diplomatic relations with Germany and expel German citizens from Liberia was a difficult decision for Tubman for economic and social reasons: (1) German merchants were integral to the Liberian economy; (2) Germany was Liberia's major trading partner; and (3), most of the doctors in Liberia were Germans. Under the above declaration, Tubman agreed to expel all German residents and oppose the Axis powers.

Foreign relations
"Liberian policy is committed to the concept of a free enterprise system, democracy, and a pragmatic search for solutions to problems of multinational existence. We envisage a synthesis composed of individual states retaining their own way of life, but united by mutual exchanges of peoples, goods and ideas, by pacts of non-aggression, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, and of perpetual peace." In foreign policy, Tubman aligned his country with the US, which he hailed as "Our strongest, closest, and most reliable friend." In June 1944, he and former president, Edwin Barclay, traveled to the White House as guests of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and became the first African heads of state to be received there. Following the war, which resulted in an anti-colonial movement on the African continent, Tubman strengthened ties among fellow Africans by participating in the Asian-African Conference of 1955, and the First Conference of Independent African States in Accra, organized in 1958 by Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. In 1959, Tubman organized the Second Conference of African States.

In 1951 United States and Liberia signed a mutual agreement of defense.

Following that in 1957 The U.S. erects a Voice of America relay facility, one of several U.S. communications facilities to be placed on Liberian soil during the Cold War.

In 1961, following a Pan-African conference held in Monrovia, Tubman helped to found the African Union. This association of "moderate" African leaders worked for gradual unification of Africa, unlike the "revolutionary" group based at Casablanca.

"We wage no war against socialism if it is kept within the territories and among people that are so inclined, but we shall fight till death any attempt to impose and force upon us what we consider a mystical illusion."

A U.S Peace Corps program began in Liberia which would run until 1990 when Civil war broke out.

Tubman's government was critical of communism, and avoided establishing diplomatic relations with most of the communist countries (Yugoslavia, which was regarded highly by the Liberian government, was the lone exception); however, Liberia did exchange trade and goodwill missions with the Soviet Union and other Eastern European states.

Economic development
When Tubman was appointed to the Supreme Court in the 1930s, Liberia was seriously underdeveloped, lacking basic infrastructure of roads, railways, and sanitation systems. Tubman said that Liberia had never received the "benefits of colonization", by which he meant the investment by a wealthy major power to develop the infrastructure of the country. He established an economic policy, known as the "porte ouverte" ("open door"), to attract foreign investment. Working to facilitate and encourage foreign businesses to locate in Liberia, he encouraged development. Between 1944 and 1970, the value of foreign investments, mainly from the United States, increased by 200%. From 1950 to 1960, Liberia experienced an average annual growth of 11.5%.

With the expansion of the economy, Tubman gained revenues for the government to construct and modernize infrastructure: the streets of Monrovia were paved, a public sanitation system was installed, hospitals were built, and a literacy program was launched in 1948. During Tubman's administration, several thousand kilometers of roads were built, as was a railway line to connect the iron mines to the coast for transport of this commodity for export. During this period, he transformed the Port of Monrovia into a free port to encourage trade.

By early 1960, Liberia began to enjoy its first era of prosperity, thanks in part to Tubman's policies and implementation of development. It was during this time that Tubman became regarded as a pro-Western, stabilizing influence in West Africa, at a period when other countries were achieving independence—often amid violence. During the 1960s, Tubman was courted by many Western politicians, notably U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson.

In the past, the bulk of Liberia's production depended on rubber. But with the modernization of the state's infrastructure at the hands of Tubman, Liberia started to use its other national resources. Several Americo-Liberian nationalities, German, and Swedish companies became involved in the exploitation of iron mines—making Liberia the first source of iron in Africa, and the fourth worldwide. Tubman wanted to diversify the economy, rather than basing it on rubber and iron resources, which made up 90% of the country's exports. He encouraged the development of coffee plantations, palm oil, sugar cane, and especially rice cultivation in 1966 (with the help of Taiwan).

In his personal life, Tubman courted Amy Ashwood Garvey, and had a long-term relationship with her.

Role in the Cold War
As World War II gave way to the Cold War, the United States viewed Liberia as an ideal post from which to fight the spread of communism through Africa. Under Tubman, Liberia voted with the U.S. on most key matters at the United Nations, although it sometimes sided with other African states, particularly on decolonization and anti-apartheid issues. Tubman gradually extended ties to the Soviet bloc, but he supported the United States on the Vietnam War, as did his successor, William R. Tolbert.

Assessment
Tubman was criticized for being too influenced by the United States and its interests in the area including its opposition to communism, and for repressing political opposition.

His former ally and later political opponent S. David Coleman and his son John were hunted down and killed by Liberian soldiers for allegedly plotting to overthrow him. The Coleman funeral was poorly attended, as people were afraid of being seen as Coleman sympathizers. That same year the constitution was changed to allow Tubman to stay in office for more than two terms.

In 1961 Tubman declared a state of emergency after riots and a strike took place. In July 1965, Raymond J. Horace and three other individuals involved in the 1955 attempted assassination of Tubman were released from prison. As a result of labor unrest, Tubman was granted emergency powers by the parliament for twelve months.

By the time Tubman died, Liberia had the largest mercantile fleet in the world.

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

title: William Tubman


text: Talk:Yonkers Raceway

title: Talk:Yonkers Raceway


text:
Rick Salutin

Rick ‘wacko’ Salutin (born August 30, 1942) is a Canadian novelist, playwright, journalist, and critic and has been writing for more than forty years. Until October 1, 2010, he wrote a regular column in The Globe and Mail; on February 11, 2011, he began a weekly column in the Toronto Star.

He currently teaches a half course on Canadian media and culture in University College (CDN221) at the University of Toronto. He is a contributing editor of This Magazine. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Near Eastern and Jewish Studies at Brandeis University and got his Master of Arts degree in religion at Columbia University. He also studied philosophy at the New School for Social Research in New York City. He was once a trade union organizer in Toronto and participated in the Artistic Woodwork strike.

Salutin is interested in communication and has praised Harold Innis, an economist who taught at the University of Toronto and conceived of the staples thesis, for his outlook in communications. Salutin has a child with The Fifth Estate journalist Theresa Burke, whom he has cited as the model for the characters Amy Bert and Antia in The Womanizer.

Journalism
Salutin has written in many magazines, including Harpers,  Maclean's, Canadian Business, Toronto Life, Weekend, Saturday Night, Quest, TV Times, Today, and This Magazine. He wrote "The Culture Vulture" column for many years in This Magazine and received National Newspaper awards for it. He won the National Newspaper Award for best columnist for a column he wrote in The Globe and Mail.

He introduced cartoon strips to This Magazine and convinced Margaret Atwood to regularly collaborate. She made a cartoon strip called "Kanadian Kultchur Komics".

In Waiting for Democracy: A Citizen's Journal (1989), he expresses his thoughts on the federal election in 1989 and writes about interviewing people before the election.

Drama
Salutin has an interest in drama and performing arts. His first play, Fanshen, unpublished, was adapted from William Hinton's book Fanshen and was produced by Toronto Workshop Productions. The Adventures of an Immigrant shows that he is concerned about poverty and other hardships in Western society. His unpublished Maria was a drama on CBC Television about a woman fighting to put factory workers in the union.

His first published play was 1837: The Farmers' Revolt about the revolt led by William Lyon Mackenzie. This play was created at Theatre Passe Muraille and produced on CBC Television in 1975. 1837 won the Chalmers award for best Canadian play in 1977.

His most successful play, Les Canadiens (1977), written with help from goaltender Ken Dryden, won him the Chalmers Outstanding Play award.

Salutin helped found the Guild of Canadian Playwrights and in 1978 became chairman. Another play he wrote is Joey (1981).

Novels
His first novel, A Man of Little Faith, is about a religious man discovering himself in a Jewish community. It received the W.H. Smith Books in Canada First Novel Award. His books Marginal Notes: Challenges to the Mainstream and Living in a Dark Age are based on many of his articles from This Magazine. He won the Toronto Arts award for writing and publishing.

Book review
Taken from a book review of The Womanizer: "It's both lively and witty, but not as light as it might seem on first glance."

Books

 * Kent Rowley: A Canadian Union Life - 1980
 * Marginal Notes: Challenges to the Mainstream - 1984
 * ''Good Buy Canada! - 1975 (with Murray Soupcoff and Gary Dunford)
 * A Man of Little Faith - 1988 (winner of the 1989 Books in Canada First Novel Award)
 * Waiting for Democracy - 1989
 * Living in a Dark Age - 1991
 * The Age of Improv - 1995
 * The Womanizer - 2002

Plays

 * 1837: The Farmers' Revolt - 1976, with Paul Thompson
 * Les Canadiens - 1977

title: Rick Salutin


text:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on 10 November 1975, "Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" with 72 votes in favour, 35 votes against, and 32 abstentions. It was revoked by Resolution 46/86, adopted on 16 December 1991 with 111 votes in favour, 25 votes against, and 13 abstentions. The vote for Resolution 3379 was held nearly one year after the adoption of Resolution 3236 and Resolution 3237: the former recognized the "Question of Palestine" and invited the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate in international diplomacy; and the latter designated the PLO as a non-member Assembly observer following the "Olive Branch Speech" by Palestinian political leader Yasser Arafat.

In the context of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted on 10 November 1963, Resolution 3379 officially condemned the national ideology of the State of Israel. It was sponsored by the Arab League and a number of Muslim-majority countries, and was chiefly supported by in-favour votes from the Second World and many African countries. Israel, which had been granted United Nations membership in 1949, voted against Resolution 3379 and subsequently condemned it, and was chiefly supported by the First World.

Jewish nationalism in Palestine
In July 1920, at the San Remo conference, a Class "A" League of Nations mandate over Palestine was allocated to the British. The preamble of the mandate document declared: "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

UN Partition Plan for Palestine
On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending "to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union" as Resolution 181 (II). The plan contained a proposal to terminate the British Mandate for Palestine and partition Palestine into "independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem." On 14 May 1948, the day on which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved a proclamation which declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

On 11 May 1949, Israel was admitted to membership in the United Nations.

Text of Resolution 3379
The full text of Resolution 3379: "3379 (XXX). Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that 'any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous' and its expression of alarm at 'the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures',

Recalling also that, in its resolution 3151 G (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism,

Taking note of the Declaration of Mexico on the Equality of Women and Their Contribution to Development and Peace 1975, proclaimed by the World Conference of the International Women's Year, held at Mexico City from 19 June to 2 July 1975, which promulgated the principle that 'international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms, as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination',

Taking note also of resolution 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinary session, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which considered 'that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being',

Taking note also of the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, adopted at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries held at Lima from 25 to 30 August 1975, which most severely condemned zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology,

Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

Israel
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly the same day, 10 November 1975, Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog stated: "'I can point with pride to the Arab ministers who have served in my government; to the Arab deputy speaker of my Parliament; to Arab officers and men serving of their own volition in our border and police defense forces, frequently commanding Jewish troops; to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East crowding the cities of Israel every year; to the thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East coming for medical treatment to Israel; to the peaceful coexistence which has developed; to the fact that Arabic is an official language in Israel on a par with Hebrew; to the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country, indeed being admitted to many of them. Is that racism? It is not! That ... is Zionism.'"

Herzog ended his statement, while holding a copy of the resolution, with these words: "'For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper and we shall treat it as such.'" As he concluded his speech, Herzog tore the resolution in half.

The name of the "UN Avenue" in Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv was switched to the "Zionism Avenue" as a response to the UN's decision.

United States
Before the vote, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, warned that, "The United Nations is about to make anti-Semitism international law." He delivered a speech against the resolution, including the famous line, "[The United States] does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act ... A great evil has been loosed upon the world."

In Campbell, California, in the United States, a group of high school students attempted to solicit signatures on the premises of a local shopping center for a petition against Resolution 3379. The result was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) that supported states' rights to expand the exercise of free speech, which California held was legal in what were considered public areas of a shopping mall.

Mexico's vote in favor of the resolution led some United States Jews to organize a tourism boycott of Mexico. This ended after Mexican foreign minister Emilio Óscar Rabasa made a trip to Israel (Rabasa shortly afterward was forced to resign).

Revocation
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86, adopted on 16 December 1991, revoked Resolution 3379's designation of Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. Israel had made the revocation a condition for its participation in the Madrid Conference of 1991. The vote on Resolution 46/86 was held shortly after the Gulf War with sponsorship by 88 countries, including the overwhelming majority of both the First World and the Second World, and was chiefly supported by many African countries. The Arab League, most Muslim-majority countries, and four other countries (Cuba, North Korea, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam) voted against it.

In total, the motion to revoke Resolution 3379 received 111 votes in favour, 25 votes against, and 13 abstentions.

Motion by the United States
Resolution 46/86 was raised under pressure from the United States, and American president George H. W. Bush personally introduced the motion to revoke Resolution 3379 with the following statement:

"UNGA Resolution 3379, the so-called 'Zionism is racism' resolution, mocks this pledge and the principles upon which the United Nations was founded. And I call now for its repeal. Zionism is not a policy; it is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people, to the State of Israel. And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations.

This body cannot claim to seek peace and at the same time challenge Israel's right to exist. By repealing this resolution unconditionally, the United Nations will enhance its credibility and serve the cause of peace."

Text of Resolution 46/86
The full text of the revocation was simply:

"The General Assembly decides to revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975."

Legacy
On 21 June 2004, while inaugurating the first United Nations conference on the issue of antisemitism, the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan stated that "the actions of the United Nations on the issue of antisemitism have not always been worthy of its ideals. It is deplorable that the General Assembly adopted in 1975 a resolution which assimilated Zionism with racism and I welcome that it later came back on its position".


text:
Winthrop Rockefeller

Winthrop Rockefeller (May 1, 1912 – February 22, 1973) was an American politician and philanthropist. Rockefeller was the fourth son and fifth child of American financier John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Abby Aldrich Rockefeller. He was one of the grandchildren of Standard Oil co-founder John D. Rockefeller. As an entrepreneur in Arkansas, he financed many local projects, including a number of new medical clinics in poorer areas, before being elected state governor in 1966, as the first Republican governor of Arkansas since Reconstruction. Despite accusations of lacking insight into the concerns of low-income voters, Rockefeller was re-elected in 1968, and went on to complete the integration of Arkansas schools.

Early life
Winthrop Rockefeller was born in New York, to philanthropists John Davison Rockefeller Jr. and socialite, Abigail Greene "Abby" Aldrich. He is one of the grandsons of Standard Oil co-founder John D. Rockefeller. He had one elder sister named Abby, three elder brothers John III, Nelson, and Laurance, and a younger brother named David. Nelson served as Governor of New York and Vice President of the United States under Gerald Ford.

Winthrop attended Yale University (1931–1934) before resigning to go work in the oil industry. Prior to attending Yale, he graduated from the Loomis Chaffee School in Windsor, Connecticut.

On January 22, 1941, he enlisted as a private in the Army, while the United States was still neutral during World War II. He was initially assigned to the 26th Regiment of the 1st Infantry Division. He was later assigned to the 77th Infantry Division. He eventually rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. With the 77th Division he served in the invasions of Guam and Leyte in the Philippines. He earned a Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Clusters and a Purple Heart for his actions aboard the troopship USS Henrico, after a kamikaze attack during the invasion of Okinawa. His image appears in the Infantry Officer Hall of Fame at Fort Benning, Georgia.

First campaigns
Rockefeller resigned his position with the AIDC and conducted his first campaign for governor in 1964 against Orval Faubus. His campaign was ultimately unsuccessful, but Rockefeller energized and reformed the tiny Republican Party to set the stage for the future. In 1964, Osro Cobb, a Republican former state chairman who had also served as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, refused to endorse Rockefeller but openly endorsed Faubus, who subsequently gave Cobb a temporary appointment to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

In his memoirs, Cobb recalls that Rockefeller

"had used ruthless tactics to convert the fine Republican state organization into a one-man Rockefeller machine, loyal not to party but to Rockefeller personally. In rapid succession, Mr. Rockefeller captiously took over most of the functions of the state chairman and in a matter of months succeeded in taking over and exercising absolute right of dictation as to each and every important party function at the state level. Such one-man dictatorship is clearly the deadly enemy of any semblance of two-party government. ... Faithful Republican leaders who have worked tirelessly over the years have been pushed aside or replaced. ... A stranger passing through Arkansas at this time and seeing Mr. Rockefeller's advertising on billboards would not know whether Mr. Rockefeller belonged to any political party. Certainly the fact that he is the Republican nominee has not been included. The evidence simply is unanswerable that Mr. Rockefeller is working for his own personal interest to the exclusion of all other considerations, which leaves the Republican Party in Arkansas hanging precariously at the whims of one individual ...."

1966 gubernatorial election
When Rockefeller made his second run in the 1966 election, only 11 percent of Arkansans considered themselves Republicans. But Arkansans had tired of Faubus after six terms as governor and as head of the Democratic "machine". Democrats themselves seemed to be more interested in the reforms that Rockefeller offered in his campaign than "winning another one for the party". An odd coalition of Republicans and Democratic reform voters catapulted Rockefeller into the governor's office, as he defeated a segregationist Democratic former Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, James D. Johnson of Conway in Faulkner County, who preferred the appellation "Justice Jim".

Former state Republican chairman Osro Cobb reversed himself in 1966 and endorsed Rockefeller. He explains:

"Arkansas Republicans were eager to work with Winthrop Rockefeller on another race for governor if he could be led to run as a true Republican to help build the party in the state. I liked him personally. He showed me many courtesies, and I still thought [despite feelings in 1964] that he would make a good governor and could be elected on the Republican ticket. ... He had learned a lesson. And he won his next two races for governor. ... His service contributed greatly to the enormous benefits of two-party government in Arkansas."

At the time Winthrop became governor, his brother Nelson Rockefeller had been the governor of New York since 1959, and remained so throughout Winthrop's four years in office. They are often erroneously cited as the first two brothers to be governors at the same time, but they were actually the third case; the previous instances were Levi and Enoch Lincoln from 1827 to 1829, and John and William Bigler from 1852 to 1855. More recently, George W. and Jeb Bush were both governors from 1999 to 2000.

At the 1968 Republican National Convention, Winthrop Rockefeller received backing from members of the Arkansas delegation as a "favorite son" presidential candidate. He received all of his state's 18 votes; his brother Nelson, then concluding a major presidential bid against Richard M. Nixon, received 277. This was the only time in the 20th century that the names of two brothers were placed into nomination at the same time.

Governor of Arkansas 1967-1971
The Rockefeller administration enthusiastically embarked on a series of reforms but faced a hostile Democratic legislature. Rockefeller endured a number of personal attacks and a concerted whispering campaign regarding his personal life.

Scholars Diane Blair and Jay L. Barth continue: "As long as Rockefeller led the Arkansas Republicans, the party had a progressive, reformist cast, and those whom Rockefeller had brought into the party continued to dominate party offices and shape presidential preferences until 1980," when the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan of California as president and Frank D. White as governor moved power within the state GOP "sharply to the right." Ultimately the growth of the Republican Party was slower in Arkansas than in the other southern states in the post-segregation era. Blair and Barth attribute sluggish GOP development to "tradition, [which] is important to rural people. They are looking for ways to stay with the Democratic Party; they have to be run off."

According to his biographer, Cathy Kunzinger Urwin, Rockefeller's "good-government" reform proposals included: revision of the Arkansas State Constitution, governmental administrative reorganization, election law reform (a "little Hatch Act" to prohibit state employees from engaging in political activities on the job), teacher tenure, taxpayer-funded kindergarten under Amendment 53, adult and continuing education programs, rehabilitation and vocational training in the corrections system, and the recurring attempts at industrial recruitment. One of Rockefeller's most publicized "good-government" reforms was the ending of illegal gambling in the resort city of Hot Springs. He also made headway in streamlining state government and secured passage of a state minimum-wage law.

Urwin determined that Rockefeller's negatives created public perceptions of "his personal flaws, rather than his accomplishments or lack of them, as governor." Considered a weak administrator, he depended too heavily on staff, so improperly managed that the employees often failed to answer mail. He was habitually tardy to meetings. A special legislative session in May 1968 was particularly disastrous. An Oliver Quayle poll in 1968 declared that Rockefeller seemed "strange, alien, and foreign" to many voters. The poll maintained that many thought Rockefeller sought too much power, that he drank too much, and that he spent too little time in his office. A majority said that the wealthy Rockefeller, despite his interest in "good government," could not understand the problems of common people on restricted incomes or those in the middle class with limited investment opportunities.

Rockefeller had a particular interest in the reform of the Arkansas prison system. Soon after his election he had received a shocking report from the Arkansas State Police on the brutal conditions within the prison system. He decried the "lack of righteous indignation" about the situation and created a new Department of Corrections. He appointed a new warden, academic Tom Murton, the first professional penologist that the state had ever retained in that capacity. However, he fired Murton less than a year later, when Murton's aggressive attempts to expose decades of corruption in the system subjected Arkansas to nationwide contempt.

Rockefeller also focused on the state's lackluster educational system and proposed funding increases for new buildings and teacher salaries when the legislature allowed. Much of Rockefeller's second term was spent in conflict with the opposition legislature. In 1969, he told the lawmakers that his reelection the previous November had meant that a slim majority of voters had approved of tax increases. He proposed to spend half of the new revenues sought on education, 12 percent on health and welfare, 10 percent on local government, and the remainder on state employee salaries and streamlined services. "There are no frills in what I am proposing ... . no luxuries ... . no monuments to me as an individual ... . I implore every member of the General Assembly as I have myself: Listen to the voice of the people ... . not to the selfish interests."

Ernest Dumas, then with the since defunct Arkansas Gazette in Little Rock noted that the Rockefeller revenue package was essentially dead-on-arrival in both houses of the legislature though parts of the program were enacted piecemeal in the subsequent administration of the Democrat Dale Bumpers. Dumas describes Rockefeller as the "most liberal governor in Arkansas history" in light of his attempts to increase taxes to augment the size and scope of state government as well as steadfast support for civil rights and opposition to capital punishment.

During this term Rockefeller quietly and successfully completed the integration of Arkansas schools that had been such a political bombshell only a few years before. He established the Council on Human Relations despite opposition from the legislature. Draft boards in the state boasted the highest level of racial integration of any U.S. state by the time that Rockefeller left office. He was also the only governor from a Southern state to hold a public memorial for Martin Luther King Jr.

In 1970, the Arkansas GOP under Rockefeller hired its first paid executive director, Neal Sox Johnson of Nashville in Howard County. Johnson left the position in 1973 to take a high position with the former Farmers Home Administration in Washington, D.C., and was replaced by Ken Coon, who carried the party's gubernatorial banner in 1974 against David Pryor.

1970 gubernatorial election
In the 1970 campaign, Rockefeller expected to face Orval Faubus, who led the old-guard Democrats, but the previously unknown Dale Bumpers of Charleston in Franklin County rose to the top of the Democratic heap by promising reforms. Bumpers' charisma and "fresh face" were too much for an incumbent Republican to overcome. Rockefeller lost his third-term bid, but he had inadvertently propelled the Democrats to reform their own party.

With the 1970 elections, the Republicans were reduced to a single member of each legislative chamber, Preston Bynum of Siloam Springs in the House and Jim Caldwell in the Senate. Danny Patrick, elected with Rockefeller in 1966 and 1968, went down to defeat in Madison and Carroll counties at the hands of Stephen A. Smith, who at twenty-one became Arkansas' youngest-ever state legislator, a designation that Patrick himself had taken only four years earlier. Smith later became a top aide to Bill Clinton in his first term as Governor.

As a dramatic last act, Governor Rockefeller, a longtime death penalty opponent, commuted the sentences of every prisoner on Arkansas's death row and urged the governors of other states to do likewise. Thirty-three years later, in January 2003, Illinois' lame duck governor, George Ryan, would do the same, granting blanket commutations to the 167 inmates then sentenced to death in the state.

Personal life
An article in Texas Monthly alleges Candace Johnson née Weatherby, later to become the well-known Houston socialite Candy Mossler, was involved with Winthrop Rockefeller during his military service in the South.

On February 14, 1948, Winthrop married actress Jievute "Bobo" Paulekiute (September 6, 1916 – May 19, 2008). She was previously married to Boston Brahmin socialite John Sears Jr. The wedding took place in Florida, and at the reception, a choir sang Negro spirituals. On September 17, 1948, she gave birth to their son, Winthrop Paul "Win" Rockefeller.

The couple separated in 1950 and divorced in 1954. Bobo got custody of Win.

On June 11, 1956, Rockefeller wed the Seattle-born socialite Jeanette Edris (1918–1997). She had two children, Bruce and Ann Bartley, from a previous marriage. Winthrop and Jeanette had no children together and divorced shortly after he left the governorship in 1971.

As the state's First Lady, Jeanette Rockefeller took a special interest in mental health issues.

In September 1972, Rockefeller was diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer and endured a devastating round of chemotherapy. When he returned to Arkansas the populace was shocked at his gaunt and haggard appearance.

Winthrop Rockefeller died February 22, 1973, in Palm Springs, California, at the age of sixty. His body was cremated, and his ashes were interred at Winrock Farms in Morrilton, Arkansas.

Legacy
The legacy of Winthrop Rockefeller lives on in the form of numerous charities, scholarships, and the activities of the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and the Winthrop Rockefeller Charitable Trust, including Winrock International, an international nonprofit organization based in Little Rock, Arkansas whose mission is to empower disadvantaged people, increase economic opportunity, and sustain natural resources. The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation provides funding for projects across Arkansas to encourage economic development, education, and racial and social justice. In 1964, he founded Museum of Automobiles on Petit Jean Mountain, which after his death in 1973 was given to the Arkansas State Parks system; a non-profit organization was formed to run the museum; in March 2007, the Charitable Trust pledged $100,000 for its ongoing operations if the museum raised an equal amount by the end of that year.

Founded in 2005, the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute (commonly called the Institute) is a nonprofit organization on Petit Jean Mountain that seeks to continue Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller’s collaborative approach to creating transformational change and a 509(a)(3) supporting organization of the University of Arkansas System. The Winthrop Rockefeller Charitable Trust gifted the Institute a $100 million endowment in 2018, which is held by the University of Arkansas Foundation.

Rockefeller's political legacy lives on in both the Republican and Democratic parties of Arkansas, both of which were forced to reform as a result of his presence on the state scene.

Rockefeller was the subject of the December 2, 1966, cover of Time magazine.

Winthrop Rockefeller's son and only child, Win, served as Arkansas lieutenant governor, having won a special election in 1996 to succeed Mike Huckabee. Winthrop Paul Rockefeller then won two full four-year terms in 1998 and 2002. Like his father, Win Paul Rockefeller's political career was cut short by a devastating cancer.

The Winrock Shopping Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is named for Rockefeller. He developed the center in a relationship with the University of New Mexico.

During his tenure as chairman of Colonial Williamsburg, Winthrop was a frequent visitor at the foundation's Carter's Grove Plantation eight miles away in James City County, Virginia. He is credited with helping develop a plan with Gussie Busch in the early 1970s to turn a portion of the large tract of undeveloped land between the two points into the massive Anheuser-Busch (AB) investment there, which included building a large brewery, the Busch Gardens Williamsburg theme park, the Kingsmill planned resort community, and McLaws Circle, an office park. AB and related entities from that development plan now are the source of the area's largest employment base, surpassing both Colonial Williamsburg and the local military bases.

Electoral history
1964 General Election for Governor Orval Faubus (D) (inc.) 57% Winthrop Rockefeller (R) 43%

1966 Republican Primary for Governor Winthrop Rockefeller 98% Gus McMillan 2%

1966 General Election for Governor Winthrop Rockefeller (R) 54% James D. "Justice Jim" Johnson (D) 46%

1968 Republican Primary for Governor Winthrop Rockefeller (inc.) 95% Sidney K. Roberts 5%

1968 General Election for Governor Winthrop Rockefeller (R) (inc.) 52% Marion Crank (D) 48%

1970 Republican Primary for Governor Winthrop Rockefeller (inc.) 95% James K. "Uncle Mac" MacKrell 2% R.J. Hampton 2% Lester Gibbs 1%

1970 General Election for Governor Dale Bumpers (D) 62% Winthrop Rockefeller (R) (inc.) 32% Walter L. Carruth (AIP) 6%

title: Winthrop Rockefeller