Talk:Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Politics article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Politics has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed March 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance in Politics. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) I have been watching this article for some time and have made some minor edits. Overall I think that it misses. The article is about politics but slips into descriptions of ideology and governance. Both of these articles have areas of their own. I don't believe that this article will succede until it focuses on the practice of politics. Ace Diamond 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Check out this organized semi contribution to this wikipedia article: http://bubba540.googlepages.com/ This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Politics, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Social and political philosophy

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have. The following comments have been left for this page: I have been watching this article for some time and have made some minor edits. Overall I think that it misses. The article is about politics but slips into descriptions of ideology and governance. Both of these articles have areas of their own. I don't believe that this article will succede until it focuses on the practice of politics. Ace Diamond 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Check out this organized semi contribution to this wikipedia article: http://bubba540.googlepages.com/ (edit)

Contents 1 Bad editing 2 Authoritarian-Libertarian 3 etymology 4 Politicisation? 5 No mention of legislatures? 6 Definition problematic 7 Vandalism 8 "Pragmatic view of power" 9 Is it just me here? 10 Who gets what, when, why, and how 11 Lead

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)