Talk:Politics
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
Categorization
To spare all our nerves, we have chosen not to categorize any of the systems and ideologies on this page according to their similarity to each other, instead listing them in alphabetical order. Originally, we did categorize by system and this led to a lot of bickering. See Categorization Talk. If you want to order them, please first consult that page to see whether somebody has already objected to your ordering, and justify here why your ordering is from the Neutral point of view.
Also, please don't categorize articles on this page until they are beyond stub.
European Union
I'd like to add a few pages on the European Union - its institutions, the way decisions are made etc. Does anyone have any idea where to add that article? Next to the item "US politics" seems logical, but I am not happy with the category "miscellaneous" which this item is in. What about a top level entry (from the politics page) to something like "political entities" which would contain the EU, UN, USSR, League of Nations, and links to items on the politics of various national states (US, UK, Netherlands, whatever)?
--Herman Beun
- How about two headings: "Supernational political entities" and "national politics"? Would that be too confusing? The miscellaneous heading was a cop-out because I thought corporate police state and the like were muddying up "Systems and ideologies", but didn't know what to do with them. --DanKeshet
Political science basic topics
There is probably a merge in order between this page and Political science basic topics. I built out the basic topics page after visiting the most basic encyclopedia article topics page, and didn't think to look here until now
Definition
Isn't the definition too narrow? Doesn't politics exist in offices, factories, unions, even families?
WikiProject
comment: this seems like an ideal candidate for incorporation into a WikiProject.
a disagreement about definitions
I cannot agree with the first paragraph of this article but don't have a clue how to make what would have to be a huge edit.
A common joke among Political Scientists goes: Political Science is to Politics as Art History is to Art.
When the author asserts that politics is the study of the decision making process I just want to scream (a little). I am, as it turns out, both a political scientist and a politician and the distinction, to me, seems crystal clear.
But before mucking about with a major revision I thought maybe some discussion may be in order.
T
- I seriously disagree with the revert but at least the information I added was kept in. I believe that what comes first in Reality should appear first. Politics is a Greek word matching a Greek mentality. Again, there is an attempt to re-write history according to ""modern senses" which I find suspicious. Moderns don't have Greek mentality and hence no understanding of the words they use which are Greek. If it is a Greek word let the Greeks define it. I am finding this pretty annoying or discovered huge element in the lack of education of people.198.108.150.2 17:41, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
First things first? I did try to start with pre human behavior that influenced ( or evolved into) political behavior.--I'm new at this so my citations didn't work. I'm still learning.--
I find the notion that politics did not exist untill the Greeks named it incomprehensible. The article that that we are editing may well be better named political philosophy (or political ethics) than a definition of practical blood under the fingernails politics.Ace Diamond
- I provide references to what I posted. The original version has no references. So I again disagree. Wikipedia states references are to be cited. There is no citation of references.WHEELER 17:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Further, I would like to add How the Greeks defined forms of government from quoting Aristotle. This also needs to be added. Thanks. A Socratic may be in order for this definition also.
- Also, there is another site called civics. This is a Latin word for the Greek word Politics. The stuff on there should be merged onto here. This needs to be checked out.WHEELER 01:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have put up a site called Wikipedia:Revisionism. It is something I have noticed. Please participate.WHEELER 23:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Republic?
Quote:
- "republican form of government, i.e. representative democracy"
"Republic" is more frequently defined as a form of government with a head of state who is not a monarch, and there are numerous representative democracies that are not republics. Can we find a better definition? --GoldenRing 01:52, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Try: [[1] (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/index.html)]
[[2] (http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/republic.html)]
He notes that republic originally had the meaning that you mention but that it has taken on a more longwinded meaning that equates more or less to representative democracy. Additionally, even the governments that you mention that are not truely representative eg. the old Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China maintained the fiction of representation by holding show elections from time to time.Ace Diamond 02:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note that your reference specifically says this is an American usage, not that there is anything wrong with that per se. I had in mind true representative democracies that do not consider themselves republics, rather than 'republics' that are not representative democracies. The main example would be the Commonwealth countries. --GoldenRing 05:50, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. So what features do republics have in common that set them apart from other forms of governments. It cannot only be that they are not headed by a monarch as that includes Cuba-a charismatic authoriarian state.Ace Diamond 14:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What do you think, maybe that is a little bit better?Ace Diamond 00:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, a bit. On doing some more reading, it seems that Rome was in fact not anything like a republic as we know it. Aristotle's definition of a republic as 'the rule of law' shows the distinction then made - a form of government where the law rules, not an individual. On this basis, the definition, "a form of government with a head of state who is not a monarch," seems about as close as we are likely to get. This republic was quite definitely not a representative democracy - the senate was a body of aristocracy, a bit like the House of Lords, and they made the rules. The rules were presented to non-representative assemblies of citizens, who approved them or otherwise. The consuls, who were elected, then carried out the approved rules.
Note that by this definition Rome was not the first to have a republic, the Greeks at least got in first. But the Romans were the first to call it a republic, since it is a Latin word. They had only the very beginnings of representative democracy. What they did invent was the bicameral form of parliament, a point in favour of your text, "a government structure that allowed competing interests access to the decision making process." However, this definition also makes the United Kingdoms a republic.
So how about:
- The Roman Republic is credited with significant innovation in forms of government. It was the first bicameral legislative system, which divided power between the patrician aristocracy and plebian general citizens. It also contained the beginnings of representative democracy, having various officers selected for fixed terms by popular election.
--GoldenRing 04:32, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
I like it. Especially since it builds un the argument that progress in government grows out of greater participation from the governed. Ace Diamond 22:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
--
Rome did not invent the bicameral legislature. That was in Sumer, as shown in This book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812212762/102-4823878-1946508?v=glance). ~~ Vessbot 00:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cool, that is why everybody gets to contribute. Live and learn Ace Diamond 05:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
what do you think?
I have been thinking of trashing the whole section about government and leaving that to articles on government. I want to replace it with descriptions of political behavior i.e. the aquisition of power, the distribution of power, and so on. maybe I'll post an outline here and people can comment. What do you think? Ace Diamond 05:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Competition
Couldn't politics be defined as the competition within or between parties to govern a state?
--jcroll 20:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Well, yes that is part of politics but only a small part.
Consider Tzarist Russia where there were no parties as we know them. The Tsar held absolute power. He distributed favor and extracted tax in such a way to keep all of the factions dependent on him. Politics often involved posturing within the Tsar's sphere.
Consider also the politics that occurs within religious, commercial, or academic institutions. There is no "state" to govern but there are factions to form into coalitions in the hope to garner power and resources.
Your question is a good one but remember that politics goes beyond the governance of a democratic state.Ace Diamond 22:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Content
I rewrote / expanded the introduction, mainly because the article opened with a highly controversial and overly conclusive definition of politics 'as such'. (The view that politics is, roughly, how any social group makes collective decisions.) It seems that any encyclopedia article about politics should begin by making it clear that politics often has something to do with government and the public sphere.
So far, the article is or has been skewed towards some rather idiosyncratic views (not 'wrong', just too heavily weighted towards a particular viewpoint that is by no means anything approaching a consensus view.) Much of the content reflects the view that politics is 'essentially' a zero-sum resource allocation game, that politics is more or less 'war by other means', that politics is essentially about domination, and the like. These sorts of views have been articulated well and defended strenuously by many political thinkers, but there's a great deal of disagreement. But there's a great deal of disagreement, and over the years, many political thinkers have claimed that politics is the opposite of force, that politics ceases to exist when it becomes a zero sum game, that politics is a distinctly human activity that is characterized by speech, debate, and ideas about what constitutes the 'good life' or a good society.
Anyway, I have two suggestions:
(1) There should be a more clear demarcation between 'theory' and 'practice', between philosophical debates about what politics is, how politics ought to be conducted, etc, and what kinds of political institutions, practices, and beliefs exist currently or have existed historically.
(2) The 'neutral point of view' would be best served by recasting much of the theoretical discussion as a description of 'ongoing debates'.
Hope this is helpful -- sorry if I got carried away!
You think I'm too cynical? Yes, there should be a line drawn between practice and philosophy but politics IS about decision making, isn't it? Who gains and who loses advantage is tied directly to dominance. The pursuit of the GOOD is often times secondary to the pursuit of survival (a form of the GOOD to be sure).
War is an extension (a failier perhaps) of politics. Mao called politics "war without bloodshed". Politics allows groups to make decisions without resorting to zero-sum games.Ace Diamond 19:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This assumes an evolutionary view of politics, and denies the possibility that national politics can be the governance of a nation for the good of all people, not just the ruling elite. --GoldenRing 01:48, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
7 Jul 2004 I reverted this to the version from june 25th partially because I believe that the old version to be superior but more importantly because the major edits that followed that date were unsigned and therefore impossible to discuss. If I've sinned let me know so that we can negotiate a compromise (that is afterall what politics is all about). And please, sign your work. Ace Diamond 00:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Power
With all due respect, how does this illuminate the definition of power?
"More generally, it can be considered the ability to change the liklihood of outcomes. The ability to impose one's will on others is very often not a totally dependable policy option. It comes in degrees, thus we can speak of the degree to which we can change the liklihood of outcomes. In politics one of the most subtle and effective kinds of "power" does not involve overt violence. Instead , it is the control of the agenda for deliberation. If you control what is considered proper for political discourse, what our options are for policy choice, you are indeed exercising real power."
I don't even know what the first three sentences mean. How else do you change outcomes except by imposing your will on another? In the fourth sentence you refer to overt violence and I agree but I hope that you can see that the implication of violence remains. Finally, to control the agenda is another way of imposing an agenda upon the debate.
Don't you agree that the concise definition (a paraphrase of Max Weber's) fills thae bill.Ace Diamond 01:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
intl links
I removed the eo: link because eo:Politiko is ambiguously about both political science and politics. Most or all links should be removed on eo: too. Andres 03:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The ia: article seems to be about political science. Andres 03:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Major Prune
I plan to excise everything from Jetsam to Political Science to make this article more coherent. Now is the time to object.Ace Diamond 03:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
biological genisis of politics
Is it too much to ask people to discuss major changes before deleting major portions/
I would be willing to debate the prehuman nature of political behavior. We could start with: [3] (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/chb/lectures/anthl_11.html)and Were chimps the first socialists? [4] (http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/199907120006.htm)
I'm tempted to revert that portion but would like to see some comments first. Ace Diamond 20:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think it has to be asked whether this article, as currently constituted, is a useful reference -- perhaps there should be more of an emphasis on providing an annotated guide to subtopics. Trying to construct an article on the idea of politics itself almost certainly can never meet the 'neutral point of view' standard. As it stands, much of this sounds like politics as defined by an anthropologist: resources and dominance.
Unfortunately, that would be less fun, since the current approach allows people to do political philosophy, more or less. Still, if I were a college student or even high school student looking for a useful resource, this article would just leave me scratching my head. --Jag 03:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Really? Politics is at its core about making decisions, isn't it? The decisions are very often about who gets what i.e. the distribution of resources. So it stands to reason that dominance would play a role in that distribution, at least I think so.
Then copmes the broad, rich field of ideology, philosophy, and strategy. Each of these should be seperate topics listed at the end.
I tried through out the article to avoid any ideological or philosophical POV and therefore I had to use a scientific approach.Ace Diamond 19:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Specie-centric POV
By limiting political behavior to homo sapiens, are we not denying the behavioral contributions of our primate ancestors?
- Politics is the process and method of decision-making for groups of human beings. Although it is generally applied to governments, politics is also observed in all human group interactions including corporate, academic, and religious. Political Science is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power, i.e. the ability to impose one's will on another.
Is this a creationist POV?Ace Diamond 20:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Political Components
What's a political component? That part is still very obscure to me. What's the relation between a republic and a city? Should City-state | Confederation | Empire | Federation | Government | Nation state | Republic | State | World Government be removed?--Chealer 23:34, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC) City-state | Confederation | Empire | Federation | Government | Nation state | Republic | State | World Government
I think that the heading is confusing. We appear to be looking at ways of organizing governance. A city-state is different from an empire and yet each must be governed. If we can create a taxonomy of government types is questionable. But it would be fun, I can only imagine the controversy it would create.
In the mean time, maybe they should just be listed in alphabetical order.Ace Diamond 00:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Bologna
- It is also the study of the relatioship between influence and the influentials.
No it's not. Political science studies politics. Politics is an activity! Ace Diamond 15:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
announcing new NPOV proposal
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
In keeping with the nature of this page, I ask by what authority is this policy change being announced? An examination of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate shows that the vote was 58 to 50 against such a change.Ace Diamond 18:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Napoleon
"Napoleon Bonaparte is a notable case, he was a foreigner who took the place of a traditional authority." Napoleon was a foreigner? To the people he conquered in the German states, perhaps, but not to the his direct subjects, the French. The sentence is a run-on sentence as well, and doesn't really add anything. I shall delete posthaste!!
Well, OK, Napoleon was a member of a minor Corsican noble family who aspired to the French nobility. And, yes, Corsica was controled by France at the time, having recently acquired it from Genoa. But that misses the point doesn't it.
Napoleon took authority of France, a nation that had recently been ruled by a traditional authority, by virtue of his personality. He is the epitome of a charismatic authority figure. Ace Diamond 23:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
