Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 23

= January 23 =

What are the Guidelines for Government Classification in Wikipedia?
I see, for example, the text "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy" in the sidebar for Sweden. It looks as if there is are strict formal structural or procedural guidelines on how to name the type of government of each country. I say this, instead of suggesting that one look at how each country describes itself, because the text for government mentioned above seems not to be very comprehensible to a swede. I was hoping that you could point me to these guidelines. Star Lord -   星爵 (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These are standard terms from political science - for example, see the textbook Politics in Europe. To break it down:
 * "Unitary" means that Sweden is governed as a single country (rather than a federation of states, like the USA or Germany).
 * "Parliamentary" means that the executive power of government (in other words, the power to actually make things happen) rests with the legislature (the Riksdag) rather than with a president (presidential system, like in the USA) or being split between the two (semi-presidential system, like in France or Russia).
 * "Constitutional monarchy" means that the country has a royal family but their political power is very limited (compared to a republic like Ireland or the USA, which doesn't have any royals, or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia where the royal family has a lot of political power).
 * Apart from this, there are also some odd outliers like one-party states, military dictatorships and failed states with no effective government. Template:Systems of government gives a good overview of the systems and where each country fits. Smurrayinchester 08:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Smurrayinchester, thank you very much indeed for the explanation. Personally, I do understand the terms and I am with you. I have also encountered the terms when reading political science - about 35 years ago :) . Unfortunately, me saying that they are standard terms in political science, would not be enough. I was hoping that there were some guidelines inside Wikipedia for using these, to the exclusion of other systems that I have encountered. Such guidelines in wikipedia would feel like a better source. I am sure the book you refer to is excellent, but it is hard to refer to a book which I have neither read, nor seen any review of, even in wikipedia. Star Lord -   星爵 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Official wiki-social-media
Have there been any attempts at making a large official wiki-social-media place like facebook? If so, could you please direct me to where one might sign up? Star Lord -   星爵 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your question is very unclear, . How would a wiki social media site work? Or when you say 'wiki', do you actually mean "Wikipedia" (which is one of thousands and thousands of wikis)? --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about being unclear, I was perhaps hoping that I would get a wider array of answers if I were not too specific. I have a few ideas of how such a social media site might work. I was hoping that there might already be some attempt to latch on to, even if it did not fit my ideas, rather than to specify exactly what I was after. I was part of a pure small wiki-group about ten years ago. Sadly, it died when the author, Bo Leuf died. I suppose I would like something like that, but extended with the global reach of Facebook, but also with automatically created hyperlinks to articles in Wikipedia, Wikiquote and Wiktionary. It's a wild idea, I know. Star Lord  -   星爵 (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There exist some open source social media software packages : Comparison of social networking software. (At a glance, Oxwall looks very facebook-like, for example.)
 * But so far as I know, no not-for-profit group has ever tried to deploy them on a large scale and compete with the giants like Facebook and Twitter. ApLundell (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Old way of politics"?
In Michael Moore's article last July which he predict Donald Trump's victory, Moore pointed out that Hillary Clinton represented what he called the "old way of politics" - i.e. "not really believing in anything other than what can get [one] elected." He cited as an example how she went from "fighting against gays getting married" to "officiating a gay marriage." If I understand this correctly, this so-called "old way of politics" involves changing one's political positions based on political climate, while the "new way of politics" involves sticking to an established set of political positions regardless of the political climate. Is this interpretation accurate? 24.38.6.106 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Without saying one way or the other about answering his question: Is it not possible for a politician to change their opinion on an issue? Are a person's opinions fixed at a certain age, and then they're required by some law to maintain those opinions until death?  There is a lot of research that goes into how people's opinion can evolve over time, here, and here are some pop-sci articles on the issue, whereas here and here are a few of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies on the subject.  The conclusion that here public statements on gay marriage represents a "say anything at all to get elected" attitude rather than a "earnest change of opinion over time" attitude seems to me to be a plurium interrogationum sort of fallacy.  We can document that her statements on the matter have changed over time; but to then enter into the debate presuppositions which are not established (if opinion changed then it was not an earnestly-held opinion at either point) is not something we should do.  I'm not saying she WAS bullshitting us, and I'm not saying she WASN'T, what I am saying is we can make not statement on the matter since neither conclusion has been supported by evidence.  -- Jayron 32 20:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I used to think as a kid that it's no biggie when politicians change their mind. In science, it's a sign of intellectual honesty, after all. Politics isn't science, though, nor is it desirable that it was. You want politicians to stand for something. And there have been societies run on supposedly scientific principles. Many people died. Asmrulz (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary people who stand for something as opposed to merely being interested in good governance cause LOTS more problems for the people they are charged with governing. Politicians who believe in efficient and proper running of a state tend to perform better than those who are more interested in ideology than in good governance.  -- Jayron 32 13:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant standing up for your constituency (instead of compromising on every issue just to stay in power, say), not any particular ideology. And good governance - good for whom? See? There is no "merely being interested in good governance." There are people whose vision for the country is square miles of favelas punctuated by gated communities. Of course they would have you believe their agenda was every bit as scientific as F=ma. But that's only because noble descent and divine mandate don't work like they once did. Asmrulz (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but clinging to bad ideas once the evidence is clear that they are bad is not standing up for your constituency. It's the exact opposite of your point, it's maintaining objectively inaccurate beliefs because your constituency has the same bad beliefs.  It's politicians letting their political positions get shaped by what they know their constituency believes, rather than by what is good for the nation they are governing or by what is right or just.  "I will continue to deny climate change because I have spent a lot of energy convincing my constituency that it doesn't exist, and I need to keep their votes" is intellectually dishonest compared to "I used to not know the data on this issue, but as I (and society as a whole) have come to know more, I have changed how I believe about it."  -- Jayron 32 17:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The current president has been on both sides of many an issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The closest we have at the moment to a technocracy is China. Can't say I'd want that but Trump does make a good argument for it! Dmcq (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't abolish democracy when you stop getting the results you want. Asmrulz (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Something was bound to happen eventually because the difference between the income of rich and poor had got so enormous and Washington was doing nothing about the huge power differential and the problems of automation which are accentuating the difference. But I don't see Trump fixing anything - I think the problems will become worse. I'm all for democracy - but something bad has happened to it in America. Perhaps there were too many checks and balances put in so only insiders and people with money could do anything and this is the people's way of trying to fix that. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

UK elections - winning multiple seats
Until 2006 it was legal in the UK to stand for election in multiple seats at a general election (the Electoral Administration Act ended this). Did anyone ever win multiple seats? What were the rules for what happened if they did? 51.7.222.136 (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * From a 2001 BBC guide to elections - "In the event of being victorious in more than one seat, a candidate has one week to decide which one to represent." It gives an 1880 example of a candidate who won three seats (Charles Parnell - in Ireland) http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/voting_system/newsid_1171000/1171903.stm Wymspen (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So what happened in the places not chosen: a by-election? Ah, here's the answer: yes. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, many thanks both! 51.7.222.136 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)