Talk:Politics: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
:Thanks for your support. I think I have gone as far as I can without unbalancing the article - but I have set up an addendum subpage for additional material. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:58, 10 May 2011 (CDT) | :Thanks for your support. I think I have gone as far as I can without unbalancing the article - but I have set up an addendum subpage for additional material. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:58, 10 May 2011 (CDT) | ||
::Rather than an Addendum, I think we have to make sure that the Related Articles page is up to date, the relevant articles are Wikilinked, and that they reflect discussion here. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:02, 10 May 2011 (CDT) | |||
===UN and humanitarian action=== | |||
Before decisions by the UNGA are mentioned, I tend to think that it should be made clear that it, as opposed to the UNSC, has no actual power, and there are a wide range of opinions on its moral authority versus its being a place for posturing. In the humanitarian context, it is fair to mention that the UNGA did adopt the recommendations of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, but the authority of doing so remains unclear with respect to [[war crime]]s. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:02, 10 May 2011 (CDT) |
Revision as of 17:02, 10 May 2011
Is that it ?
Does anyone have plans to complete this article? My first reaction as a newcomer to this workgroup was that this article must be "under construction", but the history page seems to indicate that nothing of substance has been added since July, and not a great deal since November. Surely we can't leave it as it is - with the only reference to democracy being Aristotle's "rule by the poor" and no links to Locke, Mill etc, and nothing on ideologies or forms of government. Can we? Nick Gardner 05:12, 15 November 2007 (CST)
I dislike the whole article,and am inclined to say we should scrap it and start again. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:36, 15 November 2007 (CST)
Since nobody has dissented, I propose shortly to give effect to Martin Baldwin-Edwards' suggestion and make a fresh start. - Nick Gardner 02:35, 18 November 2007 (CST)
Especially as this is an imported article [from WP or where??] I doubt that there will be an objection. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:17, 20 November 2007 (CST)
Please check
I am nearing the end of this article, and I should be grateful if, before I leave it, those of you that have it on your watchlists could spare the time for a quick check for errors and omissions. Nick Gardner 01:11, 27 November 2007 (CST)
- To my mind, this is already a lot better than the original thing that was here. A few things stand out as missing, from a quick reading: these are the state as the central institution in advanced democracies; and forms of governance. As it stands, a novice reader would think that the state is the government: this is a common fallacy and needs an entire section on theory of the state. The forms of governance section I think needs to start off with a simple treatment, adding more sophistication with excpetions and additional layers of complexity. Some of the conventional terminology might be appropriate here -- but always as information about how the conventional literature describes it, not as a de facto "reality" !@
- But don't feel compelled to do any of this, Nick: I might write something when I have spare time [e.g. Xmas]. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:22, 1 December 2007 (CST)
Thank you Martin. I do hope that you will be able to find time to put it all right. If you run out of time before you finish, please let me know what more is needed and I'll do my best to provide it. Nick Gardner 02:58, 2 December 2007 (CST)
The concept of the state
Following Martin's suggestion, I have added "The concept of the state" as a sub-paragraph under the heading of "Fundamentals", with the intention of inserting a draft based mainly on A definition of the State by Professor Chandran Kukathas[1]. I have also added a "glossary" heading to the related articles subpages, with the intention of placing some of Chandran Kukathas' definitions there - so as not to allow terminological definitions to hamper the readability of the main text. I will await objections before going further. Nick Gardner 11:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- While it's somewhat more related to international relations, you might find some useful state attributes in the articles on The End of History and the Last Man and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Upgraded article status on Metadata template
After all the work that has been done on this article by Nick Gardner and others, surely it is no longer an "external" article. I upgraded the status on the Metadata template from a 4 to a 2 (developing article). I hope no one disagrees. Milton Beychok 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Towards approval
This definitely is close. I see some areas that might be enhanced; there are a few copy edits that I can do and still nominate it. I might do some work on Related Articles, which again I think is allowable, to suggest areas that should be linked.
It's a nice and needed top-level piece. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's still some way from meeting Approval criteria. Given the exact article title, my feeling is that it should start with historical definitions of politics as a subject (e.g. Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli are missing) somehow needs to integrate the different sections into a coherent narrative. This is difficult, but... Really, a lot of these sections could link to more detailed stuff on theories of the state, of governance, etc. The primary requirement is to have some overview of what politics means -- historically, theoretically and in contemporary practice. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not intend to make any further contribution to this article. Nick Gardner 16:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Major articles like this should be collaborative anyway, so the rest of us should add to it. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- That is the response that I hoped for. Nick Gardner 20:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Major articles like this should be collaborative anyway, so the rest of us should add to it. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not intend to make any further contribution to this article. Nick Gardner 16:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I see it, it is too narrowly Western. Confucius is missing,let alone any discussion of the Asian system where Zhong Guo, the Middle Kingdom, was surrounded by wai guo, the "outside lands" (often translated "barbarians"), in contrast to the European development of nation-states. Nor is their anything on Sharia Law and Islam as a political model. Sandy Harris 22:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's true; we need to be more inclusive. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Apart from brief allusions to some non-western developments in a (yet to be drafted) paragraph on the history of politics, I can't see any point in burdening the reader with matters that seem to me to contribute little or nothing to an understanding of the subject of politics. As I understand it, Sharia is not a political concept. I accept that the Quranic concept of Shura is a possible basis for a political model, but it would be hard to distinguish it from democracy, and it does not appear to have ever been adopted as an Islamic practice. As I see it, the Western political models and concepts (Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, Representative Government etc) - or models and concepts that are virtually indistinguishable from them - have been so widely adopted that a consideration of other models would amount to a digression. I should value a ruling from a history editor on this point. Nick Gardner 09:22, 7 May 2011 (CDT)
- That's true; we need to be more inclusive. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've no specialised expertise, but I found this article very readable and interesting. On domestic groups, I wondered whether environmental pressure groups have in fact had so much influence -compared to say religious pressure groups in some countries, and at times trade unions. Having said that, it's not necessarily a reason to change anything, I'd rather an article with a clear voice than one where a voice is lost in the noise of detail. But perhaps a short something on the Greek origins (politics (and police) both derive from polis, the ancient Greek city-state) might be an addition that blends well with this article? Gareth Leng 10:37, 4 May 2011 (CDT)
- I accept that point and I will try to cover it in a further paragraph. Nick Gardner 09:22, 7 May 2011 (CDT)
(undent) Do see the article on interest group Howard C. Berkowitz 08:47, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
International decision-making
Nick, thanks for adding the material on sovereignty, which I will clone to sovereign state and add more there, perhaps a reference to such things as the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the role of the United Nations.
Perhaps this afternoon, I can try some Venn diagrams or other graphic representation of schools of thought that we discussed. Another approach may be an X-Y plot of humanitarianism/ethics vs. national interest. I have a doctor's appointment at noon, and this is good drawing fodder for the waiting room. Howard C. Berkowitz 08:47, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
- Thanks for your support. I think I have gone as far as I can without unbalancing the article - but I have set up an addendum subpage for additional material. Nick Gardner 16:58, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
- Rather than an Addendum, I think we have to make sure that the Related Articles page is up to date, the relevant articles are Wikilinked, and that they reflect discussion here. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:02, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
UN and humanitarian action
Before decisions by the UNGA are mentioned, I tend to think that it should be made clear that it, as opposed to the UNSC, has no actual power, and there are a wide range of opinions on its moral authority versus its being a place for posturing. In the humanitarian context, it is fair to mention that the UNGA did adopt the recommendations of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, but the authority of doing so remains unclear with respect to war crimes. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:02, 10 May 2011 (CDT)