This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I see that the words: arianism, Bahai, Buddhism, Calvinism, christianity are in this list. Whereas I might defend the use both on the grounds that a religion can be considered an ideology, and that they imply, perhaps some would challenge them on the basis that they are perceived as religions, rather than ideologies. Perhaps some line of reason on why these are included might be in order? Or perhaps a more comprehensive title so that they might not be challenged? DanielDemaret (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the "scientific" section. There is no such thing as "scientific ideologies". Either the main title should be changed (maybe 'systems' instead of 'ideology') or the page should be splittet with appropriate titles. Otherwise it is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ideology is not the first thing that comes to people's minds when they hear the word science, right. But science, like other organised human activities, necessarily starts with selecting (sets of) ideas. And where there are different idea packages, there are ideologies. See also Ideology#Epistemological_ideologies. While so disagreeing with the claim that there are no scientific ideologies, I think you do have a point about the title. Others make likewise objections for other -isms listed here, so it seems there's a wider problem with the word 'ideologies'. 'Systems' would be a fine candidate. 'Movements' might also stir less controversy than the current title. Apdency (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)