Politics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Under "A variety of methods are deployed in politics" there is a creditable list that, in sum, implicitly emphasize the competition of openly-expressed viewpoints.
Quite clearly, the whole of the history of politics has included also a heavy reliance on subterfuge, deception and especially propaganda to control the beliefs of the populace.
I suggest these deserve a mention in the list of techniques employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koan911 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image edit warring
We need some discussion regarding the series of reversions and de-reversions and de-de-reversions between these edits (and more broadly between these edits over 3 days). We have edit summaries alleging that the inclusion of an image "was an ethno nationalistic POV edit", that someone isn't telling "us the *real* reason this image bothers" them, that the article on Politics mentions Aristotle too many times, and that an image taken in the last few years is somehow "too old" to be in an encyclopedia article. Responding to a reversion of my edit in one of the diffs above with the rationale that I was restoring the edit of "a sock obsessed İP": I'm interested in the content, not contributors, and the image of an Iranian municipal election looks like a perfectly fine illustration to me. Frankly I actually think that picture is well above the average quality of the illustrations of Wikipedia's politics articles. The bust of Aristotle also seems fine -- probably it's overly narrow for the article on all of politics, but that's a more subtle conversation and it definitely didn't need to be removed in a hurry without discussion. And when both images were in the article I didn't think it detracted from anything, nor did it infringe on any MOS guidelines that I'm aware of. So we need a discussion here explaining why various images do or do not belong in the article, and at a minimum we need edit summaries that actually discuss encyclopedic content. We especially need to stop with the fierce ad hominem attacks on other contributors. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that claims of ethnonationalism or claiming that images are too old is unhelpful, as well as unconstructive. People aren't going to budge if they feel like they're being personally attacked, even if one thinks the criticism is valid.
That being said, I totally understand the concern over Wikipedia being a global encyclopedia, and to make sure that our biases don't impact too much on our editing (which includes which pictures to use within the article). I also think that while there isn't a specific MOS guideline against this, it seems to go against the spirit of established policies such as MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES.
level-2 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
20:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)