|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I think that this article should be developed more. It lacks any sources and does not encompass the different methods. Let's discuss how we can develop this article. --Ghormax 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The reason this article is lacking is because the longer and more comprehensive article, which was started earlier and has gotten more edits and which more users have worked on, is at comparative government. I've now merged the articles together. Some universities call their department or refer to the academic discipline as "comparative government" and others call it "comparative politics," but they refer to the same thing. —Lowellian (reply) 09:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but: MSSD/MDSD and Mill's Method are NOT the SAME! This can be verified in nearly every textbook which discusses methods of comparative politics. MSSD/MSDS are case selection methods, Mill's methods arn't! 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
When I changed the position of Lipset's title I had hoped that someone would noticed that the same book has been mentioned twice. Obviously this has not happened. Do all of you want me to decide which of the two entries can be deleted? Khnassmacher (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There's really no reason that there should be a whole section summarizing an argument for gendered perspectives on comparative politics. That's way off topic for an introduction to the subfield. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Comment(s)||Press [show] to view -->|
|You cited that "Arend Lijphart argues that comparative politics does not have a substantive focus in itself, but rather a methodological one: it focuses on "the how but does not specify the what of the analysis"
But when i saw the true text Lijphart continue to said "The label is somewhat misleading because both explicit methodological concern and implicit methodological awareness among students of comparative politics have generally not been very high."
(188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC))
Last edited at 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 12:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)