CZ Talk:Politics Workgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Shamira Gelbman (moved content from main page) |
imported>Shamira Gelbman (moved content from main page) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think that although the articles listed in the box are reasonable, we actually need short essays which will integrate many of these ideas thematically. So, in the absence of [apparently] any other living Politics editors, I suggest a short list below --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:22, 27 September 2007 (CDT) | |||
==[[Electoral College]]== | ==[[Electoral College]]== | ||
I'd like to get [[Electoral College]] started towards approval. I'm certain that some expert eyes will find plenty of things which should be improved. So, please have at! In particular: | I'd like to get [[Electoral College]] started towards approval. I'm certain that some expert eyes will find plenty of things which should be improved. So, please have at! In particular: | ||
Revision as of 15:22, 11 August 2009
I think that although the articles listed in the box are reasonable, we actually need short essays which will integrate many of these ideas thematically. So, in the absence of [apparently] any other living Politics editors, I suggest a short list below --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:22, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Electoral College
I'd like to get Electoral College started towards approval. I'm certain that some expert eyes will find plenty of things which should be improved. So, please have at! In particular:
- Is there anything important which should be in this article but isn't yet?
- Is any of the exposition unclear or confusing?
- Are there any factual errors?
- Is the overall structure of the article sound?
Reply here or at the article's discussion page. Thanks, Anthony Argyriou 15:22, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Some tentative attempts at drafting
In drafting an article on Politics and a linked article on Political Party, I have been conscious of the danger of stepping on the toes of people better qualified for that purpose. I was encouraged, however, by the belief that what was available appeared to be incomplete or obscure. But in drafting all-inclusive articles of that sort, the difficulty is how to hold the reader’s interest in the main issues without misleading him by over-simplification – and I am far from confident that I have got the balance right. I will readily withdraw if my drafts are beyond redemption in that respect, but my hope is that my fellow CZ writers will help by correcting what is misleading, and expanding the text where necessary, without insisting upon the inclusion of excessive detail that would better be in linked articles. Nick Gardner 16:48, 1 December 2007 (CST)
Some Updates
In the spirit of Collaboration Week (and so that Martin doesn't have to continue to feel alone here) I added the suggestions made above, which I thought were all good ones. (I assumed Alexander left a C out of Technocracy above. If that isn't so, he can add Technocray to the listing also - and explain what it may be.)
The large number of additions to the list of political theorists came straight from the TOC of Eberstein & Eberstein, Great Political Thinkers. (5th edition, 1991, I'm sorry to say!) I was delighted to see the number of listings for which there were already CZ entries, and look forward to development of the rest.
There are still a host of contemporary additions that might be made to that list, including Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia), Benjamin Barber (Strong Democracy), Amatai Etzioni, (Communitarianism), Michael Sandel, and a host of new political economy, citizenship, civil society and social capital writers. Roger Lohmann 08:24, 27 June 2008 (CDT)