|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Politics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Politics has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|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.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article needs a worldview tag. It seems to deal with politics from an almost exclusively Eurocentric aka Western perspective. Politics certainly pre-dates the Greeks and the pre-history of political discourse (etc etc) seems missing. --Inayity (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Leave alone the common use of politics in the US meaning organizational politics. I've added workplace politics to the "see also" links.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
One party system globally - everything is acting
Everyone in the government is interrelated and they are using third parties for fake political campaigns and acting. It is now even more evident with hollywood celebrities entering races and giving political advise and political people appointed to private sector companies. Even the news is manipulated by these people. Kingdoms and monarchies exist even nowadays. There is no true democracy.
Partial overview - theories are not facts
Dear all, I have a few remarks on this page
The main problem, in my opinion, is that it presents specific or sometimes even peculiar theories on politics and state as statements of facts. The wole page is riddled with this problems, for example:
- the first sentence of the "History of state politics" chapter: "The history of politics is reflected in the origin, development, and economics of the institutions of government". This identification of politics and institutions of government is given a factual without even some historical or philosphical context.
-The first sentence of "The State" paragraph: "The origin of the state is to be found in the development of the art of warfare. Historically speaking, all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare." Without even entering in the merit of wether such a statement is correct or even plausible, "historically speaking" does not mean anyhing and certainly does not offer any proof for the following sentence. Would be better to offer instead an overview of the different theories on the origins of the states (the most common of witch do not mention warfare).
The whole chapter "History of state politics" does not offer any history at all. It is organised per topics (which per se is quite strange in an historical acount) and each topic is confusedly mixed between vague theoretical arguments ("Property is the right vested on the individual or a group of people to enjoy the benefits of an object, be it material or intellectual. A right is a power enforced by public trust. Sometimes it happens that the exercise of a right is opposed to public trust. Nevertheless, a right is really an institution brought around by public trust, past, present or future") and excessively general pseudo-historical statements ("The making of laws was unknown to primitive societies"), that no citation could save.
So I repute that the whole page needs a complete renewal, especially since it is such an important topic. I still have to analyse the whole page, but for now i propose to delete "History of state politics" and sobstitute it with a "History of theories on politics" (e.g. Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.). Furthermore, if the discourse is not centered around a relative assumption (ie. politics = state) inserting non-western authors should be encouraged.
- I suggest that you develop your proposed section on a "sandbox page" (e.g. User:ViveLaTrance/Sandbox1. When you think it is ready, then ask us to discuss it. Please note the importance of citations to reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Original Research and Plagiarism
The article is filled with controversial claims, which should be replaced by experts opinion. It seems also that it is filled by copy paste plagiarism. Spannerjam 10:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)