Jump to content

Talk:Politics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Politics

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 1 March 2019 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Politics) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Serious Lack of Citation

I cannot be the only one who has noted the serious lack of citations throughout the entirety of the article. Either we need to find sources or eliminate that which cannot be cited. Sovereignlance (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Speaking of which, who is Richard L Kempe and why are there uncited quotes from him under the Political Corruption area of the page? He's been there for a while. I'm going to delete him. Feel free to put him back if he ends up being notable. I can't find a thing about him. AberrantTemplar (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politics is a progress where politicans are solving problems of the society

I tried this definition of politics and i think its the best to help people understanding whats good in politics. Please add problem solving to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.36.92 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOVJasper Deng (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

agreed. like what the *interjection* is ET & Astrobiology doing in here!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.216.137 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There isn't a continuum with autocratic on one end and liberal on the other. How about using autocratic vs democratic? User: prof2long09:42, 11 June 2010

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)[reply]

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. WaltonOne 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Now you have the etymology correctly and well explained, still four years went by and not a single change in such an important article.--Justana (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

You could also try keywords in a google-search or a Wiki-search here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.18.144 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the section on primitive society shows a bias against Indigenous Australian society and, in keeping with the time that it was written,(A history of politics by Edward Jenks, published in 1900), reveals a racist perspective of Indigenous Australian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.68.21 (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also agree, what was considered true in 1900 is a very different story today. The aborigional society mentioned was most likely a very small sample and aslo poorly understood at the time. This section is patronising and dismissive of the very complex structure of aborigional society, in my humble opinion it has no place in the modern encyclopedia that wiki strives to be. Rather than just criticise, I will see what else might be appropriate for this section, if anyone else has ideas it would be great to discus them.--Donotdestroy (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: 9/11 section is trivial and specious

The section on 9/11 is not appropriate to this article on politics, which is generic in nature. At the very least, the 9/11 section is an ultra-specific (and arguable) sub-part of politics in general, and, at worst, it is a commentary/editorial rather than a genuine encyclopedic entry.

As such, I believe it should be removed, but would prefer that someone more learned or more authoritative in the Wikipedia ways do the dirty deed.

Skaizun (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Minff (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Primitive" societies

See the Wikipedia article at primitive. This is an outdated way of viewing societies with different political and agricultural systems than ours. If the distinction is one that is held in important academic texts, this needs to be indicated. For example, if important political scientist Jane Doe has described a system contrasting primitive, patriarchical, etc. societies, this needs to be presented as her system. I would suggest we remove the word entirely from the article and show a more worldwide view of things.

KevinPuj (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, such use of the term "primitive" only serves to marginalize such societies, and is not supported by contemporary scholarship. I must admit that when I first read this article I though it had been excerpted from an early 20th century text. The context in which it is presented hearkens back to 19th century white supremacist notions of "primitive matriarchies" being displaced and subsumed by by "civilized patriarchies" How this anachronistic anthropological perspective ended up in such a high-profile article on an important topic (and the fact that it has gone unchallenged so long) is frankly stupefying. WaynaQhapaq (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I also concur with the above comments. Primitive is a loaded, undesirable term. Moreover the statement in the article 'The making of laws was unknown to primitive societies' is highly questionable. The use of Australian aboriginals as an example of a primitive society is culturally sensitive, and does not take into account many aboriginal Australians who live urban lifestyles, as well as those who combine elements of non-Aboriginal and traditional Aboriginal Australian culture in rural settings. A final point, Australian Aboriginals are not one society, but many, and the wording of the article does not reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.p.blessing (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change needed in the beginning of The state section

There seems to be a biased and pretty bad introduction into The state section of the article, possibly someone editing according to their own personal views, specificaly relating to formation of the state, it is suggested that it formed and evolved solely of militaristic reasons and similar kind of nonsense continues through the rest of the section relating to the monarchical organization of state! In my opinion it needs to be rewritten entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.210.100 (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The state and the executive system

This section is not factually accurate. Many statements are biased, for example, the assertion that taxation leads to socialism. It needs a complete rewrite.

Who wrote this thing?

The entire article reads like one man's personal and untrained analysis of "the State" instead of politics. For instance, note the following line:

"Fictions. Records and Law Courts were valuable in helping the people adapt to law-making but like Fictions, they were slow and imperfect. Though slowly, Fictions work because it is a well known fact that people will accept a change in the form of a fiction while they would resist it to the end if the fact is out in the open."

Seriously, this whole thing seems to need rewriting from the ground up. 199.4.27.122 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a school assignment. A bad one. Straw Cat (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article is clearly bad, not much will occur if people make vague complaints without suggesting detailed improvements or making edits themselves. This article has a lot of "citation needed" tags, and maybe a first step would be trying to rewrite the article with some reliable sources. This article also could use more content about political spectra with diagrams such as the ones on the Spanish Wikipedia's article. To answer your original question of "Who wrote this thing?", the article's history shows that some user named JdPhD wrote most of its content in 2009. If you think that you can do a better job of writing than JDPhD, then I encourage you to improve the article. --Apollo1758 (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World politics: Reagan inspired by The Day The Earth Stood Still?

I am deleting that second paragraph in World Politics. Speculation on Ronald Reagan's belief on life on other planets is too tangential for a mention in a core article like this one.

One could discuss the advent of the United Nations, the World Court, and the UN role as a meta-national peacekeeper from Kosovo to Palestine to the Congo to Korea. But I encourage someone else to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trobster (talk • contribs) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion or non-discussion on Talk:republic

There is new information on the Talk:republic page that challenges the accuracy and efficacy and truth of the Wikipedia entry. Need to stir interest and more comment on the page.WHEELER (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans?

For what possible reason is there a story from Aztec mythology arbitrarily added under the "Native American" heading? The dubious New-Age-looking source for that section is also baffling. I think this section should be removed, given that it has little or no relevance to the article. Raffertys ghost (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly deleted... Waiting for comments. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection?

Many anonymous IPs are vandalizing this page (both the article and the talk page). Perhaps we can semi-protect it to stop this?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A point I would like to bring up

The article Grass is protected, but this page is not?!? If a simple article such as grass is protected, I really think we should protect this article, or un-protect grass. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  13:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

"That most persistent of all patriarchal societies, the Jewish, retains to a certain extent its tribal law in the Gentile cities of the West." Directly from the article. Mwolvesto50 (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

collective decisions

Most political decisions are not made collectively but by an elite, whether elected, appointed or self-appointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Constructive Plan

Are you bored? Perhaps you would like to do something helpful? Well, here is an idea. Add one of these to the 'Politics' wikipedia page:

Or respond to my topic with a link to the page on how to do it. It is pretty much a win/win situation. Thanks! Oh wow... I'm retarded. There is already a graph, however it is quite sparse on the amount of politics... It would still be helpful to have a link to the help page, just for my own sake so I (and whoever else reads this) can add to it if there is anything relevant missing. So, yeah, I'll do it, but looking for the wiki 'how-to' page is a chore and it will only make the task that much more laborious. So for the sake of future reference, keeping info on tables and graphs, such as links to help pages on anything beyond basic editing, would make things more tactile on the info level for all editors... So... is there a table like the one I already put in this section on wiki tutorials on wikipedia? That would be nice to have on every page.... to be honest...

Politics as Government

This article should, in the interests of keeping Wikipedia as specialised and as encyclopedia-like as possible, be further narrowed down to define Politics as simply the art and science of government. All information should be related to the state and have a direct relation to governmental affairs. At present, this article begins in an unsatisfactory way by presenting Politics as a decision-making process, rather than the study and action of the state. It also includes anthropological and sociological information that is not directly relevant to the analysis of government, and therefore should be removed. Anyone who objects to the 'cleaning up' of this article should post it here immediately. Thanks. ScienceLion —Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Class Conflict Article

I've been doing HEAVY editing on this article. Please help if you like. I'm migrating a lot of text from the very similar Class Struggle article over to the Class conflict article. I'm doing this because it was already pointed out to me by veteran editors on the Help Desk page that the two articles had excessive "over-lap". If anyone would like to help, please see my "Talk Page" notes on both articles about ultimately closing or reassigning the Class Struggle article. I've told interested editor on that article, if they'd like to they can turn it into a Marxist/Socialist article on class struggle, but Anarchist and Socialist "domain banners" have no business in a general article about Class Conflict. It is global and exists in almost every society. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

I personally think that there should be a "History" section somewhere here in this article. It seems to give a lot of information about politics, but doesn't really seem to say anything about its history. If nobody responds, I'll do a little research and whip up a history section myself, but until then, anybody have any say on this?

72.230.135.196 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics, a big issue.A parliamentry monarchy where the church and state are one; and where the rich are taxed slightly more; the money goes to providing housing and jobs would be great. Communism or fascism or even a totalitarian society is not necessary to provide protection. instead outlaw large clips and semi- automatic guns. society has no need for them. a system monitoring possible shooters would help. all these things would help for a perfect society. 12-23-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.68.224 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political party funding

Someone put a stub-flag/template to this article. However, if you read it carefully you should discover that the whole purpose of the article is to relate people to other articles which cover the subject that they may be looking for. The two-paragraph text contains not specific information but a wealth of links, the "see also" section refers to one general article that covers the whole subject under the scholarly name of "Political finance" and many country-specific articles. The sections on books, articles and external links provide all sorts of references.

If we do not want to duplicate all the information pertaining to any subject under different headings such articles will be as useful as e.g. disambiguation pages.

I'd be very interested to get your views on this - and please, remove the stub-flag/ template! Khnassmacher (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just gut/cut the whole Wikipedia Theory of the State §

76.180.168.166 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"

Responding to the request at WP:AN/RFC. Nearly all of the participating editors agree that the issue is complex, and either !vote "unclear"/"contextual" or acknowledge that the opposite of their preferred response may be the correct one under certain circumstances. In other words, there is a consensus that the context needs to be considered. (So, to the extent that the original question was whether it is ever acceptable to use the term, the answer is yes, but in specific cases other wording may be better.) Opinions varied as to which uses of the term should be acceptable, although several suggestions were made. Several editors cited the vague definition of the term as their main concern, and nearly all editors acknowledge that the definition varies or is otherwise problematic, so I interpret this as a consensus that the term should not generally be used in cases where the definition is unclear. Continued discussion may be useful to refine this conclusion further. Sunrise (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the use of the term "assault weapon" appropriate in articles related to gun politics and guns in society? Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Survey

  • Yes. (RfC author) Of course context is everything, but the term is used by/in a preponderance of reliable sources. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • complex Certainly the term is notable and can be discussed. Legislation and pushes for legislation applying to the term are notable and can be discussed. Saying the term applies to a particular item, or set of items is complicated, especially when the items are being discussed before and after certain proposed legislation. (eg, Adam Lanza's gun was not an Assault Weapon according to either the old AWB, the then in force Connecticut AWB, but would be under the 2013 bill, and is under the CT revised bill). There are a multitude of AR15 variants that are legal under all AWBs (CA, CT, Feinstein 2013). (For example, this variant is not covered under the new NYSAFE law, the CT law, Feinstein's proposed ban. [3]) Saying something like "Bill X bans Assault Weapons" is circular, since the bills DEFINE some weapons as assault weapons, and then bans them. We cannot use the terms as if they have defined meanings, outside of the laws which are creating those definitions. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear To the extent that "assault weapon" is generally used to mean "any weapon that would not normally be used for defence or sporting purposes" it is likely not the best term, as it is now viewed as primarily a political term of art meaning "any weapon which we think should be restricted." [4] The New York Times states Even Defining ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Complicated and the term has become so politicized in recent decades that where people stand on the gun issue can often be deduced by whether they use the term. . In such a case, Wikipedia should not use the controversial term of art as a "fact" in Wikipedia's voice, IMO. Collect (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not This is a politically charged, and largely a media-defined, term. Using it while speaking in Wikipedia's voice would give credence to an already slippery definition. Name the guns, name the manufacturer, give facts about them, and let the readers do a little work by figuring it out for themselves. Unless they are sold as an 'assault' weapon, the term is meaningless here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The term is pervasive in American politics. To not use the term at all would be one way of taking a strong POV on the subject of gun laws. Of course, some discussion in individual cases may be necessary, but if the question is "Can the phrase be used?" The answer should clearly be "Yes." And we should monitor inappropriate uses as the arise. Thenub314 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes There should be inclusion of the argument made by anti-gun control advocates that "there's no such thing as assault weapons" (because it's a vague definition), but the term is widely used including in legislation so of course it should be included. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - The term has been widely used. It can be used if it is clearly defined. No if used without clear definition. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on the context. The most precise term should be used whenever possible. However, in the context of gun control, media coverage of gun violence, and other situations where usage of "assault weapon" is common, we should discuss and describe the term. It is an important part of the debate and needs due coverage. When used to describe a specific weapon, however, it is too imprecise. Say "semi automatic rifle with a pistol grip" or whatever instead of "assault weapon". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on the context, but generally not, except when quoted & cited. There's overwhelming evidence that the term is bogus (vague, overly broad, and mostly a PR buzzword with no clear definition), and extremely politically charged, as well as used in a factually misrepresentative way by opponents of firearms and/or proponents of increased controls on firearms. Even where it has a definition that can be cited, the definition varies wildly from source to source (mostly US state statutes that conflict with one another). There is no use, except when referring to the terminology used by particular statutes and organizations (see Use–mention distinction), that cannot be replaced by something both more accurate and more neutral. In most cases where use is retained, it should have quotation marks around it, with citations to the definition in play in that exact context, if not a parenthetical explanation of that definition at that spot in the article as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • Comment - So this may be the single most bastardized term in the media and political circles. It has a very clear (absolutely definitive) definition within the military, arms trade, and reasonably knowledgeable (yet, non-professional) firearm communities as a selective fire long gun (Assault rifle). But yet almost no one outside these groups makes the distinction that every firearm labeled an "assault weapon" is NOT an assault rifle. To those that are anti-gun or gun ignorant its simply been used to mean "big bad military looking gun" and has almost nothing to do with its function. The 1934 NFA actually tried to address this as it was intended to stem the flow guns specifically used by criminals; machines guns and previously long barreled guns (shotguns and rifles) that had been cut down to make them concealable. This is still illegal, but those complicated or antiquated terms lacked the media punch that the politicians needed and the mass media has since latched onto the term. So we can either fall victim to media hype/rhetoric/etc or make clear distinctions in our editing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaijin42, I hear you on the complex thing. Context is everything. But, as a hypothetical, suppose one is working on an article about a shooting. And say part of that article is about the responses that shooting elicited from gun rights and/or gun control supporters. Suppose one of the responses was that numerous legislative bodies decided to propose new assault weapons bans, or strengthen existing gun bans. Each of these bodies might vary in the specifics of how they define an assault weapons - but they all define assault weapons. The lead would use the term assault weapon, and the details would go into the body of the article - just as a preponderance of WP:V, WP:RS sources do. Lightbreather (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Howunusual No, I'm not asking if it should be banned. I'm asking if it's appropriate to use in the context of general discussions about assault weapons. There are actually some editors who say that there is no such thing as an assault weapon. Or that it's an invention of (depending on who (whom?) you ask): the media, Josh Sugarmann, politicians, or the gun industry. I say, it's been a part of the English lexicon for at least 20 years now and assault weapons are real things. Granted, like speed limits and speeding, they're defined differently in different jurisdictions. That's where context comes into play.
For example, the lead sentence of the narrow-topic Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine article does not say "The Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine is an assault weapon." That would lead with a POV misrepresentation. (Though, if applicable, an editor might WP:NPOV add to the lead or body of the article, "It is classified as an assault weapon in the states of X, Y, and Z.")
However, in the broader topic article about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, an editor might write, "The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, including proposals for making the background-check system universal, and for new federal and state assault weapon and high-capacity magazine bans." Different jurisdictions might define assault weapons differently, but the public understands that there are assault weapons... just like the public understands that speed limits and speeding can differ, but there really, legally are speed limits and speeding. Lightbreather (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give a direct cite of any editor who has said "there is no such thing as an assault weapon" please. Otherwise, kindly redact your apparent attack on such non-existent editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will get started and add as I'm able today:
Try giving a straight and specific answer to what I asked - or redact the attack. Directing me to an archive is less than helpful, the onus is on you to back up your stated claim here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said that there are editors who say there is no such things as an assault weapon. I gave three links to discussions where editors say there is no such thing. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It depends. As an author of over 2000 articles about firearms, shooting, etc that are primarily focused on self defense, tactics, officer survival and bonafide full automatic assault rifles; I have used the term less than a handful of times and in those cases it was in direct reference to legislation or poorly written laws. The facts are that both sides use the term. It was coined by an anti-gunner, but has been used by Gun Digest for over 25 years as a title for one of their most popular comprehensive annual publications. I see no problem using it in most of the political articles. Referring to semiautomatic clones of military rifles in those articles I find problematic, however. An encyclopedia should inform by design, not persuade and definitely not dumb-down its readers. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"

No consensus. Number 57 11:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the use of the term "high-capacity magazine" appropriate in articles related to gun politics and guns in society? Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Survey

  • Yes. (RfC author) Of course context is everything, but the term is used by/in a preponderance of WP:RS. Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The term is a classic misnomer turned political buzzword. NY defines "high capacity" as greater than 7 rounds. California uses the limit of 10 rounds. Some firearms were designed to hold more than this such as the Beretta 92, Browning Hi-Power and M16. Standard capacity for those firearms in question would be 15, 13 and either 20 or 30 respectively. If anything it reflects a basic lack of knowledge of the subject matter.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I could not agree with Mike more. Its a well put explanation of the situation. I'd like to add that technically any magazine that is capable of holding even a single round more than the "standard magazine" that Mike mentions would be considered "high capacity". The term is quite simply an abuse of hyperbole in order to generate a desired reaction from a target audience. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike Searson and Scalhotrod, but context is the variable, and it matters. For instance, suppose you are working on an article about a shooting, and part of that article is about the responses that shooting elicited, and one of the responses was that numerous legislative bodies decided to propose new or strengthen existing high-capacity magazine bans. Though each of the bodies might define high-capacity magazine differently - they all define them. The lead would use the term high-capacity magazines, and the details would go into the body of the article - just as a preponderance of WP:V, WP:RS sources do. Lightbreather (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LB, do you realize that you just suggested a methodology for misleading Readers? You proscribe using the term in the Lead (which by yours and others admission does not have a standard definition, its relative from gun to gun) and then say that we should bury the details in the article. Many WP visitors read a Lead only and most decide whether they are going to read the article based on the Lead and to some extent the Infobox if one is present. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scal, have you read MOS:INTRO lately?
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead. It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.
See the lead paragraph of James Dean. It mentions that he died in a car crash, with a Wikilink to that term. In the section titled "Accident and aftermath" it gets into details about his car and driving speeds. (Oddly, there was no WL to "speed limit," which I just added.) The point is, if the topic of the article is high-capacity magazines, you can launch into details pretty early on - just as speed limit launches into details after a MOS:BEGIN paragraph. BUT, if the topic of the article is a shooting that, among other things, prompted discussions at federal and state levels about AW and HCM bans - you don't need to, and MOS:INTRO tells you not to, get into the details of those bans in the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find the term as offensive as the "N" word in most contexts. 9 out of ten times the person using the word is not an authority on firearms, but would be a good source of information about veggie burgers, sandals, foot lotion and scented candles. There are exceptions, of course. For example SureFire manufactures a 100-round AR15 magazine that they market as a "high capacity magazine" because the capacity is higher than the standard 20 or 30 round magazine. Internet retailers are fond of the term because a majority of potential customers know only what the media feeds them. The term, itself, has no place in professional journalism. A true journalist would give the facts and let the readers decide for themselves. Case in point, my standard Wilson Combat 47D magazine for my 1911 holds 8 rounds. In New York City this would be considered a "High Capacity Magazine", in California or 7 of the other places that have such laws, it would not. Following your logic, one could rightfully call a 10-round Browning Hi-Power magazine a "restricted capacity magazine". It goes back to Collect's statement about "large sodas". It does not inform the reader and only serves to further ignorance about a specific event. I thought you were a software developer. Have you ever been given unclear requirements? Did it not frustrate you then?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While NY would seem to be alone in defining 7 as "high-capacity", the number 17 is found in a bunch of sources. It is sort of like defining how many ounces are in a "large soda" I suspect - at some point pretty much everyone will say it is "large" but some view anything more than the old 6 ounce Coke as "large" <g>. Better to specify actual numbers, I suspect. Collect (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as per Scalhotrod. However, if there are other terms which are more precise in context, these should be preferred. And this term should never be used unless sources use it. Homunq (࿓) 00:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC) ps. Please comment on other RfCs such as this one.[reply]
  • No per Mike and User:Scalhotrod. This is another meaningless, media-speak phrase that can't help but be POV. Just state the number of rounds as found in the source(s), and let the reader figure the rest out. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The term concisely conveys a situation in which a magazine holds more then a few rounds. The term doesn't describe the relation to a standard magazine, in many of the examples listed above the standard magazine is High Capacity. While there may not be a universal definition of the term in all states, there is not a universal definition of imaginary number (or any one of thousands of terms in WP) but if an article is clear and uses the term consistently there is no problem. I fail to see how a purely descriptive term like "High Capacity" is politically charged. Thenub314 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, in mathematics there most definitely is a single widely accepted definition for "imaginary number" going back to Heron of Alexandria. Physics and other hard sciences use the term regularly and without any problems at all. Why did you arrive at such a poor example? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, he is probably not a mathematician. Some people can't see the forest when all those trees get in the way.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which probability measure are you using to determine I am probably not a mathematician? But to return to Collect's question, the definition of the phrase is not uniform. Some authors take the term to be a synonym with complex number, while some take it to be a synonym with a "purely complex number". The issue being whether or not the term covers numbers whose real part is not zero. There is sometimes disagreement about what a term means, you make a decision, explain it and live with it. For example see the second to last sentence of the lead section of Trapezoid. These types of distinctions in my opinion are the same as whether you define a high capacity magazine to more than 7 bullets, or 10, or standard clip + 1. Make a decision, explain it, live with it. Thenub314 (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Per Mike. This is an undefined term. It would be, therefore, misleading to readers. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes if it is clearly defined, e.g., by reference to a law restricting high-capacity magazines. No if just used without definition. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on the context, but generally not, except when quoted & cited. There's overwhelming evidence that the term is bogus (vague, overly broad, and mostly a PR buzzword with no clear definition), and extremely politically charged, as well as used in a factually misrepresentative way by opponents of firearms and/or proponents of increased controls on firearms. Even where it has a definition that can be cited, the definition varies wildly from source to source (mostly US state statutes that conflict with one another). There is no use, except when referring to the terminology used by particular statutes and organizations (see Use–mention distinction), that cannot be replaced by something both more accurate and more neutral. In most cases where use is retained, it should have quotation marks around it, with citations to the definition in play in that exact context, if not a parenthetical explanation of that definition at that spot in the article as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Threaded discussion

  • Thenub314: There is nothing concise about it. What does "more than a few rounds" mean to you? What does it mean to me? or the next guy over? It's the same thing with the term "high capacity." Some may feel anything over one round qualifies, while others may thing anything short of 50 rounds wouldn't. Using such ill-defined terms consistently and repeatedly in an article makes the article unclear and actually makes it problematic from the perspective of POV.
In the United States right now, such terms are regarded as extremely politically charged, as some here are using these terms in an emotional, though really undefined, manner (especially certain news groups). We have to use language in Wikipedia that is supported by reliable sourcing and is balanced too. It's best to remove all that from the equation by not using esoteric phraseology by specifically stating the facts and not using inconsistent, ill-defined hype words. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • GenQuest: I would agree we need to be clear about what we mean within an article. But honestly, the term is used repeatedly by people who are pro/anti gun legislation, as well as gun manufacturer's/seller's. The term appears in pear reviewed reliable articles. If I oppose the statement that is being back above then I would be saying that "high-capacity magazines" is not acceptable in any article on guns in society or on guns in politics. Really? If the term is used by news media across the political spectrum, by politicians, by social science researchers are we supposed to ban the phrase? It would be more reasonable to make sure we are using the phrase in a NPOV manner, and hash it out as we use it, rather than to ban the phrase entirely. Thenub314 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What good is the use of a term if you have to define it each time you use it? We could call it a high-capacity magazine, a gizmo, or a flabber-gasket for all I would care. It really does not matter, as long as the term is uniformly definable. So, what is the definition of high capacity? P.S.: (I would contend that the same arguments hold true with the use of the term assault rifle also.) (See above discussion.) GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Introductory section

"Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities. " (in intro paragraph)

Wouldn't this definition of "community" mean that left libertarians (who want to 'flatten' hierarchies, so to speak) aren't political in their study and practice? Also, as a reader, you need to tell me in this intro what the relationship between politics and economics is, considering that the word "resources" is in there.

I'd put a 'citation needed' on this (except that it's in the intro), but it does also seem a little poorly explained. Thennicke (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

message for my friends

So your going to have the government close on your tail if you're in an unfriendly country😔 After talking with me! Would you like to collaborate on some upcoming articles with me? I've got a long list and already have most of the reputable sources just have to read them. Find a way to let me know. Take careNotgoingtotellyou (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greek

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.2.195 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I tried to add citation for a particular line , I am not able to add citation. Can you pls help. Where should i add the citation ? Aishwarya889 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , I added 2 citations , i don't know how to put the link of my edit . Is it possible for you to check my edit and tell me if its okay? Thank you . Aishwarya889 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add at least 4 normalized and standard statements by politicians and their defined/implied political implications.

On the question of ...

No comment (Implies ´no come mind´: ´will not be party off/onto´)

No argument (Implies ´No arghhhh, mind´: self explicatory)

No further questions. (Implies ´no further quests for zions´: no further quests for skeletons in the closet, nor that what was sweeped under the rugg).

There is another standard one, however, I have a momentary lapse in memory (for which wikipedia now and then serves fine in resolving that lapse of memory).

Helps if all would acknowledge these forms.

Very appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.77.87.71 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partial overview - theories are not facts

Dear all, I have a few remarks on this page

The main problem, in my opinion, is that it presents specific or sometimes even peculiar theories on politics and state as statements of facts. The wole page is riddled with this problems, for example:

- the first sentence of the "History of state politics" chapter: "The history of politics is reflected in the origin, development, and economics of the institutions of government". This identification of politics and institutions of government is given a factual without even some historical or philosphical context.

-The first sentence of "The State" paragraph: "The origin of the state is to be found in the development of the art of warfare. Historically speaking, all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare." Without even entering in the merit of wether such a statement is correct or even plausible, "historically speaking" does not mean anyhing and certainly does not offer any proof for the following sentence. Would be better to offer instead an overview of the different theories on the origins of the states (the most common of witch do not mention warfare).

The whole chapter "History of state politics" does not offer any history at all. It is organised per topics (which per se is quite strange in an historical acount) and each topic is confusedly mixed between vague theoretical arguments ("Property is the right vested on the individual or a group of people to enjoy the benefits of an object, be it material or intellectual. A right is a power enforced by public trust. Sometimes it happens that the exercise of a right is opposed to public trust. Nevertheless, a right is really an institution brought around by public trust, past, present or future") and excessively general pseudo-historical statements ("The making of laws was unknown to primitive societies"), that no citation could save.

So I repute that the whole page needs a complete renewal, especially since it is such an important topic. I still have to analyse the whole page, but for now i propose to delete "History of state politics" and sobstitute it with a "History of theories on politics" (e.g. Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.). Furthermore, if the discourse is not centered around a relative assumption (ie. politics = state) inserting non-western authors should be encouraged.

ViveLaTrance (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you develop your proposed section on a "sandbox page" (e.g. User:ViveLaTrance/Sandbox1. When you think it is ready, then ask us to discuss it. Please note the importance of citations to reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldview

This article needs a worldview tag. It seems to deal with politics from an almost exclusively Eurocentric aka Western perspective. Politics certainly pre-dates the Greeks and the pre-history of political discourse (etc etc) seems missing. --Inayity (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leave alone the common use of politics in the US meaning organizational politics. I've added workplace politics to the "see also" links.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made a mistake. Sorry Jenny lennny (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics/Archive_2&oldid=885611324"