Talk:Lesser of two evils principle

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

message: I doubt anyone has ever measured where the "lesser of two evils" principle is more used for anyone to claim the U.S. is particularly fond of it.
:No. The article at the moment is very very poor and you're right in highlighting this as being a major cause of it. I have removed some of the U.S. bias from the Modern Usage section 138.253.249.67 (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too US-centered 

message: The phrase "the lesser of two evils," despite its widespread use during the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, is much more than a political phrase.  This phrase can be used in everyday situations, and treating it as a primarily political reference is a misrepresentation.
:Agreed. The entire article is very, very poor and gives a completely false impression of what the term means and what it is used for. 138.253.249.67 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has the intention to cause climate change. Politicians taking the responsibilty for it just want to get the majority of votes. Voters just want to maximize their privileges at whoever has not enough power to resist ( ie next generations ). And suddenly, no one knows why and how: climate change is there. sigh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:C542:0:64A2:60E1:E0FD:5525 (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political? 

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

message: It's not pure speculation. Look it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.43.105 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't work like that. It's not the job of the reader to "look it up" - it's the job of Wikipedia to be the place that people go to to look things up. If there isn't a citation or reference then it must be deleted. 138.253.249.67 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is BS since you can't find any reference in this entry and yet nobody has deleted it.
--200.83.2.4 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The U.S. has publicly admitted supporting saddam vs. '91 shia revolt 

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

message: The introductory paragraph in this article doesn't clearly state that its a political principle, but implies it in the last sentence. Perhaps it can be reworked a bit to introduce it formally as a political principle. —Memotype::T 15:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous intro 

message: In the paragraph:
Conflicts over dictatorships began to occur when the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the People's Republic of China began to support communist revolutions and populist guerrilla warfare against established dictatorial regimes in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in Latin America. In many cases these movements succeeded (see Vietnam War) and replaced an American-allied dictator with a pro-Soviet dictator; to counter the trend, the United States would often use its intelligence services to help orchestrate bloody coups d'etat that would overthrow shaky Marxist regimes (see Chilean coup of 1973).
I replaced 'pro-Soviet dictator' with 'pro-Soviet government' and 'shaky Marxist regimes' with 'regimes not allied to the United States'. The implication that Allende was a dictator and Chile under him a dictatorship is, quite frankly, absurd. In addition, not all victims of US intervention were "shaky Marxist regimes": the fact that some may well have been shaky and/or Marxist does not by any stretch mean that all of them were. Jacobo Arbenz , for instance, quite openly declared his intentions to build capitalism in Guatemala, and Iran under Mossadegh was moderately reformist. --superioridad (discusión) 06:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictator -> government 

message: This article could use a detailed criticism section where we discuss arguments against the principle and responses to those criticisms. 75.143.172.45 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The article has no discussion of the origin of the phrase (which seems to come from Plato, although I'm basing this on BrainyQuote), and limits the phrase to politics, with a focus on one country.
The article should therefore be re-titled to something that better represents its content, e.g.:
:"Lesser of two evils (U.S. politics)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.146.5 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading title 

message: I am moving the following uncited text here until inline citations of reliable, secondary sources can be added to it, per the site's policies and guidelines of WP:V, WP:NOR, W:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. Although we do not have to wait until the entire text is supported, portions can be moved back to the article when citations are found for those portions. However, portions/passages not supported by those citations should remain here. Nightscream (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations