Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 8

= January 8 =

Drawing conclusions from the wrong experiment-fallacy
As a libertarian I have to fight arguments along the line "we tried it, and obviously it didn't work" quite a lot in discussions. Examples are Dutch public transport and the Dutch health system which are both "privatised", and turned into a mess. (here I cut quite some lines as "this is not a forum". Just assume for the sake of argument that the Dutch health care system is all but a free market). My response would be to prove that the current state of affairs doesn't exactly resemble a free market because of this and that and such and so. Luckily, in this case, I happen to know about the subject. If I don't, the mere calling something "privatisation" and proving its failure means that it's me who's left with the burden of proof. I'd love an "official Wikipedia page" or even better a latin phrase saying: "If you're using the result of an experiment as an argument, it's up to you to prove that the experiment was carried out right". Joepnl (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Something else to think about is that one or two trials doesn't prove much (that number isn't statistically significant). So, you'd need a much larger "population" of privatization trials, like all that have ever occurred in the world, to draw a conclusion about whether they work or don't. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There have been many such trials - and no, they rarely work- unless by 'work' you mean lining the pockets of a few, while leaving the rest of us with an inferior service. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd think it would depend on what is being privatized. Some things are natural functions of government, like the military, while others are natural functions of the private sector, like making shoes.  If you privatize the 1st one, expect a disaster, while, if for some reason the government is making shoes, then privatization should improve things. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe the fallacy you are describing is a type of straw man. Looie496 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Like Looie, I think the question is more about the fallacy than about privatisation. All fallacies are non-sequiturs, ie. the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Here, some part of the problem is that the facts drawn as evidence regarding X are incorrect, in that they aren't even examples of X (in this case privatisation). It's a straw man if they really understand the facts, but misunderstand what privatisation is. As it stands, it may not truly be a fallacy. As a solution, just ask them what they know about X. I find the best way is never to put the hard questions to people. Ask them the dumb ones, and you will see quickly enough that it has more to do with ideology than logic. IBE (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Slightly relevant is Reference desk/Humanities further up this page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is vastly more important to verify that the line of reasoning is actually fallacious, than to worry over what bit of dog-Latin you can use to pigeonhole it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also point to No true Scotsman about any arguments saying something was proper privatisation. The reasons something wasn't 'true privatisation may also be included in why privatisation didn't work if it didn't. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in evidence-based policy. However, I'm not sure that carrying out randomised trials to determine whether privately-controlled transport networks or health services do better than publicly-controlled ones is ever going to be feasible (especially since it is hard enough to agree on a way of measuring their performance). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Thanks for the replies about privatization itself. As I mentioned I'm a libertarian which includes some pretty strong believes about markets, a "true privatization" that did fail sounds to me like a perpetuum mobile. So I won't get into that :) It's just an example where the burden of proof is with the wrong party) I think it's not a straw man, as the argument made is not about the opponent himself (there might not even be one). And it's not a No true Scotsman either. It's the opposite I think, by slightly redefining my original problem. For example, after a 3 hour long discussion person A rolls his eyes and uses the No real Scotsman argument. Something like ''For each failed privatised company I name you start surfing the internet because you don't know anything about it, only to come up with stupid details about the company remaining in the hands of the state, or the state remaining the only customer, or that it's gotten a monopoly by law. You are constantly adding new rules about what true privatization is and you surely will find a reason for all the other failed privatizations to claim they are no real Scotsmen. B might say: You are using a "False no true Scotsman argument"''. In this case B would mean that while the list of so-called privatized companies discussed is indeed very long, and he did come up with a wide range of reasons why each case wasn't "real privatization", that does not necessarily mean that a No true Scotsman argument holds here because the arguments in each case actually are good reasons (according to B of course) to say that an organisation which is said to be privatized really is not. Joepnl (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I believe in using Bayes Theorem rather than changing my priors to conform to strongly held beliefs. It sounds to me that you'd be like those ones who kept on arguing that Saddam Hussein must be ever more devious and evil and cunning the more trouble they had finding missiles of mass destruction. Dmcq (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At least I do admit to having strong beliefs, not only about physics but also about economy and how markets work. If you show me a working perpetuum mobile I will obviously look for any trick or mistake, but if it actually works I would change my beliefs. You, however, might want to check your almighty calculator as most libertarians (I guess that's "those ones") were not in favor of a war against Hussein. The real libertarians I mean, not the warmongering self-identifying libertarians you will probably come up with. Joepnl (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're not following. Whether you are a libertarian or not should not determine your beliefs on whether he had weapons of mass destruction. Evidence should be used. If something fails and you then find some reason to say it was wrong the reason why it was wrong is part of the system including any attempt to make it libertarian, and in that case is a failure of libertarianism. It will always be possible for you to find some problem if something fails the way you go about it, which means your belief has no falsifiability and is therefore just quackery. Dmcq (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't follow much of Joepnl's post about the "No true Scotsman", but I think he's right that it's sort of a reverse of this. In the basic formulation, A says" "No Xs are Y", and B gives a counterexample. A says: "No true Xs are Y", committing the fallacy. In the reverse form, A says "All Xs (privatisation) are good". B commits the fallacy by saying "But G is bad". G comes from a much broader category, "things that have something in common with X", so it is unconnected. In the first example, A is changing the rules by making the set narrower ("true Xs" is a smaller category than "Xs"). In the second, B is changing the rules by making the set much larger. Whether you call it a fallacy or not depends on whether you believe the person is getting the facts wrong, or using a dishonest trick. The original case sounded like people didn't know that G was from a broad category (pseudo-privatisation), so it's not a true fallacy. IBE (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can explain their 'The real libertarians I mean, not the warmongering self-identifying libertarians you will probably come up with.' How does one know a real libertarian in advance before they commit an error and become a false libertarian? Are they really saying that being libertarian means you wouldn't go to war over 9/11 for instance or are there more qualifications about real libertarianism? Dmcq (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was meant as a joke..Joepnl (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably best to put in a smiley like :) or enclose humor in ... tags on Wikipedia even for what one might think are fairly obvious jokes. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What trivias about Tokugawa Ieyasu is verifiable?
Recently I noted a number of uncited trivias in the trivia section of zh:德川家康: ....
 * Hobbies in late age：Mount Fuji, eagle and eggplant.He liked to go hiking in Mount Fuji and hunt with eagle, while eggplant is his favorite food; he described eggplant as "food of the conquerors".
 * He was the wealthiest among the daimyos in Japan, prabably due to the support of Chinese merchant Li Dan.
 * He was a master in the Bows, Swords, Cannons, Horses and Swimming; he learned from a number of skilled warriors.
 * People he admired include: Liu Bang, Zhang Liang, Han Xin, Jiang Ziya, King Wen of Zhou, Zhou Gong Dan, Minamoto no Yoritomo, Ashikaga Takauji.
 * His favourite books: Lotus Sutra, Azuma Kagami, Analects, Six Secret Teachings, Three Strategies of Huang Shigong, Records of the Grand Historian, Doctrine of the Mean, Book of Han
 * Palmistry: He had a Single transverse palmar crease.
 * Other hobbies: he had a wide variety of hobbies; he liked Sarugaku and learned Japanese tea ceremony and Go.
 * He was a square man with height 156-160 cm and waist circumference 120cm.
 * One claim says he died because of poisoning from sparidae tempura.

There are still some left inzh:德川家康 I have left not translated. See alsoja:徳川家康, from which I believe the Chinese content is translated, but still has many unreferenced trivias.--Inspector (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the first one, It's just a theory of the origin of hatsuyume. As for his death cause, it was a popular belief in Japan, but it is denied today. Some of those trivia can be found at the ja article, and they might be the translation from the page. Some are sourced and some are not at the ja page. Some of the trivia at the zh page are different from the ja article. The ja article says he know, but he does not like the Japanese tea ceremony and he was a thrifty and left a large fortune, but there is no mention of the Chinese merchant. Oda Mari (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, are there any other trivias that can be tracked to some reliable source, or at least you think had been said in some sources about Tokugawa Ieyasu(excluding wikipedia)?--Inspector (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Pastafarian Minister Honorific?
I was recently ordained as a Pastafarian minister and I was wondering if anyone knows of an honorific I can be referred to as, officially, rather than "Mr.". 99.246.195.34 (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've always been partial to "Saint". Though "Venerable" is also pleasant. Officially? Ask the robot that ordained you. --jpgordon:==( o ) 07:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Pesto [insert name here]" (rather than "Pastor [insert name here]"). Futurist110 (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Irreverend? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Starchbishop? Regardless of title, be sure to wear a colander on your noodle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Side salad question: Could "atheists" in regard to the FSM be labeled "antipasti"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Breadschticks: Could a pastafarian PK be called a "Ragumuffin"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Discordians excel all others in taking for themselves grandiose yet utterly meaningless titles... AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd go with "Matey" but there is also the more pretentious "Cap'n". 67.117.146.66 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought Wikipedia's reference disks didn't allow opinions. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafanarianism, isn't a recognized real religion. What makes up a "real" religion? Take a Religious studies class or read Religion For Dummies on your own time. You may want to read Wikipedia's article on Flying Spaghetti Monster. According to Religion For Dummies, written by Gellman and Hartman, religion is by definition a belief in divine (superhuman or spiritual) being(s) and the practices (rituals) and moral code (ethics) that result from that belief. Beliefs give religion its mind, rituals give religion its shape, and ethics give religion its heart. Now, you can go ahead and twist all you want so that the standard definition of religion fits with your "religion" - Pastafanarianism. 140.254.226.238 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As compared to... Scientology? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't insult my faith in Him. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Faith should be unaffected by the views and opinions of others. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The illustration of the FSM in that article has one flaw: It fails to show the Holy Spaghetti passing the baseball to Adam, In the Big Inning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Does the FSM have angel hair ? StuRat (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

General studies
An introduction to western value visá-vis africa's value — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.3.202 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you ask a question? Or maybe even make a sentence? --Lgriot (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like English isn't their first language and they would like to know if we have an article or can provide a link which will compare Western values with African values. Since "value" has different meanings, I think they meant it in the "family values" sense, not the financial sense.  StuRat (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * African values will vary widely, depending on whether you're talking about the Muslim north, tribal center, or Christian/European settlements. StuRat (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Colonization of the Americas as a good thing
I would like to find a modern (1980-) book with this sort of the main idea:

''European colonization of the Americas was mainly a good thing. Europeans brought advanced civilization, culture and progress to primitive, backward tribes of Americas.''

I personally don't like the idea, but its interesting for me from the cultural point of view how such ideas evolving in the modern society.

Thanks! --Ewigekrieg (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a good thing for those of us who wanted to escape from Europe. Not necessarily so good for the locals. But for that line of thinking, you should look at the works of well-known conservatives. Buckley and Buchanan come to mind immediately. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "good thing for who?" is the obvious response. It was almost certainly a bad thing for all the natives that died from war and foreign diseases... --Tango (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but then I think the OP does too. They're not looking for a discussion of the merits or otherwise of colonialism, but rather for books of history or politics which claim that it was a good thing. Speaking of which, I think Niall Ferguson may have written something on this topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably the meaning is "overall it was good", i.e. the world is better off because it happened. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, it brought firearms to the Indians, which helped them begin the process of driving the bison to near-extinction (the whites pretty much finished that job). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * i think you cannot say 'it was all good', but you cannot say it was all bad either. It's too complex a question for that,. The United States is the richest country in the world and some native Americans are well-off, while others are not. Charlie Z. Smuts (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As AlexTiefling just said, this really isn't the place for such a discussion, folks. The OP didn't seek a debate or anyone's opinion.  All he wants are the names of some books that happen to express a certain point of view.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time finding the name of the book, but there is quite a controversy over the conservative viewpoint presented by the Texas schoolbook approval system, which has apparently whitewashed American history quite a bit. If somebody can find out what the name of the high school history text approved is, that would help in this question.  216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good luck in finding a post-1980 book that argues that the European colonization of the Americas was a "good thing" because "Europeans brought advanced civilization, culture and progress to primitive, backward tribes of Americas." Push your cutoff back 100 years and you'd still be hard-pressed to list many titles. The view you describe was not as widespread in the previous century as you might imagine, at least among people who wrote books.

Perhaps you're really thinking about a different view: that the colonization of the Americas was a "good thing" despite what happened to the native people. That view received its first major scholarly challenge by historian Francis Jennings in his 1975 book The Invasion of America. Though Jennings's work is often dismissed as too polemical, his challenge did influence subsequent writers to at least acknowledge the human cost of American colonization. So perhaps you're really looking for modern books that celebrate the colonization of the Americas without seriously taking into account the plight of native people? —Kevin Myers 00:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Columbine High massacre
Why wasn't the principal killed? I mean, I don't mean that he had to be killed or should have been killed, but my poor English makes me put the question like this. I mean, did he lock himself in his office or what? Kyxx (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article does not mention where the principal was, but it's more than likely that he was helping to evacuate the children, once it became clear that this was a shooting incident.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  14:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason the principal at Sandy Hook was killed was because she and several others came running to the door when it was broken in. In effect, they were killed because they were there. We may never know exactly what his plan was, as he did a good job of destroying his computer. With Columbine, it seems that their fellow students were targeted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Jesus have a family name?
Did Jesus have a family name? I doubt his family name/surname/last name is "Christ", as the New Testament sometimes refer to this man as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ". Did the Semitic peoples keep track of clans and clan names? 140.254.226.228 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Christ" was a title, not a family name. He was referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", that being where He grew up; and was also of "The House of David", being a descendant of King David. If He were around today, He might have a surname of "Davidson". [Or maybe "Josephson", as suggested below.] Start with Jesus and see where it takes you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you capitalize the pronoun when referring to Jesus? 140.254.226.228 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Standard usage among those raised Christian. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lifelong conservative Protestant here, and I've never used it...Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone uses it. "Standard" might be overstating it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was taught to me as a rule at school in the UK in the 1960s. I still use it, but by no means universal now, except in specifically Christian writing. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec):'Christ' is a title, meaning 'annointed', a translation of the Hebrew messiah, Jews in those days were normally distinguished by who their father was, or sometimes by their birthplace or through other family relations. So Jesus was known as 'Jesus the son of Joseph', or 'Jesus of Nazareth'. Some names were very popular, so they had to distinguish between e.g. 'Mary Magdalene', 'Mary the mother of James' and 'Mary the wife of Cleophas'. - Lindert (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) The usual longer name-format seems to have been "Personalname son/daughter of Father of the tribe of Patriarch". Identification by tribe was a big deal for the Jewish people of that era. In the story of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, we meet Anna the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, for example. So Jesus' full name would have been "Jesus son of Joseph, of the tribe of Judah". But as Jesus was an itinerant rabbi, he was usually known by reference to his home town: "Jesus of Nazareth". When he went back to Nazareth or nearby Capernaum, they called him "the carpenter's son". The name "Christ" was probably only used very rarely in Jesus' own lifetime for two reasons. Firstly, 'Christ' is Greek, and the Aramaic is much like the Hebrew: 'Messiah'. (That's the English form of both versions, by the way.) The second is that the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah (Anointed One), or a Messiah, or what, was pretty vexed at the time. Most mainstream Jews rejected the suggestion outright - hence the story about Pilate and the Titulus, where Jewish leaders objected to Pilate having written "King of the Jews" instead of "He said 'I am King of the Jews'". And even among Jesus' followers, if the Gospel can be relied on in this regard, it wasn't discussed openly. Jesus seems to have been keen not to have a fuss made about this issue. So when Peter tells Jesus that he believes him to be 'the Christ', Jesus tells him not to mention it to anyone. "Christ" is very much a praise-name, and not what we'd recognise as a personal name at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was the point where Simon son of Jonah, who had asked the question, was given the new name or nickname "Peter" ("Rock") by Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jesus did emphasize the nickname at that point, but according to John's gospel (1:42), Peter already was called this by Jesus when they first met (and here it was Andrew that told his brother Simon that Jesus was the Messiah). - Lindert (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the "confession of faith" as stated in Matthew, also reiterated in John? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Peter does give the same confession in John 6:69, but it is in response to a different question, and Jesus' response is also different, so it may not refer to the same occasion. - Lindert (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lindert is more accurate; "Christ" was a title the Hebrew translation of which had a very very specific meaning. A first-century Jew would never use it as a simple praise name or an appelation for someone unless he thought that the someone really was the individual that the Tanakh called מָשִׁיחַ Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be really clear, the title Christ or Christos was almost certainly never used for Jesus during his lifetime. Some of his followers referred to him as Messiah during his lifetime, according to the Gospels.  But during his lifetime, his followers almost certainly all spoke Aramaic and wouldn't have used a Greek word for what is originally a Hebrew concept.  Also, although some of his followers referred to him as Messiah, the wider society in which he lived certainly did not view him as the Messiah, so that title was not part of his name.  Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "You are the Christ, the Son of God." Not any old Christ, but THE Christ. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Jesus's "name" have been something like: "Yeshua Ben Yosef" (Jesus son of Joseph)? Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, although Aramaic uses 'bar' instead of 'ben', and Yosef was a very common name so 'of Nazareth' would have been less likely to lead to confusion. - Lindert (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since, according to our article Joseph (given name), the Aramaic form of Yosef was Yosep, he would have been known as something like Yeshua bar Yosep Nazari. (According to our article Nazareth, the probable Galilean Aramaic form of Nazarene was Nazari, but in Judean Aramaic it may have been Nasari or Natsari.) Marco polo (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The “p̄” which you see in the Joseph (given name) article is the same thing as “f”, it’s just written using a different transliteration which mimics more closely the peculiarities of the original Hebrew writing system. It’s pronounced [f] anyway, and it’s distinct from “p” without the bar. (Likewise, “ṣ”, “tz”, and “ts” are different transliterations of the same consonant, צ, which seems to have been pronounced [sˤ] according to Aramaic language.) Also, according to the other article you mention, the presence of “z” in an Aramaic form of Nazareth is only presented as an alternative theory, and either way the article gives no indication about original vowels in the name.—Emil J. 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

proportional representation party list why not full
How come in nations like Israel that is known for their proportional representation voting system, each political party doesn't contest all 120 seats, meaning how come they don't submit a list 120 people for the election? Does it cost money or what? Shas contested at least like 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it would be unnecessary and might be considered presumptuous to present such a long list, secondly it might not be easy to find people willing to be placed on the list with zero chance of being elected. I don't know of any rules against it, but if in my country (the Netherlands) all 20 or so participating parties would submit a full 150 member list, each ballot would have to be extremely large in order to contain 20x150 = 3000 candidates. - Lindert (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is different in different countries with proportional systems. In some countries they have long lists, in others they don't. It depends on different traditions. I also think large parties, which can count on get many seats, will probably present longer lists than do more minor parties. Charlie Z. Smuts (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it actually required to name all the list candidates on the ballot paper? I seem to recall that in party-list elections here in the UK, it just names the party. And in any case the length of the list depends on the number of seats per constituency, not the whole parliament. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the Dutch general elections there are no electoral districts, and all candidates need to be on the list because each individual candidate can be elected through preference votes. - Lindert (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But the Dutch do have limits on the number of candidates on the list: up to 50 if a party won 15 seats or less last election, and up to 80 otherwise. http://kiesraad.com/artikel/tk-kandidatenlijsten Unilynx (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of not wanting to spend resources (time, money, political capital) in a an attempt to elect people with virtually no chance of success. Better to concentrate all your effort on those who can win.  This also results in a better win percentage, which looks better in the papers. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some places require a Deposit (politics) when putting ones name down, if you get less than a certain amount of the votes you lose your deposit. You may also get some electioneering costs paid if you get over a certain amount. Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In Sweden it happens, somewhat often in local elections, that seats remain vacant as a party did not field enough candidates for all seats it obtained in the election. In theory, the same could happen in national elections as well. However the situation is quite the contrary as most parties nominate hundreds of candidates for parliament with zero chance of getting elected. --Soman (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Was KwaZulu a monarchy?
Did the Zulu king have any constitutional role in the former bantustan KwaZulu? Charlie Z. Smuts (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would appear not. The king then (as now) was Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu, but the leader of KwaZulu was Mangosuthu Buthelezi who was the chieftan of one tribe.  It would appear that there was some agitation by the Inkatha Freedom Party for a political role for the King, but it never came to pass.  -- Jayron  32  20:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the concept in political science or philosophy that speaks about the political autonomy of a private property and what is the technical term for that?
What I am asking about is the proper terminology and concept that defines the degree, the plausibility and the rights of political autonomy of private properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Legal personality? -- Jayron  32  21:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Allodial title, although it's a crummy article, is relevant too. In general, freehold property is not politically autonomous - it is held from the state, which can take it away by means of eminent domain powers such as compulsory purchase orders. But in some places - such as Native American Nations' territory - even though the law of the land generally runs there, the property cannot be expropriated.
 * You may also wish to read up on micronations, which are mostly private properties whose owners have attempted to declare themselves independent of the state from which the real estate is held. The 'proofs' that these declarations have been accepted are generally extremely tenuous, and reliant on novel legalistic interpretations of ordinary language. States generally adopt a live-and-let-live approach to such entities, although you can be sure that if one started to be used as a base for serious criminality, or somehow acquired a military or diplomatic asset which credibly threatened the parent state, such an approach would be abandoned. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A humorous (fictional) example of the end of a threatening microstate is a television episode, "E. Peterbus Unum". Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)