text:
Slow Train Coming

Slow Train Coming is the nineteenth studio album by American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan, released on August 20, 1979, by Columbia Records. It was Dylan's first album following his conversion to Christianity, and the songs either express personal faith, or stress the importance of Christian teachings and philosophy. The evangelical nature of the record alienated many of Dylan's existing fans; at the same time, many Christians were drawn into his fan base. Slow Train Coming was listed at  in the 2001 book CCM Presents: The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music.

The album was generally well-reviewed by music critics, and the single "Gotta Serve Somebody" became his first hit in three years, winning Dylan the inaugural Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance in 1980. The album peaked at  on the charts in the UK and went platinum in the US, where it reached.

A high-definition 5.1 surround sound edition of the album was released on SACD by Columbia in 2003.

Background
By November 1978, Dylan had received some of the worst reviews of his career. In late January, he finally premiered Renaldo and Clara, the part-fiction, part-concert film shot in the fall of 1975, during the first Rolling Thunder Revue tour. Though the performances were well-received, the overwhelming majority of film reviews were negative, particularly those by The Village Voice, which printed four negative reviews by four different critics. Though critical reception in the United Kingdom was kinder, with some British critics proclaiming it a major work, his most recent album, Street-Legal, was also received poorly by most American critics. Charges of sexism, poor production, and poor writing were thrown at the album.

In the meantime, Dylan's latest tour was getting its own share of negative reviews, many of which reflected the negative criticism which greeted the American release of Bob Dylan at Budokan, taken from performances in February and March 1978.

Yet Dylan was in good spirits, according to his own account: "I was doing fine. I had come a long way in just the year we were on the road [in 1978]." This would change on November 17 in San Diego, California. As Clinton Heylin reports, "the show itself was proving to be very physically demanding, but then, he perhaps reasoned, he'd played a gig in Montreal a month earlier with a temperature of 105."

"Towards the end of the show someone out in the crowd ... knew I wasn't feeling too well," recalled Dylan in a 1979 interview. "I think they could see that. And they threw a silver cross on the stage. Now usually I don't pick things up in front of the stage. Once in a while I do. Sometimes I don't. But I looked down at that cross. I said, 'I gotta pick that up.' So I picked up the cross and I put it in my pocket ... And I brought it backstage and I brought it with me to the next town, which was out in Arizona ... I was feeling even worse than I'd felt when I was in San Diego. I said, 'Well, I need something tonight.' I didn't know what it was. I was used to all kinds of things. I said, 'I need something tonight that I didn't have before.' And I looked in my pocket and I had this cross."

Dylan believed he had experienced a vision of Christ in his Tucson hotel room. "Jesus did appear to me as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords," he would later say. "There was a presence in the room that couldn't have been anybody but Jesus ... Jesus put his hand on me. It was a physical thing. I felt it. I felt it all over me. I felt my whole body tremble. The glory of the Lord knocked me down and picked me up."

Heylin writes that "his state of mind may well have made him susceptible to such an experience. Lacking a sense of purpose in his personal life since the collapse of his marriage, he came to believe that, when Jesus revealed Himself, He quite literally rescued him from an early grave."

"[Dylan's] conversion wasn't one of those things that happens when an alcoholic goes to Alcoholics Anonymous," David Mansfield, one of Dylan's band members and fellow-born-again Christian, would later say. "The simplest explanation is that he had a very profound experience which answered certain lifelong issues for him."

Hints of Dylan's newfound faith began to appear publicly. In the final four weeks of the tour, Dylan could be seen wearing the same silver cross that catalyzed his conversion. During performances of "Tangled Up in Blue", lyrics were replaced with explicit references to the Bible. As Heylin writes, "Rather than having the mysterious lady in the topless bar quoting an Italian poet from the 13th century [sic], she was quoting from the Bible, initially from the Gospel According to Matthew. Gradually, though, the lines changed, until he settled upon a verse from Jeremiah—the one he would quote on the inner sleeve of the Saved album: 'Behold, the days come, sayeth the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah' (Jeremiah 31)."

Dylan also began writing songs that would reflect his new spirituality. During soundchecks on the final two weeks of the tour, he worked on a new song called "Slow Train". At the final show in Hollywood, Florida, he would introduce a new song to his audience: "Do Right to Me Baby (Do Unto Others)". According to Heylin, it "was the first song he had ever written around a dictum from the Bible, indeed a saying directly attributed to Jesus himself: 'All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean' (Matthew 7:12)."

Dylan wasn't alone in his religious awakening. Band members Steven Soles and David Mansfield had already joined the Vineyard Fellowship, a Christian organization introduced to them by T-Bone Burnett. Helena Springs, one of the singers in the band, was brought up Christian and still practiced her faith. Dylan was also romantically linked with Mary Alice Artes; raised as a Christian, she had strayed from her faith only to return to it after joining the Vineyard Fellowship (without the influence of Burnett, Soles or Mansfield).

At one meeting with the Vineyard Fellowship, Artes approached pastor Kenn Gulliksen, seeking pastoral guidance for Dylan. Pastors Larry Myers and Paul Emond were sent to Dylan's home where they ministered to him. As Heylin writes, "by embracing the brand of Christianity advocated by the Vineyard Fellowship, Dylan was about to become, in popular perception, just another Bible-[thumping] fundamentalist. In fact, though the Fellowship certainly shared the 'born again' precepts of more right-wing credos—believing such a change was an awakening from original sin ('Adam given the Devil reign/Because he sinned I got no choice')—it represented a more joyous baptism of faith." As Mansfield would say, "a big part of the fellowship of that church was music."

Under the guidance of the Vineyard Fellowship, Dylan was asked to attend a course held at the Vineyard School of Discipleship, which would run four days a week over the course of three months. "At first I said, 'There's no way I can devote three months to this, Dylan would say in a 1980 interview. I've got to be back on the road soon.' But I was sleeping one day and I just sat up in bed at seven in the morning and I was compelled to get dressed and drive over to the Bible school."

Pastor Gulliksen would later say, "It was an intensive course studying about the life of Jesus; principles of discipleship; the Sermon on the Mount; what it is to be a believer; how to grow; how to share ... but at the same time a good solid Bible-study overview type of ministry."

As Heylin writes, "A well-read man, for whom the Bible had previously been little more than a literary source, [Dylan] now made its allegories come out in black and white." In an interview taken in 1985, Dylan would say, "What I learned in Bible school was just ... an extension of the same thing I believed in all along, but just couldn't verbalize or articulate ... People who believe in the coming of the Messiah live their lives right now, as if He was here. That's my idea of it, anyway. I know people are going to say to themselves, 'What the fuck is this guy talking about?' but it's all there in black and white, the written and unwritten word. I don't have to defend this. The scriptures back me up."

Through his Bible classes, Dylan became acquainted with "the works of Hal Lindsey, the man to whom God in his infinite wisdom had revealed the true code of Revelation," writes Heylin. "Though no saint himself, Lindsey was closely associated with the Vineyard Church. His book, The Late Great Planet Earth (1970), became Dylan's second Bible and added an apocalyptic edge to his worldview".

According to Lindsey, current world events had been foretold in the apocalyptic tracts of the Bible," Heylin continued. "His basic premise, in The Late Great Planet Earth, was that the events revealed to St. John in Revelation corresponded with 20th century history, starting with the re-establishment of the Jews' homeland, Israel. By identifying Russia as Magog and Iran as Gog—the confederation responsible for instigating the final conflict, the Battle of Armageddon—Lindsey prophesied an imminent End."

In later shows, Dylan would reflect these beliefs on stage. At one show in the fall of 1979, Dylan said, "You know we're living in the end times ... The scriptures say, 'In the last days, perilous times shall be at hand. Men shall become lovers of their own selves. Blasphemous, heavy and highminded.' ... Take a look at the Middle East. We're heading for a war ... I told you 'The Times They Are A-Changin' ' and they did. I said the answer was 'Blowin' in the Wind' and it was. I'm telling you now Jesus is coming back, and He is! And there is no other way of salvation ... Jesus is coming back to set up His kingdom in Jerusalem for a thousand years."

As Heylin writes, "[Dylan's] belief in the imminence of the End was reflected in almost all of the songs he now found himself writing." Dylan would later say in an interview taken in 1984, "The songs that I wrote for the Slow Train album [frightened me] ... I didn't plan to write them ... I didn't like writing them. I didn't want to write them."

"Precious Angel", "Gonna Change My Way of Thinking", "When You Gonna Wake Up?" and "When He Returns" all "drew heavily and directly upon the Book of Revelation," notes Heylin. "In the early months of 1979, Dylan was writing his most message-driven album in sixteen years. This time, though, the pursuit of the millennium had overtaken more sociopolitical concerns."

Recording sessions
Dylan first heard Mark Knopfler when assistant and engineer Arthur Rosato played him the Dire Straits single "Sultans of Swing". Later, on March 29, 1979, Dylan caught the final show of a Dire Straits' residency at the Roxy in Los Angeles, California. Dylan approached Knopfler after the show, asking the guitarist to participate on his next album. Knopfler agreed, unaware of the religious nature of the material that awaited him.

Dylan also approached Jerry Wexler to produce the upcoming sessions. "What he wanted", Wexler told interviewer Ted Fox, "was more of a tailored, big funk sound, which he didn't have on his records. He wanted a little more precision, a little more musical input. It was something he felt was time." According to Wexler, it was his, not Dylan's, initiative to bring in Knopfler: that was "the innovative part of it...Instead of going with the regular Muscle Shoals section, I changed it a little bit." Studio recording had become much more complex during the 1970s, and after his struggles recording the large ensemble performances of Street-Legal, Dylan was resolute in hiring an experienced producer he could trust. He was familiar with Wexler's celebrated work with Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett, Percy Sledge, Dusty Springfield, and other soul artists. "Synonymous with a small studio in Sheffield, Alabama, the sixties Atlantic recordings of Wexler defined the Muscle Shoals Sound," writes Clinton Heylin. Like Knopfler, when Wexler agreed to produce, he was unaware of the nature of the material that awaited him.

"Naturally, I wanted to do the album in Muscle Shoals—as Bob did—but we decided to prep it in L.A., where Bob lived," recalls Wexler. "That's when I learned what the songs were about: born-again Christians in the old corral ... I liked the irony of Bob coming to me, the Wandering Jew, to get the Jesus feel ... [But] I had no idea he was on this born-again Christian trip until he started to evangelize me. I said, 'Bob, you're dealing with a sixty-two-year-old confirmed Jewish atheist. I'm hopeless. Let's just make an album.'"

Knopfler voiced his concerns to his manager, Ed Bicknell, remarking that "all these songs are about God," but he was also impressed with Dylan's professionalism. "Bob and I ran down a lot of those songs beforehand," recalls Knopfler. "And they might be in a very different form when he's just hittin' the piano, and maybe I'd make suggestions about the tempo or whatever. Or I'd say, 'What about a twelve-string?'"

When sessions were held in Alabama, Dylan retained only two members from his 1978 touring band: Helena Springs and Carolyn Dennis, both background singers. Veteran bassist Tim Drummond was hired, as was Dire Straits' drummer Pick Withers on Knopfler's recommendation. Keyboardist Barry Beckett and the Muscle Shoals Horns, both key elements of the celebrated Muscle Shoals Sound, were also brought in.”

The first session was held on April 30; it proved to be very difficult. Much of the day was dedicated to recording "Trouble in Mind," a song that was ultimately left off Slow Train Coming. Wexler criticized Dylan for unnecessarily vocalizing while Dylan refused to wear headphones, adamant that they pursue a more 'live' sound even though overdubs on the 24-track recordings were virtually expected.

"Bob began playing and singing along with the musicians," recalls Wexler. "We were in the first stages of building rhythm arrangements; it was too soon for him to sing, but he sang on every take anyway. I finally persuaded him to hold off on the vocals until later, when the arrangements were in shape and the players could place their licks around—not against—Bob."

As the sessions wore on, Wexler's techniques seemed more accommodating. Once arrangements were set, Dylan could focus on recording a strong vocal track while subsequent overdubs would fill in the gaps. As Heylin describes it, the basic tracks with "lead vocals intact [were] laid down before Dylan's boredom threshold was reached. Adding and redoing bass parts, acoustic and electric guitars, background vocals, horns, organ, electric piano, and percussion would require their own set of sessions, but by then Dylan could be an interested observer." For "Precious Angel", bass, guitar, organ, and horns would all be overdubbed a week after recording the master take. "No Man Righteous (Not No One)" (ultimately left off Slow Train Coming) was constructed in similar fashion.

As Heylin notes, Dylan also broke from his "usual practice of recording songs without running them down for the musicians." "Bob might run it down on piano or guitar, just singing and playing the background until we had a rough shape in our minds; then the Muscle Shoals band would start to play it," recalls Wexler. "As soon as it sounded right, Bob and the girls would start to sing." Unlike his previous album sessions, Slow Train Coming sessions would run smoothly and efficiently after a slow start. The basic tracks for the remaining ten songs were recorded in just six three-hour sessions over a period of three days. The first takes of "I Believe in You" and "Gonna Change My Way of Thinking" would become the basic tracks for the masters.

The final song recorded was "When He Returns". Its role as the album's closer was already decided, but Dylan planned on having Springs or Dennis sing the lead vocal. After recording a guide vocal, backed by Beckett on piano, he reconsidered. As Heylin suggested, Beckett's "strident accompaniment made him think again." Dylan practiced singing "When He Returns" overnight before laying down eight vocal takes over Beckett's original piano track. The final take, described by Heylin as "perhaps Dylan's strongest studio vocal since 'Visions of Johanna'," was selected as the master.

Wexler convinced Dylan to overdub new vocals for "Gonna Change My Way of Thinking" and "When You Gonna Wake Up?", but otherwise the overdubbing sessions held the following week focused on instrumental overdubbing.

Outtakes
Dylan recorded three additional songs during these sessions, but these did not make the final cut for Slow Train Coming. "Trouble in Mind" was issued as a B-side in 1979. "Ain't No Man Righteous" was covered by reggae group Jah Mallah, but no Dylan version was released until 2017. "Ye Shall Be Changed" was issued on The Bootleg Series Vol 1–3. All three outtakes were also released on The Bootleg Series Vol. 13: Trouble No More 1979–1981 in 2017.

 * "Trouble in Mind"
 * "Ain't No Man Righteous, No Not One"
 * "Ye Shall Be Changed"

Reception and aftermath
As the album approached completion, Dylan was required to provide testimony in a defamation-of-character suit brought against him by Patty Valentine, an eyewitness to the murders described in Dylan's song "Hurricane" from Desire. In a May 22 pre-trial deposition, Dylan was asked about his wealth. "You mean my treasure on earth?" replied Dylan. He was asked about the identity of the 'fool' in "Hurricane". Dylan said the 'fool' was "whoever Satan gave power to ... whoever was blind to the truth and was living by his own truth." Five days later, Dylan's pre-trial statement was reported in The Washington Post, which also interviewed Kenn Gulliksen, who revealed to the paper that Dylan had joined the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.

By June, with the album virtually finished, Dylan gave London's Capital Radio station an acetate disc of "Precious Angel", which premiered on Roger Scott's afternoon radio show. By July, the album was ready for issue, and pre-release copies of Slow Train Coming circulated through the press. New Musical Express would proclaim "Dylan & God – It's Official".

In a year when Van Morrison and Patti Smith released their own spiritual works in Into the Music and Wave, respectively, Dylan's album seemed vitriolic and bitter in comparison. Critic Charles Shaar Murray wrote, "Bob Dylan has never seemed more perfect and more impressive than on this album. He has also never seemed more unpleasant and hate-filled." Greil Marcus wrote, "Dylan's received truths never threaten the unbeliever, they only chill the soul" and accused Dylan of "sell[ing] a prepackaged doctrine he's received from someone else." According to Clinton Heylin, "Marcus isolated Slow Train Coming's greatest flaw, an inevitable by-product of his determination to capture the immediacy of newfound faith in song."

Robert Christgau gave a mostly positive review, grading it a B+. "The lyrics are indifferently crafted," wrote Christgau. "Nevertheless, this is his best album since Blood on the Tracks. The singing is passionate and detailed."

Reviewing the album in Rolling Stone, Jann Wenner proclaimed it "one of the finest records Dylan has ever made". However, in an interview in Rolling Stone, Ann Druyan stated "The thing that I always loved about Dylan was the courage of his metaphors and the way he could cut to the bone of some kind of naked feeling. It always seemed very gutsy. And now it seems that he's turned away, he's blinded by the light, and so he looks for some easy explanation."

On October 20, 1979, Dylan promoted the album with his first—and, to date, only—appearance on Saturday Night Live, performing "Gotta Serve Somebody", "I Believe in You", and "When You Gonna Wake Up". On November 1, Dylan began a lengthy residency at the Fox Warfield Theater in San Francisco, California, playing a total of fourteen dates supported by a large ensemble. It was the beginning of six months of touring North America, performing his new music to believers and his hecklers alike.

Despite the mixed reactions to Dylan's new direction, "Gotta Serve Somebody" was a US Top 30 hit, and the album outsold both Blood on the Tracks and Blonde on Blonde in its first year of release despite missing the top of the charts. It even managed to place at No. 38 on The Village Voice's Pazz & Jop Critics Poll for 1979, proving he had some critical support if not universal acclaim.

During this period, Dylan refused to play any of his older compositions, as well as any secular material. Though Pastor Larry Myers had assured Dylan that his old compositions were not sacrilegious, Dylan would say he would not "sing any song which hasn't been given to me by the Lord to sing". Fans wishing to hear his older songs openly expressed their disappointment. Hecklers continued to appear at his concerts, only to be answered by lectures from the stage. Dylan was firmly entrenched in his evangelical ways, and it would continue through his next album, whether his audience would follow or not.

When asked "What, if push comes to shove, is your all-time favourite album?" Nick Cave replied: "I guess it's Slow Train Coming by Bob Dylan. That's a great record, full of mean-spirited spirituality. It's a genuinely nasty record, certainly the nastiest 'Christian' album I've ever come across."

Personnel

 * Bob Dylan – guitar, vocals
 * Barry Beckett – keyboards, percussion
 * Mickey Buckins – percussion
 * Carolyn Dennis – background vocals
 * Tim Drummond – bass guitar
 * Regina Havis – background vocals
 * Mark Knopfler – lead guitar
 * Muscle Shoals Sound Studio – horns
 * Helena Springs – background vocals
 * Pick Withers – drums

Technical personnel
 * Barry Beckett – production
 * Harrison Calloway – arrangement
 * Gregg Hamm – engineering
 * Bobby Hatta – original mastering engineering
 * Wm. Stetz — cover concept/design
 * Jerry Wexler – production
 * Paul Wexler – original mastering supervision
 * David Yates – assistant engineering
 * Catherine Kanner – album cover artist

title: Slow Train Coming


text:
James D. Robinson (politician)

James Dickie Robinson (October 21, 1840 – April 18, 1912) was a Canadian political figure who, in 1873, served from February 9 to April 15 as Mayor of Victoria, British Columbia. He was born in Ireland in 1840.

Robinson is referred to as the "mysterious missing mayor" because of the scarcity of archival information regarding his term, which is recorded as being the shortest in Victoria's history. He also served as the Town Clerk for Victoria from 1884 to 1888. He died in 1912 in Victoria.

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

title: James D. Robinson (politician)


text:
Talk:Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem

imposing
A link or a definition for what 'imposing' in this case means would be very helpful.

 * I adapted the relevent part of the linked Arrow's impossibility theorem article to explain imposing voting systems. Maybe it still isn't clear. Worse, voting methods usually choose winners rather than preference orders, but I can't think of suitable words. Hopefully you or someone else will do better. Tim Ivorson 11:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would not characterize the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem as following from Arrow's theorem. No obvious connection, except perhaps in technique of combinatorial analysis, is apparent in the original proofs. And the modern approach (cf. Nehring or Barbara's function space approach or Saari's geometric one) tend to be to prove both theorems are trivial corollaries of much more general statements about the admissibility of scfs. Amcfreely 04:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The Gibbard-Satterthwaite and Arrow's theorems are equivalent. It is very easy to prove each using the other. For example, let's review how to prove GS from Arrow's: Suppose GS theorem isn't true. Then you have a non-manipulatble voting scheme that only supplies you with a winning alternative. Apply it itteratively, each time dropping the previous winning alternative from the list. You end up with a full linear order on the alternatives. So you get a voting mechanism that gives you a full ordering of the alternatives. Now, from Arrow's theorem you know that this mechanism is not-IIA, hence you could get a setup where a voter i can change the outcome between a and b by playing with the position of alternative c. Now get rid of all the other alternatives but a, b and c. Voter i can now change the winner (a or b) by playing with his report on the rating he gives c. Hence the voting scheme is manipulatable. If this isn't formal enough for you, sit down with pen and paper and try to write an example. I'm sure you could handle it. mousomer 5 August 2005

 * If they are equivalent, does that mean Gibbard-Satterthwaite, like Arrow's, does not apply to systems which provide more than ordinal information, like systems which ask for cardinal rankings? --Gwern (contribs) 23:55 13 September 2011 (GMT)

Weak vs. linear orders
The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, as written, is about linear orders mapping to linear orders. The result holds for weak orders mapping to linear orders as well (ties in the ballots don't change things). I explained this briefly in the entry, but I think we should have a reference for this. I cited an overview work of Taylor, but if someone else has a reference to an older paper stating this (ideally for the first time), please replace my reference. It almost makes it look like Taylor came up with the idea as I wrote it.

If anyone would like to look into this but has trouble getting started, I'd be happy to give you the list of references from the Taylor paper. I'm looking through that and a number of other sources, but it could take some time. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(If it looks like Taylor came up with the idea as CRGreathouse wrote it, it most likely did happen; Taylor is suspicious of hearing voices and getting all his ideas straight from the thought of others DJB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.92.11 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hidden assumption: Determinism
It is important to note that the theorem only holds for deterministic systems. This is easiest to see if the following well-known non-deterministic counter-example ("Random Ballot") is considered: Each voter marks her favourite candidate on a ballot, then one of the ballots is drawn at random to determine the winner. This system is neither dictatorial, all candidates can possibly win, and it is always strategically optimal to honestly mark your favourite candidate. User:heitzig-j 04 Nov 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC).

The mentioned method is not susceptible to tactical voting in the sense of the theorem: If your ballot is drawn, it is best when it has your true favourite marked on it. If it is not drawn, it is completely irrelevant what is marked on it. So, regardless of what ballot will be drawn, it is optimal for you to mark your true favourite. In game theoretic terms, voting honestly is always a strictly dominating strategy and hence the only Nash equilibrium is when all voters vote honestly. Heitzig-j (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree and added non-random as a qualifier. Otherwise the result might be interpreted too widely. --Xeeron (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but your example would be "dictatorial", albeit with a dictator who had been picked at random. One of the assumptions is that the system is not dictatorial.

George P

NOTE: I have not removed the "non random" word from the article but I strongly suggest that this be removed because, so long as the system is not dictatorial the system will still be subject ot tactical voting.

However I would like to reach a consensus on this before simply making the edit.

Perhaps the edit could mention that picking a single ballot at random would constitute a "dictatorial" system. However any system that involves picking more than two ballots at random (before making a deterministic calculation to determine a winner) would be subject to the result of the theorem.

Furthermore I believe that the "non random" part may be an example of "politically motivated boarding" (see my later comment) as it would suggest that STV is not covered by arrow's theorum (because STV has random reallocations of votes in the system). STV is not on the ballot in the UK referendum but it is the preferred system of the majority of liberal democrat politicians and the AV debate will be used as a platform for asking the voters to give them a mandate for STV.

However STV is still, like all non dictatorial voting systems, subject to tactical voting (indeed it is actually more subject to tactical voting because of the need to prevent "erosion" in the reallocating process. hence the posters in the irish elections asking supporters of the main parties, in different area of the same "constituency" to vote for different candidates.

This, however, demonstrates the pressing need to freeze this article until may 2011 because, otherwise it is likely to turn into a minefield of political point scoring and "blinding with science".

George P

Also: Can I suggest that this article be frozen or heavily monitored for the period up till 5th May 2011. Reasoning: It will be subject to politically motivated "boarding" in the run up to the Alternative Vote referendum in the United Kingdom (in May next year).

-Supporters of AV will be wanting to show that AV is a "non tactical" voting system ergo they may try to make this article incomprehensible or they may add a section to it trying ot perswead people to vote for AV

-Meanwhile supporters of FPTP may try to use it to make blunt political points which, valid or otherwise, will detract form the encyclopaedic nature of an article which, when it was written, was written in a spirit of mathematical integrity.

George P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.84.88 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the slew of comments but it also might be worth mentioning the voting system used to elect the pope which is often given as an example of a "non-tactical" voting system.

However, because it involves potentially infinitely many rounds of voting it is not suitable for a general election.

It is also subject to what I would call "tactical" considerations but it is not mathematically deterministic or probabilistic but involves an ongoing series of human judgements in the mind of each cardinal. It would not be recognised as a "voting system" by a psephologist.

'Dictatorial'
The word 'dictatorial' seems to have a specific, technical meaning in this context- one I'm not familiar with. Could someone knowledgeable put it in the article? -Toptomcat (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided a link to Arrow's theorem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

UK AV referendum
Can I suggest that this article be frozen or heavily monitored for the period up till 5th May 2011. Reasoning: It will be subject to politically motivated "boarding" in the run up to the Alternative Vote referendum in the United Kingdom (in May next year).

-Supporters of AV will be wanting to show that AV is a "non tactical" voting system ergo they may try to make this article incomprehensible or they may add a section to it trying ot perswead people to vote for AV

-Meanwhile supporters of FPTP may try to use it to make blunt political points which, valid or otherwise, will detract form the encyclopaedic nature of an article which, when it was written, was written in a spirit of mathematical integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.84.88 (talk • contribs)

Similar theorem about "strategic nomination"
Here's a little theorem with most of the same force as Gibbard-Satterthwaite but expressed in terms of manipulating the set of nominees rather than misrepresenting a voter's preferences. In the context of public elections, where the set of nominated alternatives isn't fixed by nature and many voters are strategically unsophisticated, this may be more relevant than Gibbard-Satterthwaite's framework (which assumes a fixed set of alternatives).

 * Axiom: Any ordering of alternatives is an admissible vote. (Universal Domain)
 * Axiom: One of the alternatives must be elected. (Prime Directive)

 * Theorem: Given any voting method that reduces to majority rule when only two alternatives are ranked, both of the following hold:
 * 1. There is at least one collection of votes such that deleting a losing alternative from everyone's vote can cause another losing alternative to become the winner.
 * 2. There is at least one collection of votes such that inserting an additional nominee into everyone's vote can cause a losing alternative to become the winner.

 * Proof: Suppose the nominees are {x,y,z}.  Suppose about a third of the voters vote "x over y over z," about a third vote "y over z over x" and the rest vote "z over x over y."  Without loss of generality, assume x is the winner. (We could swap the alternatives' labels if necessary to make "x" the label of the winner.)  Suppose y, a losing alternative, is deleted from every vote.  Only two alternatives remain, so majority rule applies, and since about 2/3 vote z over x, the choice from {x,z} is z. That proves the first part of the theorem.  Now restore y to the votes; this changes the winner back from z to x, which proves the second part of the theorem.

Significance: When many voters are not strategically sophisticated or will have trouble coordinating their voting strategies with other voters (such as agreeing with other voters on which compromise to vote for or rank on top), the outcome can often be manipulated during the nomination phase by adding or deleting alternatives. This raises important questions: How are the nominees nominated, and by whom, and which (non-dictatorial, non-imposing, usually deterministic) voting method is least manipulable by strategic nomination? (Hint: take a look at the "Maximize Affirmed Majorities" voting method, which finds the order of finish that minimizes the size of the largest unaffirmed majority, in the minlexmax sense. Definition: A majority who ranked x over y is called "affirmed" if the order of finish ranks x over y.)

Example 1: Due to the spoiling problem given plurality rule, many potential candidates choose not to run and each party nominates at most one candidate per office. This kind of manipulation is not necessarily more harmful to society than nominating more alternatives would be (given plurality rule) but the lack of competition can cause many problems: The best candidates might not be nominated; parties (and their supporters) will regret their choice of nominee if negative information about him/her comes to light before election day; voters must accept a nominee's undesired policies along with those desired; issues don't get settled since a small swing of votes can cause many large changes of policies; accountability is undermined since "single issue" minorities can add together to form a winning majority coalition; and accountability on most issues is undermined since most issues (e.g., corrupt government payoffs to rich special interests) are not of paramount importance to voters and thus do not sway elections.

Example 2: (Egregious problem with Borda voting method)  Suppose 66% of the voters prefer X over Y.  With most voting methods, X would beat Y by a landslide. However, in many contexts it is easy to find an additional alternative Y2 that is very similar to Y, so the minority who prefer Y over X would prefer Y2 over X too, and also slightly inferior to Y, so that nearly all voters would prefer Y over Y2. Given the Borda method, Y would win if the inferior clone is also nominated (assuming the voters' vote sincere preferences): X would receive 2 points from 66% and zero points from 34%, while Y would receive 2 points from 34% plus 1 point from 66%. The greater the number of inferior clones nominated, the larger the landslide that can be overcome. If we assume a few supporters of X are strategically sophisticated too, inferior clones of X would also be nominated. (Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.) This means public elections would turn into farces given the Borda method.

(Note: Gibbard-Satterthwaite is more general since it also covers voting methods that do not reduce to majority rule when there are only two alternatives. A theorem similar to the above and as general as Gibbard-Satterthwaite can be proved, but its proof is more complex than the proof below, just as the proof of Gibbard-Satterthwaite is more complex.)

(Note 2: Voting methods that don't accept orders of preference from the voters, such as Approval voting or Range Voting, can also be shown to be manipulable by strategic nomination, given reasonable assumptions about how voters vote. For Approval, assume a significant number of voters will approve their most preferred nominee and disapprove their least preferred nominee. For Range Voting, assume a significant number of voters will vote the maximum score for their most preferred nominee and the minimum score for their least preferred nominee. These assumptions are reasonable because these strategies are optimal--other strategies waste at least part of one's voting weight--and they're obvious or easy to learn, like the strategy of not wasting one's vote on a candidate who appears to have no chance to win is obvious when using the "vote for one; plurality rule" method. Note that if all voters vote optimal strategy when there are only two nominees, then Approval, Range Voting and most other methods reduce to majority rule when there are only two nominees, and if most voters vote optimal strategy, then a slight alteration of the proof shows that Approval, Range Voting and many other methods are manipulable by strategic nomination too. Also, even if different assumptions are made about voters' behavior, it may still be easy to demonstrate strategic nomination.)

(Note 3: A theorem like Arrow's can be fitted to this framework too, unsurprisingly. For instance, Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives becomes Choice Consistency: If x is chosen and y is not chosen when the set of nominees is {x,y}, then y must not be chosen from any set of nominees that contains x. For completeness, here's a simpler yet powerful Arrow-like theorem: Every voting method that always chooses at least one winner, satisfies Universal Domain and reduces to majority rule when only two alternatives are ranked fails Choice Consistency.) SEppley (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The article's comment about Arrow's theorem is misleading.
The article says Arrow's theorem is similar to Gibbard-Satterthwaite except it is for social ordering functions instead of social choice functions. That's not the only difference, and in my opinion it's not the most significant difference, since Arrow's theorem can be rewritten for social choice functions (as a number of writers have done). SEppley (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Sen and others have thought that this was an important distinction. Please improve the article using high quality references, such as a reliable source explaining your point.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @SEppley do you have a link to these authors? –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 20:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Tactical voting is a misnomer
At least. The same statement can be made of psychosis (schizophrenia, irrationality): psychotic voter will not vote according to his preferences, even if following his own (? ...) preferences leads to his own well being while the contrary does not (crazy). DJB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.92.11 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate
or not? unclear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.35.180 (talk)

I propose that Gibbard's theorem be merged into Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, as they seem to contain largely duplicate content. See a previous discussion on this topic at. Daask (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts? Note: I compiled this list from editors of this page and some related articles who are still active. Daask (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * The page on Gibbard's theorem explains the differences between the theorems. I support keeping the pages separate. --Erel Segal (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically two different theorems, but they are conceptually similar. Explaining them together would make sense, but unclear what the Lemma would be, since they are separate theorems. If an acceptable Lemma is found, I support merging, otherwise separate. HudecEmil (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion here. Definitely there are a number of related theorems in the area of strategy-proofedness. If they were combined, I think the best article title would be Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem because that's what people are most likely to see and search for. Other alternatives would be (2) the current setup, where Gibbard's 1973 theorem has its own article which discusses that and further results, or (3) separate articles for Gibbard 1978 and Hylland 1980. My weak preference at the moment is the current setup. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Both are derived from the same paper by Gibbard, and if they are not the same thing, they are related enough that their similarities and differences would best be discussed in the same place (and maybe also the non-existent Gibbard's 1978 theorem and Hylland's theorem could all be described in one article?) — Omegatron (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 * While I am flattered to be mentioned, I don't know much about either of these. On the surface, they seem to be very similar, along with the 3 points listed in the opening paragraph of each page.
 * I would be fine if both pages are merged, so a weak support at least. This page, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem page seems to have more detail and seems to make more sense with concrete examples so could be what the merged page is based off iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 01:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose — Gibbard's original theorem has become a very important theorem in the electoral-reform community, due to the fact that Gibbard showed that both cardinal voting and ordinal voting are subject to impossibility constraints similar to what Arrow's impossibility theorem showed for ordinal voting. From my understanding, Gibbard-Satterthwaite is constrained to ordinal systems (similar to Arrow's theorem).  There are cardinal voting advocates that seek to conflate Gibbard's original theorem and Gibbard-Satterthwaite so as to imply that cardinal methods are superior since there are no notable impossibility theorems that apply to cardinal methods.  If "Gibbard's theorem" and "Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem" are combined into a single article, then great care will need to be taken to ensure this distinction is clear. -- RobLa (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if you combine both its less (rather than more) likely to lead to confusion, since you can explain the "full" Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem (WDS version) in one place. In that case it's much easier to just say "Well, cardinal methods give you an extra candidate's worth of wiggle room before you run into problems with sincerity." Makes it clear that cardinal methods have an advantage here, but it's not exactly massive. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I stand corrected: does Improved Condorcet Approval satisfy semi-sincerity with 3 candidates? –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Support. The current division into 2 articles causes confusion about whether Gibbard–Satterthwaite applies to rated voting systems. In practice, it does apply, and Satterthwaite just made some unnecessary assumptions in his proof. OTOH, the theorem's statement should be very careful to distinguish between strategy and sincerity. (I'd be especially interested in any results showing the semi-honesty of score and some Condorcet methods.)
 * I'd also prefer it if we just said Gibbard-Satterthwaite proves there is "no single voting strategy that is always best", and hopefully explain what that means. In particular, always-best is an extremely strong demand, much stronger than I think most people reading the article would realize; it implies:
 * Everyone else's preferences can be arbitrary or even pathological;
 * Other voters may choose strategies that leave them strictly worse-off or are completely nonsensical;
 * We don't know whether other players collude or behave individually;
 * Voters can have any amount of information ranging from "omniscience" to "literally no knowledge about the election".
 * Plenty of voting systems have strategy-resistant equilibria, e.g. maximal lotteries. Other methods are honest in other senses. –Maximum Limelihood Estimator 03:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Revelation principle and cardinal voting
The 2006 article by Warren D. Smith does not claim that cardinal voting is strategy-proof, only that there exist cardinal methods with the property that if a voter prefers candidate A to B, then that voter will never rate B higher than A. I.e. the ranking inferred from the rated ballot never needs to contradict the voter's honest ranking. Compare this with the favorite betrayal criterion, which says that the first preference (Plurality-style) ballot inferred from a ranked ballot never needs to contradict the voter's honest evaluation of his or her favorite.

Ranked methods that pass the favorite betrayal criterion aren't necessarily strategy-proof, so rated methods that are ranking-consistent shouldn't be considered to be so either.

For some reason Brams and Fishburn call ranking-consistent voting "sincere" voting, and Warren D. Smith calls it "honest" voting. But this precise term is different from strategy immunity. Wotwotwoot (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 * You're completely correct on the revelation principle.
 * I think my edit was unclear, though--I didn't mean to claim cardinal voting systems are perfectly honest or strategyproof. The point was instead to point out that outside the class of ranked-choice voting systems, there are mechanisms that ensure honesty (e.g. the Vickrey–Clarke–Groves mechanism). Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem


text:
Vima Takto

Vima Takto or Vima Taktu (Greco-Bactrian: Οοημο Τακτοο, Oēmo Taktoo; Kharosthi: 𐨬𐨅𐨨 𐨟𐨑𐨆 ', ' ) was a Kushan emperor who reigned c. 80–90 CE.

Rule
Vima Takto was long known as "The nameless King", since his coins only showed the legend "The King of Kings, Great Saviour", until the discovery of the Rabatak inscription helped connect his name with the title on the coins.

Vima Takto's empire covered northwestern India and Bactria towards China, where Kushan presence has been asserted in the Tarim Basin. During his reign, Kushan embassies were also sent to the Eastern Han imperial court.

Genealogy
He is mentioned in the Chinese historical chronicle Book of the Later Han, in relation to his father Kujula Kadphises:

"Qiujiuque (Ch: 丘就卻) [Kujula Kadphises] was more than eighty years old when he died. His son, Yangaozhen (Ch:閻高珍) [probably Vema Tahk(tu) or, possibly, his brother Sadaṣkaṇa], became king in his place. He defeated Tianzhu [North-western India] and installed Generals to supervise and lead it. The Yuezhi then became extremely rich. All the kingdoms call [their king] the Guishuang [Kushan] king, but the Han call them by their original name, Da Yuezhi."

The connection of Vima Takto with other Kushan rulers is described in the Rabatak inscription, which was written by Kanishka. Kanishka makes the list of the kings who ruled up to his time: Kujula Kadphises as his great-grandfather, Vima Takto as his grandfather, Vima Kadphises as his father, and himself Kanishka:

"'... for King Kujula Kadphises (his) great grandfather, and for King Vima Taktu (his) grandfather, and for King Vima Kadphises (his) father, and *also for himself, King Kanishka' (Cribb and Sims-Williams 1995/6: 80)"

A later inscription found at Vima's sanctuary at Mat, also records that he was the grandfather of Huvishka.

title: Vima Takto


text:
Self-handicapping

Self-handicapping is a cognitive strategy by which people avoid effort in the hopes of keeping potential failure from hurting self-esteem. It was first theorized by Edward E. Jones and Steven Berglas, according to whom self-handicaps are obstacles created, or claimed, by the individual in anticipation of failing performance.

Self-handicapping can be seen as a method of preserving self-esteem but it can also be used for self-enhancement and to manage the impressions of others. This conservation or augmentation of self-esteem is due to changes in causal attributions or the attributions for success and failure that self-handicapping affords. There are two methods that people use to self-handicap: behavioral and claimed self-handicaps. People withdraw effort or create obstacles to successes so they can maintain public and private self-images of competence.

Self-handicapping is a widespread behavior amongst humans that has been observed in a variety of cultures and geographic areas. For instance, students frequently participate in self-handicapping behavior to avoid feeling bad about themselves if they do not perform well in class. Self-handicapping behavior has also been observed in the business world. The effects of self-handicapping can be both large and small and found in virtually any environment wherein people are expected to perform.

Overview and relevance
The first method people use to self-handicap is when they make a task harder for themselves in fear of not successfully completing that task, so that if they do in fact fail, they can simply place the blame on the obstacles rather than placing the blame on themselves. This is known to researchers as behavioral handicapping, in which the individual actually creates obstacles to performance. Examples of behavioral handicaps include alcohol consumption, the selection of unattainable goals, and refusal to practice a task or technique (especially in sports and the fine arts). Some of these behaviors include procrastination, self-fulfilling prophecies of negative expectations, learned helplessness, self-handicapping, success avoidance, failures in self-regulation, addictions and risky behaviors.

The second way that people self-handicap is by coming up with justifications for their potential failures, so that if they do not succeed in the task, they can point to their excuses as the reasons for their failures. This is known as claimed self-handicapping, in which the individual merely states that an obstacle to performance exists. Examples of claimed self-handicaps include declarations that one is experiencing physical symptoms. When people engage in these behaviors they are doing so in order to protect their own self-esteem or to reduce or inhibit unpleasant emotions. These patterns of behaviors fall under different categories of Personality Disorders, some of which include dependent, borderline personality disorder, and obsessive personality disorders.

Self-handicapping behavior allows individuals to externalize failures but internalize success, accepting credit for achievements but allowing excuses for failings. Individuals that showed signs of unstable self-esteem were more likely to exhibit self-handicapping behaviors in an attempt to externalize failure and internalize success by action or performance setting choice. An example of self-handicapping is the student who spends the night before an important exam partying rather than studying. The student fears failing his exam and appearing incapable. In partying the night before the exam the student has engaged in self-defeating behavior and increased the likelihood of poor exam performance. However, in the event of failure, the student can offer fatigue and a hangover, rather than lack of ability, as plausible explanations. Furthermore, should the student receive positive feedback about his exam, his achievement is enhanced by the fact that he succeeded, despite the handicap. When faced with the possibility of failure, students exhibit some behaviors resulting in a reduction in overall effort, not allotting the proper amount of time to work or produce work, or postponing/procrastinating their work.The end goal is to find a way to blame academic failures on anything but their abilities themselves (Torok et. al 2018). These findings from this study combat Festinger’s social comparison theory (Festinger 1954.) This social comparison theory states that it is a fundamental human motive to obtain information based on their environment and gain feedback about their capabilities as such instead of setting themselves up for failure and refusing to take the blame.

A theory more closely related to the findings of the self-handicapping phenomenon with a similar background and basis is that of Covington's Self Worth Theory. According to Covington's theory, schools today have what is called a “zero sum scoring system”. This meaning that the recompense available in a classroom is limited and that one student wins, this means that other students are always meant to lose (Covington 1992). Individuals self worth is based on their perceived performance and abilities. Covington and Omelich describe effort as a "double-edged sword". This meaning that students feel a sense of urgency to make efforts in order to avoid being punished by their instructor causing them to experience feelings of negativity and guilt. All the while, students also face the chance of making an effort that involves the possible chance of feelings such as humiliation or shame if or when their effort results in failure. If their effort is proven to be unsuccessful, they believe that they will be seen as an unsuccessful person. According to Covington this means that students have only two choices. The first one being that they refuse to make an effort and take on the negativity of failure or perceived punishment. The second being that they in fact make an effort which gives creates this sense of vulnerability and opens the door to being judged as being unintelligent or lacking the proper abilities. This is why we see so many students using this self-handicapping mechanism as a last resort effort to protect themselves and their perceived positive self-image.

Individual differences
People differ in the extent to which they self-handicap and most research on individual differences has used the Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS). The SHS was developed as a means of measuring individuals' tendency to employ excuses or create handicaps as a means to protect one's self-esteem. Research to date shows that SHS has adequate construct validity. For example, individuals who score high on the SHS put in less effort and practice less when concerned about their ability to perform well in a given task. They are also more likely than those rated low self-handicappers (LSH) to mention obstacles or external factors that may hinder their success, prior to performing.

A number of characteristics have been related to self-handicapping (e.g. hypochondriasis) and research suggests that those more prone to self-handicapping may differ motivationally compared to those that do not rely on such defensive strategies. For example, fear of failure, a heightened sensitivity to shame and embarrassment upon failure, motivates self-handicapping behavior. Students who fear failure are more likely to adopt performance goals in the classroom or goals focused on the demonstration of competence or avoidance of demonstrating incompetence; goals that heighten one's sensitivity to failure.

A student, for example, may approach course exams with the goal of not performing poorly as this would suggest a lack of ability. To avoid ability attributions and the shame of failure, the student fails to adequately prepare for an exam. While this may provide temporary relief, it renders one's ability conceptions more uncertain, resulting in further self-handicapping.

Gender differences
While research suggests that claimed self-handicaps are used by men and women alike, several studies have reported significant differences. While research assessing differences in reported self-handicapping have revealed no gender differences or greater self-handicapping among females, the vast majority of research suggests that males are more inclined to behaviourally self-handicap. These differences are further explained by the different value men and women ascribe to the concept of effort.

Major theoretical approaches
The root of research on the act of self-handicapping can be traced back to Adler's studies about self-esteem. In the late 1950s, Goffman and Heider published research concerning the manipulation of outward behavior for the purpose of impression management. It was not until 30 years later that self-handicapping behavior was attributed to internal factors. Until this point, self-handicapping only encompassed the usage of external factors, such as alcohol and drugs. Self-handicapping is usually studied in an experimental setting, but is sometimes studied in an observational environment.

Previous research has established that self-handicapping is motivated by uncertainty about one's ability or, more generally, anticipated threats to self-esteem. Self-handicapping can be exacerbated by self-presentational concerns but also occurs in situations where such concerns are at a minimum.

Major empirical findings
Experiments on self-handicapping have depicted the reasons why people self-handicap and the effects that it has on those people. Self-handicapping has been observed in both laboratory and real world settings. Studying the psychological and physical effects of self-handicapping has allowed researchers to witness the dramatic effects that it has on attitude and performance.

Jones and Berglas gave people positive feedback following a problem-solving test, regardless of actual performance. Half the participants had been given fairly easy problems, while the others were given difficult problems. Participants were then given the choice between a "performance-enhancing drug" and a drug that would inhibit it. Those participants who received the difficult problems were more likely to choose the impairing drug, and participants who faced easy problems were more likely to choose the enhancing drug. It is argued that the participants presented with hard problems, believing that their success had been due to chance, chose the impairing drug because they were looking for an external attribution (what might be called an "excuse") for expected poor performance in the future, as opposed to an internal attribution.

More recent research finds that, generally, people are willing to use handicaps to protect their self-esteem (e.g., discounting failings) but are more reluctant to employ them for self-enhancement. (e.g., to further credit their success). Rhodewalt, Morf, Hazlett, and Fairfield (1991) selected participants who scored high or low on the Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS) and who had high or low self-esteem. They presented participants with a handicap and then with success or failure feedback and asked participants to make attributions for their performance. The results showed that both self-protection and self-enhancement occurred, but only as a function of levels of self-esteem and the level of tendency to self-handicap. Participants who were high self-handicappers, regardless of their level of self-esteem, used the handicap as a means of self-protection but only those participants with high self-esteem used the handicap to self-enhance.

In a further study, Rhodewalt (1991) presented the handicap to only half of the participants and gave success and failure feedback. The results provided evidence for self-protection but not for self-enhancement. Participants in the failure feedback, handicap absent group, attributed their failures to their own lack of ability and reported lower self-esteem to the handicap-present, failure-feedback condition. Furthermore, the handicap-present failure group reported levels of self-esteem equal to that of the successful group. This evidence highlights the importance of self-handicaps in self-protection although it offers no support for the handicap acting to self-enhance.

Another experiment, by Martin Seligman and colleagues, examined whether there was a correlation between explanatory styles and the performance of swimmers. After being given false bad times on their preliminary events, the swimmers who justified their poor performance to themselves in a pessimistic way did worse on subsequent performances. In contrast, the subsequent performances of those swimmers who had more optimistic attributions concerning their poor swimming times were not affected. Those who had positive attributions were more likely to succeed after given false times because they were self-handicapping. They attributed their failure to an external force rather than blaming themselves. Therefore, their self-esteem remained intact, which led to their success in subsequent events. This experiment demonstrates the positive effects that self-handicapping can have on an individual because when they attributed the failure to an external factor, they did not internalize the failure and let it psychologically affect them.

Previous research has looked at the consequences of self-handicapping and have suggested that self-handicapping leads to a more positive mood (at least in the short term) or at least guards against a drop in positive mood after failure. Thus, self-handicapping may serve as a means of regulating one's emotions in the course of protecting one's self-esteem. However, based on past evidence that positive mood motivates self-protective attributions for success and failure and increases the avoidance of negative feedback, recent research has focused on mood as an antecedent to self-handicapping; expecting positive mood to increase self-handicapping behaviour. Results have shown that people who are in positive mood are more likely to engage in self-handicapping, even at the cost of jeopardizing future performance.

Research suggests that among those who self-handicap, self-imposed obstacles may relieve the pressure of a performance and allow one to become more engaged in a task. While this may enhance performance in some situations for some individuals, in general, research indicates that self-handicapping is negatively associated with performance, self-regulated learning, persistence and intrinsic motivation. Additional long-term costs of self-handicapping include worse health and well-being, more frequent negative moods and higher use of various substances.

Zuckerman and Tsai assessed self-handicapping, well-being, and coping among college students on two occasions over several months. Self-handicapping assessed on the first occasion predicted coping with problems by denial, blaming others and criticizing oneself as well as depression and somatic complaints. Depression and somatic complaints also predicted subsequent self-handicapping. Thus, the use of self-handicapping may lead to not only uncertainty as to one's ability but also ill-being, which in turn may lead to further reliance on self-handicapping.

Applications
There are many real world applications for this concept. For example, if people predict they are going to perform poorly on tasks, they create obstacles, such as taking drugs and consuming alcohol, so that they feel that they have diverted the blame from themselves if they actually do fail. In addition, another way that people self-handicap is by creating already-made excuses just in case they fail. For example, if a student feels that he is going to perform badly on a test, then he might make up an excuse for his potential failure, such as telling his friends that he does not feel well the morning of the test.

Occurrence in sports
Previous research has suggested that because in Physical Education (PE) students are required to overtly display their physical abilities and incompetence could be readily observed by others, PE is an ideal setting to observe self-handicapping. Because of its prevalence in the sporting world, self-handicapping behaviour has become of interest to sports psychologists who are interested in increasing sports performance. A study published in the year 2017 showed that self-esteem had a negative effect on self-handicapping. They found that when it came to mastery goals there was a positive effect resulting from self-esteem. It also suggested that there was a negative effect on performance-avoidance goals when it came to self-esteem. The findings from this study stipulate that by improving an individual's self-esteem and working towards mastery goals while also lowering the number of performance-avoidance goals present should prove to be pertinent strategies involved in reducing self-handicapping in physical education. Recent research has examined the relationship between behavioural and claimed self-handicaps and athletic performance as well as the effects self-handicapping has on anxiety and fear of failure before athletic performance.

Controversies
One controversy was revealed in a study done at the University of Wyoming. Previous research indicated a negative correlation between self-handicapping behaviors and boosting one's self-esteem; it was also shown that people who focus on the positive attributes of themselves are less likely to self-handicap. This study, however, demonstrates that this claim is only partially accurate because the reduction of self-handicapping is only apparent in an area unrelated to the present self-esteem risk. As a result, the attempt to protect self-esteem becomes a detriment to future success in that area.

title: Self-handicapping


text:
Talk:Tree sitting

US centered
I think this article is very US centered ignoring a lot of the tree occupations in atleast europe like Nine_Ladies in UK, schinveld in the Netherlands or lappersfort in belgium  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.173.134 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism link?
I don't think it is at all possible to neutrally link Tree sitting to Eco-terrorism, given the politically loaded nature of this term and the contradictory definitions that accompany it. Although certain commentators have sought to associate nonviolent civil disobedience by environmentalists with terrorism, using the term to describe someone sitting in a tree would surely stretch even the most unsophisticated propagandists credulity. Hell, if sitting in trees makes one a terrorist, then there are lot of small children out there that should probably be rounded up and carted off to Guantanamo Bay immediately ;-) Dirtbiscuit 05:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think tree sitting and eco-terrorism are very similar acts. They are both criminal activities committed in the name of environmental conservation. Is tree sitting eco-terrorism? No, tree sitting is a property crime, not a violent crime. Are they related subjects that should be linked? Yes. --H. C HENEY 15:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * H, a 'See also' link carries a strong connotation of definition. Eco-terrorism, by virtue of the fact that it consists of the word terrorism with 'eco' stuck to the front, cannot sensibly be used to describe a nonviolent act, and if you consider sitting in a tree to be an act of violence - let alone an act of violence sufficiently abhorrent to be labelled as 'terrorism' - I would be fascinated to hear how it would cause you to fear for your physical safety. Would you be worried that someone might fall out of the tree and knock you over, perhaps?

 * To be fair, though, you acknowledge that tree-sitting is 'not a violent crime'. You describe it instead as a 'property crime'. So, if trespass as a 'property crime' is 'very similar' to terrorism (and I'll leave the eco off this time, because what you are really doing by using the term eco-terrorism is associating tree-sitting with 'terrorism' in the readers' mind) are other acts of trespass 'very similar' to terrorism? How is this?

 * Actually, I'm not even sure whether this entry is particularly encylopaedic. It does irk me, though, to see this crude, oxymoronic compound-adjective being bandied about so uncritically. Dirtbiscuit 14:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Dirtbiscuit, please read my comments thoroughly before responding. Second, please read the article's current revision before incorrectly defining what I consider to be an act of violence.

 * Tree sitting is not merely trespassing, it is a conspiracy to trespass, to aid trespassing, and to deprive the owner or leaseholder of their economic rights to the property. As such, tree sitters need a support network, similar in organization to a terrorist cell. Tree sitters, unlike most trespassers, threaten self-harm (suicide) if their demands are not met. Under the threat of participating in violence and helping a radical environmentalist's suicidal quest for martyrdom, loggers and timber organization either let the trespasser remain in the tree and avoid the area, or they remove the trespasser with a tree climber. To call tree sitters non-violent is incorrect, they raise the specter of violence to further their goals. The nature of tree sitting is much less violent than eco-terrorism, but is still closely related in goals and ambition to eco-terrorism. Despite tree sitters violent/self harm undertones, I feel tree sitting is primarily a property crime, non-terroristic, and a form of legitimate (though very illegal) form of civil disobedience.

 * Tree sitting is not eco-terrorism and there is no mention of eco-terrorism in the body of the article. Eco-terrorism (for example tree spiking) and tree sitting reflect two completely different world views of how to deal with perceived environmental destruction. The message of eco-terrorism and tree sitting is the same: "If you cut down this tree, somebody will die." Considering the similarity in the overall message, threat of violence (or a violent situation), and ecological world-views, I feel obligated to provide the reader a link to a similar article.

 * Even if you completely disagree with everything I have wrote above, why not leave the link to eco-terrorism to compare and contrast eco-terrorism to tree sitting, and let the readers decide for themselves? The articles about the Republican Party and the Democratic link to one another to compare and contrast. Our goal at Wikipedia is to promote knowledge, without promoting a particular point of view.

 * It seems as though you feel very strongly about this issue. Maybe, in the interest of neutrality, you should consider editing other topics. --H. C HENEY 16:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Dear H,

 * Indeed, I do feel strongly about this issue; however, I don't think this is a reason to abandon efforts to improve this or related articles. Nor is it especially productive to make that suggestion, as polite as you have been in doing so. I'm sure we have equally strong feelings about promoting knowledge and neutrality.

 * I appreciate your acknowledgement that tree-sitting is not 'eco-terrorism', and that so-called 'eco-terrorism' such as 'tree-spiking' reflects a completely different world view to that of tree-sittingism.

 * However, you then go on to say that tree-sitting and eco-terrorism convey the same message, because they both raise the spectre of violence. If this is what you genuinely believe, I recommend that you do some reading on nonviolence and civil disobedience - and perhaps beyond the relevant Wikipedia articles, which while forming a reasonable introduction to the topics, are by no means comprehensive.

 * When Jesus Christ advised his followers to turn the other cheek - in other words, when he advised standing up to injustice without offering harm to those carrying out the injustice - was his behaviour like that of a terrorist? And therefore, should Christianity include a link to terrorism so that readers can compare and contrast? After all, turning the other cheek raises the spectre of violence in that one may receive a slap for doing so.

 * In your comments, you characterise tree-sitting as a conspiracy ... to deprive the owner or leaseholder of their economic rights to the property. Have you considered how tree-sitting might be characterised by someone sitting in a tree, rather than by those wishing to cut a tree down, or by the legal system? Are you aware of any instances where individuals have been prosecuted for conspiring with others to sit in a tree?

 * You also claim that tree-sitters need a support network, similar in organization to a terrorist cell. What would the similarities be, and how do they justify this comparison? If so, what other forms of organisation might be compared with terrorist cells?

 * You then go on to say that tree-sitters threaten self-harm (suicide) if their demands are not met. I am confounded by your implied re-definition of suicide as death resulting from the actions of another. Let us say that someone was committing an act of trespass by refusing to leave another person's house. If the owner of the house were to burn it down, thereby killing the trespasser, how do you think the courts would regard the resulting death? Homicide or suicide?

 * Your edits to the article also describe tree-sitting as a criminal form of trespassing. Could you please explain what constitutes a non-criminal form of trespassing?

 * Lastly - and I apologise if this seems like a cheap shot, but I think it illustrates an important principle for neutral editing - civil disobedience cannot be 'very' illegal. It is, by its very definition, always illegal. Dirtbiscuit 01:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I find it insulting that you assume that I am uneducated and suggest I, ". . . do some reading on nonviolence and civil disobedience." I am very well read on Thoreau's work, if that is what you are referring to. Being an atheist and finding monotheism boring, I am not as well read on Christianity or Christ, so I do not feel qualified in answering your passive-aggressive question.

 * Whether you like it or not, the current legal system is a reality. The current legal system defines tree sitters as trespassers, and thus, criminals. You can deny it, but it's a fact, and as such, should remain in the article.

 * Tree sitters, and their support networks, frequently use pseudonyms and other covert tactics to evade prosecution. Most support groups operate in small informal cells, similar to that of terrorist organizations. Let's face reality - tree sitters are not terrorists, but they are not law abiding members of the Sierra Club either.

 * You then go on to say that tree-sitters threaten "self-harm (suicide) if their demands are not met". I am confounded by your implied re-definition of suicide as death resulting from the actions of another.

 * In the United States there is a form of suicide called, "suicide by cop." The suicidal person threatens to attack, or attacks, a law enforcement officer, who in turn will shoot and ususally kill the perp. Police shoot threatening criminals, lumberjacks cut down trees, and suicidal maniacs put themselves in situations where they can get killed. I definitely view the tree sitter as the aggressive party.

 * I have included mention of eco-terrorism and ecotage in the body of the article because you refuse to allow them in the "See also" section. I hope my wording and context is acceptable to you

 * I am having a great deal of trouble finding links to articles regarding tree sitting with neutral point of view or with a point of view sympathetic to property rights. I noticed you added several pro-tree sitting links, can you possibly suggest a broader spectrum of links for our readers? --H. C HENEY 03:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That's considerably better. Attributing the definition of tree-sitting as 'eco-terrorism' to particular parties or interest groups moves the article towards neutrality. Perhaps you could name the elected officials, lumber companies and advocates of property rights that claim that tree-sitting is a form of eco-terrorism. I'd be interested to know where and when the claims have been made.

 * Let's face reality - tree sitters are not terrorists, but they are not law abiding members of the Sierra Club either.

 * On this we agree. They are not terrorists. I say that it is unreasonable to therefore suggest that sitting in a tree is 'like' terrorism, when the defining characteristic of terrorism is the use of violence on a terror-provoking scale.

 * In the United States there is a form of suicide called, "suicide by cop."

 * Yes, I've heard the term, and thought it an extraordinary rationalisation of police shootings. However, even the phenomenon of so-called 'suicide by cop' is hardly analogous. Surely if a police officer, in such a scenario, shoots someone who threatens to attack them, their action is one of defense against an immediate threat of injury or death. How does a person sitting in a tree pose this sort of threat?

 * I find it insulting that you assume that I am uneducated and suggest I,". . . do some reading on nonviolence and civil disobedience."

 * Don't be insulted, H. No-one said you were uneducated.

 * I don't know where you'll find 'anti' tree-sitting web-oages. I don't think its sufficiently controversial enough to attract that sort of attention. As for neutral articles, isn't that the whole point of this? To create one? Dirtbiscuit 17:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I really don't think this article should include a link to eco-terrorism. Despite the fact that tree-sitters are breaking the law, there is not even a hint of violence or even property damage. In fact, i think the inclusion of this link, rather than hurting the environmental movement, actually hurts the counter-eco-terrorism movement. By expanding the word "eco-terrorism" so much, it takes away from the meaning of it, and just makes people who are opposed to violent destruction of property in the name of the environment look stupid. Hope everyone followes my logic. Bonus Onus 03:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

A solution
A 'compare with' seems like a good idea. However, it is still difficult to compare tree-sitting with eco-terrorism because the definition of the second is contentious and likely to be disputed - someone has even slapped a 'controversial' warning on the article.

Compare with: tree-spiking makes far more sense than See also: eco-terrorism because both tree-sitting and tree-spiking are easy to describe, but very different tactics which seek a common end. It is also worth noting that the environmental organisation Earth First! publicly disavowed tree-spiking in 1990. Dirtbiscuit 02:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Feel free to remember there's the rest of the world to think about too! I don't know the legalities of occupying trees in the USA, but in the UK living in a tree is not illegal and thus not criminal. Occupation of land earmarked for development is not illegal either - we have something called 'legal squatting'. So - to suggest tree-sitting is a form of eco-terrrorism because it's ciminal is grossly inaccurate NickW 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bathroom
How do the tree-sitters go to the restroom? Do they just take a dump over the side, or do they bring a bucket or something? I would think there's not much privacy up there.. 69.243.41.28 23:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Buckets, Milk Jugs, etc. Canaen 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC) We drink all our Urine and make Make Vegan Chili out of our shit. Next stupid question....

Heads of loggers! Larklight (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to Eco-terrorism
Similar aims, surely warrants a link? While neither is a subset of the other, that isn't a requirement for a link. Infact, the fact that it's called 'see also' implies that the linked to page contains soemthing different. Larklight (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deaths?
A handful of people have died over the years while doing this and falling out of trees. Some girl in Oregon died a few years back when she fell. This sort of thing needs to be mentioned in the article. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Thank you for volunteering to add that information.  98.208.96.56 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, nevermind. You're indef blocked.   Anybody else want to step up?  98.208.96.56 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've only heard of of two deaths from falling out of tree-sits in the U.S. Beth O'Brien in Oregon and I can't remember the guys name but he died after falling out of a tree near Santa Cruz, Ca.

- Forest Defender from California 2-20-2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.251.205 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not just against logging...
The current article only talks about tree sitting being used as a tool to delay, stall, or bring to light logging that is viewed as controversial. Tree sitting has also been used as a tactic with other radical organizations to stall or bring light to controversial campaigns. How the best way to reflect this in the article? I've included three tree sits (#List of tree sits) that cite the expanded use of tree sits, but would also like to see the article to reflect the broader use of this tactic.

Sparkyvagabond (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Tree sitting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100504010048/http://www.treesfoundation.org:80/publications/article-49 to http://www.treesfoundation.org/publications/article-49
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040217020216/http://www.santacruzsentinel.com:80/archive/2002/October/11/local/stories/01local.htm to http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2002/October/11/local/stories/01local.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SQUAT
There are over one billion squatters worldwide and the phenomenon is under-represented on Wikipedia. Join WikiProject_Squatting to help write articles about squatting in every country, or drop a message on the talkpage about something else you'd like to see covered. This is just one of many ways to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia! Mujinga (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tree sitting


text:
Hannibal (disambiguation)

Hannibal (247–183/182 BC) was a Carthaginian general who fought the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War.

Hannibal may also refer to:

Names

 * Hannibal (given name)
 * Hannibal (surname)

Film and television

 * Hannibal, a 1972 film by Xavier Koller
 * Hannibal, a meerkat in Meerkat Manor

About the general and statesman from Carthage

 * Hannibal (1959 film), a film based on the life on the Carthaginian general
 * Hannibal (2006 TV film), a BBC TV film starring Alexander Siddig

Related to the novel The Silence of the Lambs

 * Hannibal (2001 film), a sequel to the 1991 film based on Thomas Harris' novel, starring Anthony Hopkins
 * Hannibal (TV series), a 2013 NBC TV drama series

Games

 * Hannibal (video game), a 1994 PC/DOS computer game
 * Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, a 1996 Avalon Hill board game

Literature

 * Hannibal (Harris novel), a novel by Thomas Harris and featuring Hannibal Lecter
 * Hannibal (Leckie novel), a 1995 historical novel by Ross Leckie
 * Hannibal, a dog in Agatha Christie's novel Postern of Fate

Music

 * Hannibal Records, a now-defunct record label
 * "Hannibal", a track by Santana from Zebop!
 * "Hannibal", a track by Miles Davis from Amandla
 * Hannibal, a fictional opera in The Phantom of the Opera

People

 * Hannibal Gisco (c. 295–258 BC), Carthaginian military commander who fought the Roman Republic in the First Punic War
 * Hannibal Lokumbe or Hannibal (born 1948), American jazz trumpeter and composer
 * Hannibal, a ring name of Devon Nicholson (born 1982), Canadian professional wrestler
 * Hannibal Mejbri (born 2003), Tunisian professional footballer

United States

 * Hannibal, Missouri, a city and hometown of Mark Twain
 * Hannibal micropolitan area
 * Hannibal Regional Airport
 * Hannibal, New York, a town
 * Hannibal (village), New York, a village contained within the town
 * Hannibal, Ohio, a census-designated place
 * Hannibal, Wisconsin, an unincorporated community

Elsewhere

 * Hannibal Islands, Queensland, Australia
 * 2152 Hannibal, an asteroid

Ships

 * HMS Hannibal, various ships and a shore establishment
 * USS Hannibal (Ag-1), a converted steamer
 * Hannibal (slave ship), a 17th-century slave-trading ship

Structures

 * Hannibal (Dortmund), two multi-use high-rise buildings in Dortmund, Germany
 * Hannibal Bridge, spanning the Missouri River
 * Hannibal House, an office building in London

Other uses

 * Hannibal (G.I. Joe), a clone of the Carthaginian general in the G.I. Joe universe
 * Hannibal (horse) (1801–c. 1806), a Thoroughbred racehorse that won the 1804 Epsom Derby
 * Hannibal (network), a network of far-right prepper groups in German-speaking countries
 * Operation Hannibal, a Second World War German sea evacuation of soldiers and civilians ahead of the advancing Red Army
 * Hannibal-TV, a privately owned television network in Tunisia
 * G-AAGX Hannibal, a named Handley Page H.P.42 airliner

title: Hannibal (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Fédéré

Untitled
I've done my best here with about an hour of online research. Further research is needed. There is probably a lot more to be said, and I'm not sure I'm dead right on all of what I've written. -- Jmabel 05:37, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

http://mapage.noos.fr/mlopez/chronologie_generale_1792_2.htm would seem to confirm my understanding on the most common use of the term. -- Jmabel 06:05, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Unfocused
What is this article about? From one section to the next, it seems to be about the multiple meanings of a term over time; the evolution of a French military unit; or a series of celebrations. If I had to pick just one, it seems to be more about the multiple meanings of a term than anything else, and if that's the case, it should be transwikified to Wiktionary, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Conceivably, the 1792 section could be spun off as its own article, and everything else sent to Wiktionary. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fédéré


text: User talk:68.126.38.166

title: User talk:68.126.38.166