This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The gargantuan list of topics in the second paragraph of this article, circa this date, is unnecessary, given the links in the See Also section. However, if we should salvage it, it'd be better to break it out into a box or some other sort of separate list for readability's sake. MrZaius talk 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, what do do with all this clutter in the intro paragraph?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.4.143 ( talk) 09:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please NOTE: the second paragraph of antecedents is full of fabrications and anachronisms. somebody please change that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.4.43 ( talk) 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This article discusses the topic in a very strange way discussing odd aspects about political science. But the bigger problem is, it doesn't cite any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.2.180 ( talk) 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The organization in the begining of this article is horrible. Here is a possible change. Feel free to improve upon it or leave some feedback.
Political science is a branch of social science that deals with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. There are many fields and subfields of Political Science, including but not limited to:
• Political theory • Law and Legal Studies • Comparative Politics • International Relations • Public Policy and Administration • Judicial Process and Behavior
[edit] Overview
Political scientists study the allocation and transfer of power in decision-making, the roles and systems of governance including governments and international organizations, political behavior and public policies. They measure the success of governance and specific policies by examining many factors, including stability, justice, material wealth, and peace. Some political scientists seek to advance positive theses by analyzing politics. Others advance normative theses, by making specific policy recommendations.
Political Scientists in the Modern Era
The study of politics is complicated by the occasional involvement of political scientists in the political process, since their teachings occasionally provide the frameworks within which other commentators, such as journalists, special interest groups, politicians, and the electorate analyze issues and select options. Political scientists may serve as advisers to specific politicians, or even run for office as politicians themselves. Political scientists can be found working in governments, in political parties or as civil servants. They may be involved with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or political movements. In a variety of capacities, people educated and trained in political science can add value and expertise to corporations. Private enterprises such as think tanks, research institutes, polling and public relations firms often employ political scientists. In the United States, political scientists known as "Americanists" look at a variety of data including elections, public opinion and public policy such as Social Security reform, foreign policy, U.S. congressional power, and the U.S. Supreme Court—to name only a few issues.
Political Science as A Discipline
Most American colleges and universities offer B.A. programs in political science. M.A. and Ph.D programs are common at larger universities. Some universities offer B.S or M.S. degrees.[1] The term political science is more popular in North America than elsewhere; other institutions, especially those outside the United States, see political science as part of a broader discipline of political studies, politics, or government. While political science implies use of the scientific method, political studies implies a broader approach, although the naming of degree courses does not necessarily reflect their content.[2]
Also, the discussion of the History of Political Science is completely void of any discussion of advancements in the last 500 years, so I have written a brief piece for this.
During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli established the emphasis of modern political science on direct empirical observation of political institutions and actors. Later, during the Enlightenment, many different ideas emerged, including that of democracy, among others. Early in the period, Montesquieu set forth the groundwork for 3 branch organization of government (Montesquieu), along with the natural rights and social contract ideas exuded by John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau (Locke’s Political Philosophy). During this time, both the American Revolution and the French Revolution turned the political sphere around the world. No longer was the classic Monarchy the only major political system in the Western world, as the ideas of these thinkers we put into action by both the French and the Americans, with later Enlightenment thinkers such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison.
Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, May 24, 2008
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/
Locke’s Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, May 24, 2008
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
CBKDX80 (
talk) 02:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
srilanka has political science as a subject for AL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.215.147 ( talk) 05:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Made no sense; removed it. Most of this article lacks reliable and verifiable citations. The ones that were here and the "Further reading" section were a mixture of citation formats and bibliographical styles, with most of the references in style closest to MLA Style, but not most recent ed. The lone citation template was closer to APA Style (generally used for academic social science disciplines, though, as source added today indicates, as an academic discipline "Political science" straddles " science" and the " humanities"). (Most college and university teachers in the U.S. generally ask for APA Style in papers submitted for their courses.) I've used another citation template (which may still need work for a paper in a conference; I adapted citation template for web citation format, keeping the example APA Style format in the source (AllAcademic.com). If one clicks on the citation URL, one can see the samples (which are based on older eds. of the style manuals in each case and which also have multiple punctuation errors or oddities). If in doubt, please strive for consistency and use a single format, following links via Style guides template in Wikipedia. Thanks. (This article still needs a lot of work.)-- NYScholar ( talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I updated the information on Indian political philosophers and added a mention of the Manusmriti (Code of Manu). Shockingly, there was absolutely no mention of any ancient Chinese system. Consequently, I added a paragraph in which I mentioned Mohism, Taoism, Legalism, and Confucianism. I only created a brief skeletal paragraph- users are welcome to expand on what I wrote. -AP, Washington DC, September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.46.45 ( talk) 01:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the sentences and paragraphs in this article are copied verbatim from this book, which is cited not nearly enough (regardless, it's copying): http://books.google.com/books?id=kzV4V59udu8C&pg=PA4&dq=people+trained+in+political+science+can+add+value+and+expertise+to+corporations#v=onepage&q=people%20trained%20in%20politcal%20science%20can%20add%20value%20and%20expertise%20to%20corporations&f=false I don't have time to fix this now, the only efficient solution I can think of is to blank the page. Yohan euan o4 ( talk) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
There is new information on the Talk:republic page that challenges the accuracy and efficacy and truth of the Wikipedia entry. Need to stir interest and more comment on the page. WHEELER ( talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that in the paragraph about The Renaissance should be said something about Guicciardini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.224.132 ( talk) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed American Politics from being listed as a subfield and moved it into a separate paragraph saying that many departments teach country specific courses. I've never heard of American Politics being considered a subfield before, and every country has its own specific courses on its own domestic politics or foreign policy (i.e. Canadian Politics or British Politics). We can't very well list every country as a subfield. In an international context American Politics is usually studied as part of international relations, in fact you can't study international relations without looking at the US. Vietminh ( talk) 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In several books on voting, I've seen references to experiments in voting (including ones the authors did themselves). What do people think about the creation of a page on Experimental Political Science? (It would go into the Experimental Social Sciences category as well as under Political Science.) Thanks! Allens ( talk) 19:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This article claims, "Political science is commonly divided into three distinct sub-disciplines which together constitute the field: political philosophy...". However, it is generally accepted [1] that philosophy is not, in fact, a sub-discipline of political science. In fact, the very notion is absurd. Philosophy is the discipline from which political science arose originally. However, the two fields are very distinct in their areas of study, methods, desiderata, and scope. To claim anything else is flagrantly fallacious. Political philosophy examines fundamental abstract questions about what constitutes a government and the normative criteria for governments. The methods by which philosophers examine these questions are through argumentation and thought experiments. Political science, conversely, studies existing (or previously existing) governments and much of the methodology is empirically-based. As such, the two fields have entirely different focuses and methods, and it is false to conflate them in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.216.15 ( talk) 20:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
References
Inappropriate changes were made to the article on 18 February 2012. I do not feel comfortable about making corrections; I hope that someone else will.
Mecanoge ( talk) 02:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Read the definition of science and then I ask - is this really science? This is more about studying human behavior than repeatable, testable results. -- 173.69.135.105 ( talk) 03:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I also wonder why it is called political "SCIENCE". Many college offer the degree Bachelor of "Arts" in political science 219.151.149.195 ( talk) 10:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There is not a single definition of "science". There are physical sciences and there are behavioral and social sciences, the various disciplines have differing requirements. In general, any systematized body of knowledge is considered a science and the Merriam-Webster dictionary concurs, "a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study" [see, <ref> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science <ref>] LAWinans ( talk) 00:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The article title is Political science, and there is a redirect from Political Science, which is also the capitalization used in the lead sentence. Which is correct? Which need fixing? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 02:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_game_theory. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Removed this unsupported statement (added by a SPA with some POV [1]) per WP:YESPOV #2 re: The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 7, The Modern Social Sciences, Nature And Scope Of Political Science, A New Handbook of Political Science. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Note that the same account also added similar to Political_ethics#Ethics_of_process. I have no opinion as to it's truth William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This edit makes no sense. It is clear that User:Guitarguy84 has not studied political science at the college level. No self-respecting political scientist would refer to their field as "government" without any additional qualifiers. It is the study of systems of governance, a very distinct concept from government per se. A competent political scientist has to be aware of all the various aspects of power and public administration that do not involve the government acting directly through its officers and employees --- for example, the various NGOs that either lobby legislatures on behalf of various special interests, or administer charitable programs with partial government support through block grants. The definitions cited by User:Guitarguy84, when read in context, appear to be referring to the practice of certain high schools of teaching political science and civics in a "Government" course, which is by no means universal (many schools prefer to teach those topics under the title "Civics"). Any objections before I take out the trash?-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 21:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Political science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Political science until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Political Scientist. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Right now "politology" is offered as an MOS:ALTNAME of "political science". I have never heard political science called "politology". "Political science" gets 116,000,000 google hits and "Politology" gets about 0.2% of that. Most importantly, I see no WP:RS asserting that "politology" is an alternative name of "political science"; in fact, a casual glance suggests that it's easier to find examples of outlets claiming that "politology" is meaningfully distinct from "political science". I propose to delete this altname and simply keep the redirect, but since we're nowhere near running up against the relevant guidelines I figured I should open a discussion here first and see if I'm missing something. - Astrophobe ( talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Adamopoulos ( talk) 13:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Political Analysis (journal) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eshepherd2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
In a highly interesting report by the center for east european studies of the polish academy of sciences I read, and I wonder whether or not it is wise and moral to link political science so prominently with an actor in the current Ukraine war:
ANALYSES 2022-04-05
https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2022-04-05/medvedev-escalates-anti-ukrainian-rhetoric
Medvedev escalates anti-Ukrainian rhetoric Maria Domańska On 5 April, Dmitri Medvedev, Vice-Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, posted a post on his Telegram channel entitled “On Fakes and True History”. The text included the following phrases:
- reports of Russian war crimes are “fake cynical Ukrainian propaganda” prepared for “huge money” by “troll factories” under the supervision of Western governments and NGOs at their service;
- to dehumanise and denigrate Russia, “the crazed beasts of the nationalist and territorial defense battalions are ready to kill Ukrainian civilians”; all because “the very essence of Ukrainianness, fed by anti-Russian venom and lies about its identity, is one big sham”. Ukrainian identity does not exist and never has;
- the comparison of Ukrainianness to Prussian militarism, which was “bred in schools” and later developed into National Socialism; the latter unleashed World War II and was defeated only by the Red Army; today’s Ukrainian radicals were also formed in schools in the spirit of hatred towards everything Russian; "a pseudo-history of Ukrainian statehood was hastily written" after 1991; the historical ties of Kievan Rusʹ with today’s Russian territories were broken; the idea of one nation was destroyed; “Ukrainian historical figures of the 20th century are exclusively Nazis and collaborators”;
- some Ukrainians have been “literally worshipping the Third Reich” for the last 30 years; photographs of "Nazi symbols found in every military unit captured by the Russian army” are supposed to bear witness to this;
- “Ukraine has mentally become a second Third Reich and will suffer the same fate”; “this also applies to the monsters who usurp the right to represent Ukraine”; the current “special operation” should teach them a lesson, as should one episode of the “glorious past”. In this context, Medvedev mentions the NKVD officer, Pavel Sudoplatov, who killed the head of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, Yevhen Konovalets, with a bomb planted in a box of chocolates [Sudoplatov also organised the assassination of Lev Trotsky]; “There will be many more such gifts for Nazi criminals”;
- President Putin has clearly defined the “special operation’s” aim: the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine; these tasks will be carried out not only on the battlefield. The most important objective is to change the consciousness of some Ukrainians, which is “bloody and full of false myths”; it will serve to “ensure peace for future generations of Ukrainians and build an open Eurasia – from Lisbon to Vladivostok”.
Commentary
Since the beginning of the war, Medvedev has been heavily involved in the propaganda field, which contrasts with his previous low level of activity in public life (following his resignation as prime minister in January 2020). This engagement may indicate an ambition to strengthen his position within the ruling elite. He may also be fulfilling a task assigned to him by the Kremlin to set a highly aggressive tone for the official narrative and thus set specific ‘standards’ for the entire state administration. In addition to the repudiation of Ukrainian national identity and statehood, which became common in Russian propaganda, the text contains openly totalitarian slogans. Medvedev in fact calls for the forced re-education of Ukrainians and dehumanises the Ukrainian people, thus justifying mass war crimes. Furthermore, he makes thinly-veiled allusions to the need to assassinate top representatives of the Ukrainian government. The phrase referring to “building an open Eurasia” through “denazification” suggests that Russia has more far-reaching plans, encompassing the “denazification” and “demilitarisation” of all of Europe. The aim would be to neutralise it in the global conflict over the future world order between Washington and the Beijing-Moscow tandem. The language of the text – saturated with invectives, hate speech and extreme aggression – is probably an expression of the Kremlin’s growing frustration, both at the failure of its initial plan to conquer Ukraine and the West’s resilience to Russian war propaganda. One of the purposes of stirring anti-Ukrainian hysteria is to fan Russian society’s ‘rally-around-the-flag’ sentiment. Medvedev’s text is in keeping with the tone of an article published on 3 April on the main page of the RIA Novosti state news agency. It called for the extermination of Ukraine’s elite, the “de-Ukrainisation” of society, and a long occupation of Ukrainian territory.
Austrian political observer ( talk) 12:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The further reading section seems to me to contain a random (perhaps random is the wrong word) selection of things loosely connected with politics - rather than addressing the core topic of this article. I suspect many are here to promote the works of the author rather than help the article. Any thoughts? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)) - I have now removed many. Feel free to restore any that seem useful here. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 15:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC))
It has no sources and, furthermore, saying Canada is less democratic than the United States or that Eastern Europe is more democratic than Canada makes no sense anyway. Adamopoulos ( talk) 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The following was enclosed in a «ref» tag with no other metadata:
The following definition quoted in this note is not representative of political science as a whole. It is only representative of the political theory and comparative politics sub-disciplines of political science while at the expense of other major sub-disciplines such as political methodology, international relations, public policy and public administration. The definition is question is (def. 1): "It is a social science dealing with systems of governance and power, and the analysis of political activities, political thought, political behavior, and associated constitutions and laws."
The definition that satiates "political science is the scientific study of politics which is a social science dealing with the analysis and implementation of systems of governance and its impact on societies. Modern political science can generally be divided into the five sub-disciplines of political philosophy, political methodology, comparative politics, international relations, public policy and public administration (def. 2)." is much more inclusive of all five major branches of political science. The rest of that previously quoted definition (def. 1) is already included in the history/origin section because it is more descriptive of the foundational elements of political science taught in first-year political philosophy university classes as opposed to more nuanced, applied, and practical sub-disciplines only taught as part of specialized upper-level coursework.
It's having trouble (my bold) with the difference between five and six (a couple of days ago, I was informed by the barely speaking toddler upstairs that his bilateral dump truck had seven wheels) and I couldn't locate a source on Google or Google Scholar even with "satiates" as a mandatory keyword.
Edit: Note that it's possible there should have been a colon after the first item; but that would only make it bad for a different reason.
— MaxEnt 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Describe various methods of political science 122.161.207.238 ( talk) 17:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The gargantuan list of topics in the second paragraph of this article, circa this date, is unnecessary, given the links in the See Also section. However, if we should salvage it, it'd be better to break it out into a box or some other sort of separate list for readability's sake. MrZaius talk 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, what do do with all this clutter in the intro paragraph?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.4.143 ( talk) 09:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please NOTE: the second paragraph of antecedents is full of fabrications and anachronisms. somebody please change that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.4.43 ( talk) 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This article discusses the topic in a very strange way discussing odd aspects about political science. But the bigger problem is, it doesn't cite any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.2.180 ( talk) 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The organization in the begining of this article is horrible. Here is a possible change. Feel free to improve upon it or leave some feedback.
Political science is a branch of social science that deals with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. There are many fields and subfields of Political Science, including but not limited to:
• Political theory • Law and Legal Studies • Comparative Politics • International Relations • Public Policy and Administration • Judicial Process and Behavior
[edit] Overview
Political scientists study the allocation and transfer of power in decision-making, the roles and systems of governance including governments and international organizations, political behavior and public policies. They measure the success of governance and specific policies by examining many factors, including stability, justice, material wealth, and peace. Some political scientists seek to advance positive theses by analyzing politics. Others advance normative theses, by making specific policy recommendations.
Political Scientists in the Modern Era
The study of politics is complicated by the occasional involvement of political scientists in the political process, since their teachings occasionally provide the frameworks within which other commentators, such as journalists, special interest groups, politicians, and the electorate analyze issues and select options. Political scientists may serve as advisers to specific politicians, or even run for office as politicians themselves. Political scientists can be found working in governments, in political parties or as civil servants. They may be involved with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or political movements. In a variety of capacities, people educated and trained in political science can add value and expertise to corporations. Private enterprises such as think tanks, research institutes, polling and public relations firms often employ political scientists. In the United States, political scientists known as "Americanists" look at a variety of data including elections, public opinion and public policy such as Social Security reform, foreign policy, U.S. congressional power, and the U.S. Supreme Court—to name only a few issues.
Political Science as A Discipline
Most American colleges and universities offer B.A. programs in political science. M.A. and Ph.D programs are common at larger universities. Some universities offer B.S or M.S. degrees.[1] The term political science is more popular in North America than elsewhere; other institutions, especially those outside the United States, see political science as part of a broader discipline of political studies, politics, or government. While political science implies use of the scientific method, political studies implies a broader approach, although the naming of degree courses does not necessarily reflect their content.[2]
Also, the discussion of the History of Political Science is completely void of any discussion of advancements in the last 500 years, so I have written a brief piece for this.
During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli established the emphasis of modern political science on direct empirical observation of political institutions and actors. Later, during the Enlightenment, many different ideas emerged, including that of democracy, among others. Early in the period, Montesquieu set forth the groundwork for 3 branch organization of government (Montesquieu), along with the natural rights and social contract ideas exuded by John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau (Locke’s Political Philosophy). During this time, both the American Revolution and the French Revolution turned the political sphere around the world. No longer was the classic Monarchy the only major political system in the Western world, as the ideas of these thinkers we put into action by both the French and the Americans, with later Enlightenment thinkers such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison.
Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, May 24, 2008
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/
Locke’s Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, May 24, 2008
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
CBKDX80 (
talk) 02:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
srilanka has political science as a subject for AL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.215.147 ( talk) 05:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Made no sense; removed it. Most of this article lacks reliable and verifiable citations. The ones that were here and the "Further reading" section were a mixture of citation formats and bibliographical styles, with most of the references in style closest to MLA Style, but not most recent ed. The lone citation template was closer to APA Style (generally used for academic social science disciplines, though, as source added today indicates, as an academic discipline "Political science" straddles " science" and the " humanities"). (Most college and university teachers in the U.S. generally ask for APA Style in papers submitted for their courses.) I've used another citation template (which may still need work for a paper in a conference; I adapted citation template for web citation format, keeping the example APA Style format in the source (AllAcademic.com). If one clicks on the citation URL, one can see the samples (which are based on older eds. of the style manuals in each case and which also have multiple punctuation errors or oddities). If in doubt, please strive for consistency and use a single format, following links via Style guides template in Wikipedia. Thanks. (This article still needs a lot of work.)-- NYScholar ( talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I updated the information on Indian political philosophers and added a mention of the Manusmriti (Code of Manu). Shockingly, there was absolutely no mention of any ancient Chinese system. Consequently, I added a paragraph in which I mentioned Mohism, Taoism, Legalism, and Confucianism. I only created a brief skeletal paragraph- users are welcome to expand on what I wrote. -AP, Washington DC, September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.46.45 ( talk) 01:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the sentences and paragraphs in this article are copied verbatim from this book, which is cited not nearly enough (regardless, it's copying): http://books.google.com/books?id=kzV4V59udu8C&pg=PA4&dq=people+trained+in+political+science+can+add+value+and+expertise+to+corporations#v=onepage&q=people%20trained%20in%20politcal%20science%20can%20add%20value%20and%20expertise%20to%20corporations&f=false I don't have time to fix this now, the only efficient solution I can think of is to blank the page. Yohan euan o4 ( talk) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge ( talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
There is new information on the Talk:republic page that challenges the accuracy and efficacy and truth of the Wikipedia entry. Need to stir interest and more comment on the page. WHEELER ( talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that in the paragraph about The Renaissance should be said something about Guicciardini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.224.132 ( talk) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed American Politics from being listed as a subfield and moved it into a separate paragraph saying that many departments teach country specific courses. I've never heard of American Politics being considered a subfield before, and every country has its own specific courses on its own domestic politics or foreign policy (i.e. Canadian Politics or British Politics). We can't very well list every country as a subfield. In an international context American Politics is usually studied as part of international relations, in fact you can't study international relations without looking at the US. Vietminh ( talk) 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In several books on voting, I've seen references to experiments in voting (including ones the authors did themselves). What do people think about the creation of a page on Experimental Political Science? (It would go into the Experimental Social Sciences category as well as under Political Science.) Thanks! Allens ( talk) 19:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This article claims, "Political science is commonly divided into three distinct sub-disciplines which together constitute the field: political philosophy...". However, it is generally accepted [1] that philosophy is not, in fact, a sub-discipline of political science. In fact, the very notion is absurd. Philosophy is the discipline from which political science arose originally. However, the two fields are very distinct in their areas of study, methods, desiderata, and scope. To claim anything else is flagrantly fallacious. Political philosophy examines fundamental abstract questions about what constitutes a government and the normative criteria for governments. The methods by which philosophers examine these questions are through argumentation and thought experiments. Political science, conversely, studies existing (or previously existing) governments and much of the methodology is empirically-based. As such, the two fields have entirely different focuses and methods, and it is false to conflate them in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.216.15 ( talk) 20:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
References
Inappropriate changes were made to the article on 18 February 2012. I do not feel comfortable about making corrections; I hope that someone else will.
Mecanoge ( talk) 02:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Read the definition of science and then I ask - is this really science? This is more about studying human behavior than repeatable, testable results. -- 173.69.135.105 ( talk) 03:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I also wonder why it is called political "SCIENCE". Many college offer the degree Bachelor of "Arts" in political science 219.151.149.195 ( talk) 10:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
There is not a single definition of "science". There are physical sciences and there are behavioral and social sciences, the various disciplines have differing requirements. In general, any systematized body of knowledge is considered a science and the Merriam-Webster dictionary concurs, "a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study" [see, <ref> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science <ref>] LAWinans ( talk) 00:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The article title is Political science, and there is a redirect from Political Science, which is also the capitalization used in the lead sentence. Which is correct? Which need fixing? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 02:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_game_theory. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Removed this unsupported statement (added by a SPA with some POV [1]) per WP:YESPOV #2 re: The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 7, The Modern Social Sciences, Nature And Scope Of Political Science, A New Handbook of Political Science. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Note that the same account also added similar to Political_ethics#Ethics_of_process. I have no opinion as to it's truth William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This edit makes no sense. It is clear that User:Guitarguy84 has not studied political science at the college level. No self-respecting political scientist would refer to their field as "government" without any additional qualifiers. It is the study of systems of governance, a very distinct concept from government per se. A competent political scientist has to be aware of all the various aspects of power and public administration that do not involve the government acting directly through its officers and employees --- for example, the various NGOs that either lobby legislatures on behalf of various special interests, or administer charitable programs with partial government support through block grants. The definitions cited by User:Guitarguy84, when read in context, appear to be referring to the practice of certain high schools of teaching political science and civics in a "Government" course, which is by no means universal (many schools prefer to teach those topics under the title "Civics"). Any objections before I take out the trash?-- Coolcaesar ( talk) 21:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Political science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Political science until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Political Scientist. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Right now "politology" is offered as an MOS:ALTNAME of "political science". I have never heard political science called "politology". "Political science" gets 116,000,000 google hits and "Politology" gets about 0.2% of that. Most importantly, I see no WP:RS asserting that "politology" is an alternative name of "political science"; in fact, a casual glance suggests that it's easier to find examples of outlets claiming that "politology" is meaningfully distinct from "political science". I propose to delete this altname and simply keep the redirect, but since we're nowhere near running up against the relevant guidelines I figured I should open a discussion here first and see if I'm missing something. - Astrophobe ( talk) 01:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Adamopoulos ( talk) 13:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Political Analysis (journal) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eshepherd2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
In a highly interesting report by the center for east european studies of the polish academy of sciences I read, and I wonder whether or not it is wise and moral to link political science so prominently with an actor in the current Ukraine war:
ANALYSES 2022-04-05
https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2022-04-05/medvedev-escalates-anti-ukrainian-rhetoric
Medvedev escalates anti-Ukrainian rhetoric Maria Domańska On 5 April, Dmitri Medvedev, Vice-Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, posted a post on his Telegram channel entitled “On Fakes and True History”. The text included the following phrases:
- reports of Russian war crimes are “fake cynical Ukrainian propaganda” prepared for “huge money” by “troll factories” under the supervision of Western governments and NGOs at their service;
- to dehumanise and denigrate Russia, “the crazed beasts of the nationalist and territorial defense battalions are ready to kill Ukrainian civilians”; all because “the very essence of Ukrainianness, fed by anti-Russian venom and lies about its identity, is one big sham”. Ukrainian identity does not exist and never has;
- the comparison of Ukrainianness to Prussian militarism, which was “bred in schools” and later developed into National Socialism; the latter unleashed World War II and was defeated only by the Red Army; today’s Ukrainian radicals were also formed in schools in the spirit of hatred towards everything Russian; "a pseudo-history of Ukrainian statehood was hastily written" after 1991; the historical ties of Kievan Rusʹ with today’s Russian territories were broken; the idea of one nation was destroyed; “Ukrainian historical figures of the 20th century are exclusively Nazis and collaborators”;
- some Ukrainians have been “literally worshipping the Third Reich” for the last 30 years; photographs of "Nazi symbols found in every military unit captured by the Russian army” are supposed to bear witness to this;
- “Ukraine has mentally become a second Third Reich and will suffer the same fate”; “this also applies to the monsters who usurp the right to represent Ukraine”; the current “special operation” should teach them a lesson, as should one episode of the “glorious past”. In this context, Medvedev mentions the NKVD officer, Pavel Sudoplatov, who killed the head of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, Yevhen Konovalets, with a bomb planted in a box of chocolates [Sudoplatov also organised the assassination of Lev Trotsky]; “There will be many more such gifts for Nazi criminals”;
- President Putin has clearly defined the “special operation’s” aim: the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine; these tasks will be carried out not only on the battlefield. The most important objective is to change the consciousness of some Ukrainians, which is “bloody and full of false myths”; it will serve to “ensure peace for future generations of Ukrainians and build an open Eurasia – from Lisbon to Vladivostok”.
Commentary
Since the beginning of the war, Medvedev has been heavily involved in the propaganda field, which contrasts with his previous low level of activity in public life (following his resignation as prime minister in January 2020). This engagement may indicate an ambition to strengthen his position within the ruling elite. He may also be fulfilling a task assigned to him by the Kremlin to set a highly aggressive tone for the official narrative and thus set specific ‘standards’ for the entire state administration. In addition to the repudiation of Ukrainian national identity and statehood, which became common in Russian propaganda, the text contains openly totalitarian slogans. Medvedev in fact calls for the forced re-education of Ukrainians and dehumanises the Ukrainian people, thus justifying mass war crimes. Furthermore, he makes thinly-veiled allusions to the need to assassinate top representatives of the Ukrainian government. The phrase referring to “building an open Eurasia” through “denazification” suggests that Russia has more far-reaching plans, encompassing the “denazification” and “demilitarisation” of all of Europe. The aim would be to neutralise it in the global conflict over the future world order between Washington and the Beijing-Moscow tandem. The language of the text – saturated with invectives, hate speech and extreme aggression – is probably an expression of the Kremlin’s growing frustration, both at the failure of its initial plan to conquer Ukraine and the West’s resilience to Russian war propaganda. One of the purposes of stirring anti-Ukrainian hysteria is to fan Russian society’s ‘rally-around-the-flag’ sentiment. Medvedev’s text is in keeping with the tone of an article published on 3 April on the main page of the RIA Novosti state news agency. It called for the extermination of Ukraine’s elite, the “de-Ukrainisation” of society, and a long occupation of Ukrainian territory.
Austrian political observer ( talk) 12:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The further reading section seems to me to contain a random (perhaps random is the wrong word) selection of things loosely connected with politics - rather than addressing the core topic of this article. I suspect many are here to promote the works of the author rather than help the article. Any thoughts? ( Msrasnw ( talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)) - I have now removed many. Feel free to restore any that seem useful here. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 15:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC))
It has no sources and, furthermore, saying Canada is less democratic than the United States or that Eastern Europe is more democratic than Canada makes no sense anyway. Adamopoulos ( talk) 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The following was enclosed in a «ref» tag with no other metadata:
The following definition quoted in this note is not representative of political science as a whole. It is only representative of the political theory and comparative politics sub-disciplines of political science while at the expense of other major sub-disciplines such as political methodology, international relations, public policy and public administration. The definition is question is (def. 1): "It is a social science dealing with systems of governance and power, and the analysis of political activities, political thought, political behavior, and associated constitutions and laws."
The definition that satiates "political science is the scientific study of politics which is a social science dealing with the analysis and implementation of systems of governance and its impact on societies. Modern political science can generally be divided into the five sub-disciplines of political philosophy, political methodology, comparative politics, international relations, public policy and public administration (def. 2)." is much more inclusive of all five major branches of political science. The rest of that previously quoted definition (def. 1) is already included in the history/origin section because it is more descriptive of the foundational elements of political science taught in first-year political philosophy university classes as opposed to more nuanced, applied, and practical sub-disciplines only taught as part of specialized upper-level coursework.
It's having trouble (my bold) with the difference between five and six (a couple of days ago, I was informed by the barely speaking toddler upstairs that his bilateral dump truck had seven wheels) and I couldn't locate a source on Google or Google Scholar even with "satiates" as a mandatory keyword.
Edit: Note that it's possible there should have been a colon after the first item; but that would only make it bad for a different reason.
— MaxEnt 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Describe various methods of political science 122.161.207.238 ( talk) 17:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)