Talk:Politics/Archive 1

message: Isn't the definition too narrow? Doesn't politics exist in offices, factories, unions, even families?
Exile
The definitions in the lead section are a mess (in terms of both format and content). Nicknz 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: comment: this seems like an ideal candidate for incorporation into a WikiProject.
: Done --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 21:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject

message: 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.
* I am neither political scientist nor politician but I work with organizationnal theories and the definition of politics as decision making appear totally inadequate because much too narrow (the fact that it is at the very beginning adds to the problem). Anonymous.
**The definition does not say that politics is decision making but that politics is a process and that politics leads to decisions.Ace Diamond 03:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  a disagreement about definitions 

message: 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: 
[]
[]
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Republic?

message: 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)
thread_title: what do you think?

message: 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)
thread_title: Competition

message: 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)
thread_title:  Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Power 

message: 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)
thread_title: intl links

message: 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)
thread_title: Major Prune

message: 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:
and 
Were chimps the first socialists? 
I'm tempted to revert that portion but would like to see some comments first.
Ace Diamond 20:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  biological genisis of politics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Specie-centric POV 

message: 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)
thread_title: Political Components

message: ::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)
thread_title: Bologna

message: 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)
thread_title:  announcing new NPOV proposal 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Napoleon 

message: :Category:Politics has more than 150 articles in the main cateogry. Many of these should just be in subcategories. Can anyone help with this. Thanks. Maurreen 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Three sentences were added to this document today to which I object: 
"It may be better for leaders to be feared than hated. Power is a scarce resource. Power used is power lost."
There is not source for these statements, and we cannot verify their accuracy. In the field of organizational politics, these statements are viewed as contingent -- true in some situations and not true in others. 
I don't want to delete these sentences, but I think that improving on them could get lengthy, and it's not clear to me that including them in an encyclopedia article is necessary. Any suggestions on how we could change them? Mamawrites 15:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits were reverted along with all the sections that were added, in this version , by the bold and confident User:Evercat. My previous request for suggestions on how to change them is now moot. Mamawrites 01:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Power

message: :and any activity aimed at influencing those decisions.
I think that is covered under process, but OK.Ace Diamond 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: further definition

message: :The word is derived from the Greek politika meaning "of the city".
No it isn't. Read the article further.Ace Diamond 20:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Authority is the right to enforce laws, to exact obedience, to command, to determine, or to judge. Ace Diamond 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: for anarchy, yes. But not for the state. The authority of state doesn't come from right since the state has no right for his authority. --Irgendwer 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: word origin

message: :Authority is the right to enforce laws, to exact obedience, to command, to determine, or to judge. Ace Diamond 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice Catch

message: You're close but are confusing authority with legitimacy.  The guy with the biggest club can enforce behavior but may do so illegitimately.  In fact as legitimacy becomes suspect greater levels of violence are required to to maintain authority.  This is the principle behind non-violent resistance. Ace Diamond 23:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: for anarchy, yes. But not for the state. The authority of state doesn't come from right since the state has no right for his authority. --Irgendwer 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Authority/Legitimacy

message: In the section Authority and legitimacy, in subsection Traditional, there is this sentence:
:Followers submit to this authority because "we've always done it that way."
Is it just me or does this sound a bit off? Also, might not the generally unpleasant treatment afforded those challenging traditional authority play a role? Lambiam 15:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why submit to Traditional authority? 

message: "...politics is observed in all human group interactions, including...".  It seems this sentence takes for granted that politics is a an exclusivly human trait.  If we are to accept the earlier defination of politics as "a process by which collective decisions are made within groups.", than ANY group of animals capable of decision making should consitiute a politcal enitity.  I can not see how the social heirarchy of a tribe of chimpanzee would fail to meet the test collective decision making.  Even animals groups with less developed reasoning, and social structure like Lions and Hyenas, have decision making processes determined by thier group dynamic.  I have thus edited the article to reflect this.--Davidmintz 02:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Politics exclusive to Human beings? 

message: I have started the above, and welcome additions (g). Jackiespeel 16:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Religion and politics]]

message: I've taken the alternative definitions out of the introductory paragraph, added a couple of quotes and referenced as well as I could.  The Lasswell quote needs a reference but I could not verify it.  I removed unreferenced opinion.   Ace Diamond 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get you... at all. I changed it back because the definition you wrote didn't say what politics is but what it could be, which isn't useful in an article. I really don't understand what you mean about brushing teeth - do you mean to say that it takes a group to tell you to brush your teeth? --Alex talk here 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, what is written is exactly the same, but written in a more specific way (i.e is instead of can be or whatever it was...) --Alex talk here 00:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Politics is a process, not just "may be defined as".  Be bold, be bold.  And let us lose the passive voice.  What do you think? Ace Diamond 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions re-written 

message: Hoping that some of you here might be able to lend a hand on the politician article.  It touches on some noteworthy debates, but needs work. --HailFire 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you try posting a message on User:Ace Diamond's talk page? He says he is a political scientist and may be able to answer your question.--Mr.Weirdo 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politician 

message: Someone else's comment I am moving here. It was in the article after the section on Normative faces..." ike9898 18:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normative faces 

message: At Talk:Politics of the Netherlands#Turning the tables there is a dispute over which tables to use to show the election results and cabinets and such and where to put them. We're not getting any further input there, so I now ask for help here. The main things are which orientation to use, what information to put in which tables, which tables we need in the first place and where they should go. (Btw, which info can go in a table is also influenced by the orientation, in this case the names of (and links to) the cabinets.) The short version of this is which of these two tables is 'better'. DirkvdM 09:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed in table dispute 

message: There has to be some made-up words, I mean green, left, right, top, bottom, left wing, right wing, anarch-this, monarch-that, comun-those. After reading I think I switched political parties about a dozen times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.25.107.84 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics = overkill 

message: The following section was culled from previous revisions and demonstrates that the definition of politics is fluid.  I propose that additional definitions be posted here. Ace Diamond 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: more definitions

message: have you ever noticed that a majority of presidents belive in god or claim they do?  i think that if someone who was satanic ran for president then there would be no way he would win.  it seems like america is racist on religon, well not all of america but some are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trackrunner (talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion 

message: I don't know how it is that such an important topic has an article that's assessed as "Start-Class" and that, until I edited it today, consisted of unsourced original research from beginning to end. I'm going to keep working on this article, as we really need to improve it to featured article status as soon as possible. Really, there are many less important topics that currently have far better articles. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now improved it and am taking it to peer review. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is poor...but I'm working on it

message: This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning.
I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'. While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials, (at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind.
I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those who are served BY the public.
This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further, in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s). Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected. In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%. It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties.
So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!).
Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula:
    * 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.
    * 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST
know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.
    * 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the
incumbent is listed FIRST, and, IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.
    * 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.
    * 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.
Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Also, issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules above.
If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate?
If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office?
Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)?
Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)?
Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways?
As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing.
The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT.
The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by their deeds.
To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said:
    * You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time
    * You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time
    * But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time
The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at just the right time, to attain power.
:No, this isn't the proper forum for proposals like this. It's the page for discussing improvements to the Politics article, which must be based in established fact, not your own ideas. Please read WP:NOT. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT

message: I've been watching this rewrite for a while and am impressed.  This is a much better article than last I looked.
I purged the additional resources section after appending a couple of the references to the wikified refference section.  This whole section was a leftover from an attempt to accomadate divergent definitions.  That attempt was subsequently deleted without removing the footnotes.  They were not proper footnotes anyway.
I have some suggestions though.  The leading definition, I think, should be more user friendly.  It should be written in everyday language.  I am going to restore an old definition and then allow the rest of the article make its case.
I believe that the section from political power to thr top of a pragmatic view of power belongs in a broader discussion of political power, i.e. the political power article.
What do you think  Ace Diamond 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, particularly when it comes to the section on political power; there's nothing much there that can't be covered under Political power. Go ahead and edit. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You go away for a little and things happen

message: Substituted at 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment