Talk:Politics

Bad editing

that affect themselves, other people, other creatures, and the environment.

Isn't this overkill? This sentence should end at "decisions." Everything after that is superflous. Isn't it? Ace Diamond (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Authoritarian-Libertarian

Instead of using specifically north-american terms wouldn't it be better to use the international and historical correct terms like autocratic vs liberal? Carewolf 09:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

etymology

The term comes from the Greek: πολιτικός or πολιτικά (meaning "of the city"), an adjective refering to the noun πόλις (meaning "city"). It came to be a noun meaning the "matters of the city", or πολιτική for "public life". The opposite in greek is ιδιωτικός or ιδιωτικά for private life, or the affairs of ίδιον, one's self. Idiotic came to be derogatory and mean stupid for a person that did not participate in the public life. I have a greek dictionary explaining etymology, should I add citation in greek, or does it have to be in english? Similar information also from [1] and from [2]. Finally, if you add this etymology to the article, also add "Category:Greek loanwords" category please. thanks.--Polyvios 08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding the citation in Greek is fine. I was aware of the etymology, but didn't add it to the article because I didn't have a source. So yes, please add the information. Walton^One 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think that an etymology section should go directly above the section "key political concepts". This might discourage editors from placing references to the word in the description of the concept.Ace Diamond 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Politicisation?

Can anyone tell my why Politicisation redirects to this article?? (I'm thinking of Politicisation in the sense of the "Politicisation of a Westminster Civil Service" or similar) Alphamatrix 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No mention of legislatures?

Am I the only one who finds it odd that there is no mention of legislatures in the text? They are the major political forum. Grant | Talk 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition problematic

I think the current definition, "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions." is not accurate. There are many situations in which a group of people engages in some process to make decisions, but that process would not be described as politics. I think the second paragraph with "social relations involving authority or power" is more accurate. Anyone want to try to re-write this definition? I'm not sure I feel qualified to make changes...but I feel the current definition really needs improvement. Cazort 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence some years ago and have been hoping that some one would want to discuss it.

Think of a situation within which a group of people makes a decision that does not involve dominance(brute force), compromise, or concensus. Any thing as simple as the family choosing a restaurant to nuclear disarmerment. These are the essence of politics.

My quarrel is with the rest of the article, most espcially the section on political philosophies. That should be merged with its own article.Ace Diamond 21:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you oppose merging articles but how about keeping like materials together? Ace Diamond 21:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer Hannah Arendt's definition of politics. I would also like to see her listed under the theorists section as well. I would do it myself but I'd rather see someone more knowledgeable about her theories than I. -Jared —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.236.56 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed apparent opinionated vandalism by a person named "Denna", unregistered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.3.46 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I find myself having to remove vandalism as well. Doss Dog and an unidentified user seems to be adding ridiculous statements to the very top of the article. Culveyhouse (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Pragmatic view of power"

This fragment should probably be moved to the "Political power" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.143.203 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me here?

Does anyone else find the words 'special relationship' used in poltics a bit creepy? Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Who gets what, when, why, and how

I think this definition is overly simplifying. Shouldn't there be also the aspect "who does what, when, why, and how"? Dpotop (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Is to short IMO. I wouldn't pass it for GA. The current paragraphs are so brief they could easily be rolled into one. Richard001 (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Politics

I take issue with the definition of politics. First, I think the definition of politics as it is currently given is inadequate and circuitous. Honestly, "Politics...refers to the regulation of a political unit"? That is an absurd description. I suggest defining politics as "the authoritative allocation of values" Rifdawg (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I really have to disagree. Politics is a broad human activity that transcends civil polities. Academic, corporate, religious, and all manner of organizations -- formal and informal-- have political features. An encyclopedic article should encompass the subject in its broadest sense before it drills down to specific cases. The "authoritive allocation of values" is an interesting, robust statement but an encyclopedia ought to enlighten first. Ace Diamond (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • • Actually, I think you're tending to agree with me a bit. There is nothing in my definition of of politics that says it need only to apply to civil politics. On the contrary, I think the definition I have provided is far more inclusive than the one currently provided. Furthermore, David Easton, an extremely renowned political scientist, and one with more authority on the subject than you or me, defines politics as such. 98.207.138.174 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

question on undecided voters

Why most tv host and republicans talking heads predicting that the undecided voters will go to Mccain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.7.241 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC) dm Would you agree with me, that undecided voters are waiting to vote for Obama and keep the republicans gussing?dm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.7.241 (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Black Politics

I am studying Black Politics in school and I would like to ask where I could find the most information for any of the following:

• African Americans In Politics
• The Contribution Of Martin Luther King to the Civil Rights Movement
• Unemploymen Amongst African Americans
• Changes to the law concerning race under president lyndon johnson (1963-1969)
• levels of poverty amongst African Americans
• The Contribution of Malcolm X
• The Black Panther Movement
• The role of african americans in the two world wars
• and educational achievements of african americans.

I would also like your thoughts on which was the most important factor of the improvement of the conditions for black americans between1960 and 1980.

Thx

AmandaB8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandab8 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried the library? Ace Diamond (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Include/Exclude philosophy?

I agree that political philosophy belongs on the political philosophy page and tried to start a discussion of such a change sometime ago. While I find the gratutious purging a little abrupt, maybe this will spur some discussion.

How does philosophy inform the practice of politics? Autocratic vs. Democratic? Devine right vs. Social contract? Each of these questions raise contrasts in the legitimacy of use of force or the manipulation of symbols. Ace Diamond (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It goes elsewhere, see also is fine. The short shrift it was receiving here is not acceptable and will confuse students and other readers. --Buridan (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Did you move it somewhere or did you just pull the handle? Ace Diamond (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

i pulled the delete handle, since all the data is better found with a simple search on other articles --Buridan (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Why the hell did you do that? That was an absurd mistake, that section was very informative and relevant to this subject. Don't do it before you argue with people here. I'm reverting your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untouchable777 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

actually most of what was there was junk, it did not provide depth, it had no inclusion/exclusion principle, it wasn't cited, and it was poorly constructed. if you want to link to the articles of various philosophers that have opinions here, the list would be quite long, but... you don't, and can't, but you also don't get to pick and choose without reason, as that is bias and an npov problem, so the best thing to do is to cut it. the article needs much more improvement before it gets anywhere near useful. arguing about this bit of text, which is going to be deleted now or later, is sort of pointless. --Buridan (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• An overview of the basic political philosophies is definitly helpful on this page, but not to the extent that was on here before. Plato, Machiavelli, and Marx at the least deserve a mention; while the Vienna School, Ayn Rand, and Logical Fundamentalists are less basic to the understanding of politics. I think a middle ground works here and we should restore some of the recently deleted information. Themfromspace (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

actually those are a biased choice, so no. just link to the political philosophy page and the list of political philosophers if you want it. don't build another list based on what you think should be there, because that is pov. remember all this content is elsewhere, look at the history of the article, they used to just have the links, but then it became a ton of links without text, there is a middle ground. you can describe why a person might want to look at political philosophy and how one can think of it as contributing to politics, without listing all the types of political philosophies, letting the list be on another page.--Buridan (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they're biased choices at all. History is what history is and certain political philosophers have shaped modern politics more than others, and we can identify the most influential. The world as we know it today is mostly the result of western liberal thinking, and it wouldn't be a big deal to sketch the outline of this. I'm open to discussion about which philosophers we should mention but there should definitly be a "who's who in political theory" outline of some sort presented in the article. Themfromspace (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia isn't about western liberal thinking, that is a systematic bias, it is about no bias. confucius and buddha have had greater affect than your great 3, but you don't list them, and that is why the list is biased. there is a who's who of political theory already, it does not belong here, this is politics, not the history of western political thought. --Buridan (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, western political thought is probably around 90% of the political thought used in the world today. Just because Buddha isn't mentioned doesn't mean that there's a bias in the article. Politics works on systemic bias as the powerful nations bring their political ideas to power with them. Like it or not, thats reality. Themfromspace (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that is not 'reality' all we have is notable and verified, we don't have your reality, the reality of Rastas, or Buddhists. we also have the concept of the well formed article, neutrality, standards for inclusion/exclusion, etc. etc. ton's of things that say, think and research before you put another bias into the encyclopedia that will need deleted. oh, and btw, hegel's theory.... that's a 'theory', powerful nations don't bring their ideas to power, sometimes ideologies spread, sometimes not, history pretty much dooms that thesis. as for your perspective being one of powerful nations... that too would be a kind of pernicious bias. right now, the best thing would probably be to roll the lot back to the 2005 version of the article, so you could see the mistakes made before, and not make them again. because it if isn't me pulling out the npov or OR tags, it will be someone else. --Buridan (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am only asking for an overview of the most widely discussed political thinkers, not an endorsement of their views. Certain thinkers have influenced our society more than others, that is verifiable. Yes, Wikipedia is here to document every facet of political thinking (at least all "notable" and verifiable thinking), and in this oh-so general article all that can be done is give a rough overview of political theorists. Yes, choosing who stays and who goes is bias. I'm calling a spade a spade because reality is biased towards certain thinkers. Plato and Mill and Marx are more widely discussed than Joe the Plumber, that is also true. A good encyclopedia should allow room in the article on "Politics" to briefly mention the most influential political thinkers, even if they are all "Western" (as if that's bad in itself). Themfromspace (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

those are not the most widely discussed, nor do they need an overview, link to them. the question you should be asking is... if someone read these overviews, would they come out with a misunderstanding of the way things are, and the answer must be yes. so then the question is how do you relate politics to these theorists in a way that does not provide a bias? it doesn't really matter, mind you, that you think these are 'it', either because the next person along will think someone else is 'it' too. that's why we don't recreate lists in articles, because it ends up being a list of favorites. --Buridan (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

an article about politics?

Should this article be about politics? or should it be about everything? Personally, I think that because of the way wikipedia works, it should be a narrowly constructed and informative article about politics, however, when i came to the article it was mostly about power and political philosophy. My thought today is that power goes on power and political philosophy goes on those hundreds of pages. A nice clean article on politics that is clear, well cited, etc. would be great!--Buridan (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite the dubiosity I feel toward this Buridan guy (fueled by his passing familiarity with capitalization), the dude is right. Political philosophy is seperate from political practice. Indeed, politics transcends ideology. Right-wing icon, Adolph Hitler and left-wing bugaboo Josef Stalin used the same political tactics to compel compliance with their policies.

The third or fourth paragraph of the politics page directs the reader to the political philosophy page. Those who feel the need to include political philosophy in this article should integrate the information from previous vedrsions into that page. Ace Diamond (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I try to save my worrying about capitalization for published media, and then not always then, yet they publish it anyway. it is horrible. --Buridan (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how politics and political philosophy are mutually exclusive. One is heavily linked with each other. It is merely semantics. This is not a dictionary, we don't just offer the shallow explanation that "politics is the process of deciding matters". We elaborate. And when elaborating, we will ultimately step into political philosophies. Yes, there is an article for that, and if you check it, you'll see that it also talks about politics. Because both matters are intertwined. If you, Buridan, will insist in editing this page, you should at the very least find a place to put what you deleted from this one. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Not YOUR encyclopedia. You don't just barge in here editing whatever you want without first proposing it at the talk page to see what other people think and if it is appropriate. The section you deleted was very helpful to many people. Untouchable777 (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

actually yes, you do. wp:be bold one seeks to improve all articles one can by applying sound judgment and wp policies. and no, i won't find a 'place' for material that alread exists in better forms elsewhere in wikipedia. there is no should there. --Buridan (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the definition given is pretty robust and inclusive. Politics is a process. Government (be it civil, commercial, academic, or eclesiastic) is the mechanism for implementing the decisions made. Philosophy or ideology, if you will, provides a framework of how the world ought to be but the actual techniques used to reach that "ought to be world" remain the same. Coertion or cooperation; reward or punishment - these are the tools of the politician. The only question for an encyclopedia article about politics to answer is "How does one get his way?" Ace Diamond (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a secondary paragraph explanation of authoritarianism related ideology

When reading the Politics page I could not help but notice that the Authoritarian-libertarian politics subsection contained an extensive paragraph about classical liberalism, its definition, and leaders of its development while there fails to be one pertaining to authoritarianism. Perhaps one should be assembled? If even only for balance sake? Food for thought.

AzrailJahannam (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Civil government politics

Reading trough the article, I noticed that there is no article exclusively for civil government. This article should become Civil government politics; and perhaps this page is best rebuild as a disambugation page (referring to civil government politics, religious politics, ...) Also, the articles on civil government politics (now nwith names as Politician, Political systems, Political scientists, ... should be moved to Civil government politician, civil government political systems, civil government political scientists, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.13.181 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

History section

Am I the only one that thinks the History section is garbage? It doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards in terms of formatting, doesn't cite any sources, and goes off on a long tangent about aboriginal Australians that makes sweeping generalizations. How come this article hasn't been flagged for all of these problems?

Justblazed420 (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• The source cited for the history section is at the end of that section. It is A history of politics by Edward Jenks, published in 1900.JDPhD (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

the large portion at the beginning talking about aborigines does not seem like it should belong in the intro section. Maybe it should be moved down (into its own section) so that the Table of Contents isn't 3/4 of the way down the article? This whole page looks messy.