Talk:Political science/Archive 1

Political philosophy is not a field of political science

Intro : "Fields and subfields of political science include political theory and philosophy, ..."

I removed these first elements from the list, political philosophy is not a field or subfield of political science. KungFuMonkey 00:30, 31 Mar 2006

Empirically, that is not the case. I think at best, it's POV. Consider these pages, that list the fields offered in some of the top political science departments.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Also note that in the USN&WR categories, Political Theory is a field[9], suggesting (as is my experience) that the field is broadly considered part of the discipline. Fields are fluid, but PT, as it is known in the discipline, is a field in political science.

There are some political scientists and some political theorists who would like to divorce the fields. But that is not at all the practice, nor is it widely accepted. I'm going to revert unless I hear a compelling argument not to. Still A Student 02:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad I talked about political philosophy not being part of PS and removed both "political theory" and "political philosophy". As I said I think political philosophy shouldn't be listed as a field of PS : we wouldn't include science philosophy as a part of science. KungFuMonkey 16 April 2006

I changed the description of political theory to account for the well-accepted division between the Ango-American analytic and the Continental traditions. Even this is a vast oversimplification, but this isn't a page on political theory so I'll let this suffice. I also made it clear that studying the history of political philosophy is like a given, no matter what your approach to theory is. Sarcasmo 5 May 2006

edit talk page

I've reverted this edit of yours because it changed section headings and removed comments without creating an archive. You can move comments to Talk:Political science/Archive 1, but you should only do it verbatim, that is, don't change the section headings. After that, link the archive page from the top of the current talk page. --Joy [shallot] 09:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do you need an archive? The previous page is readily accesible by clicking on the HISTORY tab of the TALK page.

That is the common practice on Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot] 23:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- just another point, an archive can be more error filled since it is done by hand, or the person of one mind, it can lead a mistaken picture, the only foolproof way to see past comments in full is by clicking on the HISTORY tab of the TALK page.

Yes but you just did yourself by the revert, and Sam Spade contnued from that edit revert. Why place your fellow wikipedians under more strict demands than yourself? --Mikerussell 00:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just try it, you will see the previous work in it's entirity is presented and available. I changed the page and edit or condensed it so more people can add comments, since when I opened the page, the suggestion to condense it is made by the Wikipedia software at the top. I have no vested interest in changing it, I just thought it would be easier for people to add future remarks. Many of the remarks made were not comprehensible, since they refer to a page now completly altered. it is more confusing to newcomers and it obfuscates the intention of the TALK page which is allow fresh insights into the current page, you just confuse people otherwise. The name of the game is to have relevance as well as an exact history of the page, which is still available, as I stated above. But whatever, I still don't see how it will not have to be condensed at some point. Maybe you think the editors of each entry should do it?--Mikerussell 19:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The other thing I would ask is that you respect the work which was added to that page. Just to revert it and eliminate what the additional material was wriiten, since then, makes extra work for others.Mikerussell 00:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changing other people's comments, especially deleting them (yes, even if you merely consider them out of date), is considered a violation of netiquette here. When you move them to a subpage archive, then it's not. --Joy [shallot] 23:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say I changed comments, please understand what I did before accusing me of that. i editted the material for space, and condensed the headings into on section. It is hardly fair to accuse me of that. All the comments are still available in the History, and I excuse me, for attempting to better present the relevant concepts. A page is not a continous ramble that looses the reader. It by necessity has to be edited from time to time and it is never 'lost' by having the revisions available. --Mikerussell 00:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia way is to simply fix it, as in repair the page as you see fit, if you think there is an inaccuracy. If you want an archive, create it. You have really damamged the page much more than I did by cleaning it up, because others have since gone back to add to the page, and it is difficult repair. Just go ahead and repair pages, you don't need anybody's approval. You don't need to enter on my USER:page your remarks either, I certainly can read the Talk Page history comments and your resaoning behind the edit. The reason I am writing this on this page is for that very reason- I have sinced removed it from my personal page. --Mikerussell 21:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) P.S. This is a long page

Well, I wasn't talking about political science really, merely about something you did to the page, something that was related to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. It was (and still is) off-topic for this talk page, and pertinent on your user talk page. But oh well. --Joy [shallot] 23:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You still have not answered my point, about causing the 'loss' of comments accidentally. I don't want to be overly contentious about simple matters, but aren't you violating your own nettique? Maybe you should correct that before worry about others comments. Because of that, it very much deals with the page, I would think you would attend to that shortly if you really cared about the overall comments.--Mikerussell 00:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Forget it, I re-added my message to Buridan, but your editting habits are not very good, if I did not check the page recently, the comments would be lost. I think you should still work to create an archive if you really want to preserve the page comments. At some point they are going to be taken off this page due to space and or irrelevance- and not necessarily by me. So why not do it? I think you must have some interest in preserving the comments. Although, if you wish you can just add more on the topic. The idea that comments are 'lost' is not accurate. Anyhoo --Mikerussell 00:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, bleh. I read the diff as well as comments in the log before rolling it back, and did not notice any new text. But the rollback function went back and reverted your prior comments in addition to the particular one that I clicked "rollback" on. I'm sorry, I should have remembered that feature before clicking. I would clean it up now that I realized the problem, but I see you cleaned it up since, thanks. --Joy [shallot]

well most of this should be archived, but it should probably rest two weeks or a month first. right now, most of it is still current, though some is off topic. in a few weeks or a month, we can clean it up, by deleting everything that isn't dealing with the page as it exists then. keeping in mind that the old versions of this page will still exist. --Buridan 14:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

fine, I'll let someone else take over that job since I don't want to offend any sensibilities again. --Mikerussell 17:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

integrating vs overwriting

mike what i suggested is that you integrate your ideas into the contextualist history, not that you just replace everything with your ideas. Some of your additions will never be acceptable for me because they have no relationship to anything other than one school of thought, and the default position is that they don't get posted unless there is consensus. i'm not saying that your work does not add to what many of us have done with this entry, contrarily, i would like to see some of it included, but what you did today was not 'cool'. here we work together, yes? so let's try this again. I've reverted back to the prior version after discussing with the wikipedia channel. --Buridan 21:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

one final point for the day- it is by no means all my work, my submissions were improved upon, and I took many good points from the original page and included them. Bye for now, you can change the page back if you want- I really don't think the issue is dead when that is done. Ta--Mikerussell 22:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I agree, reprinted something from below. I just think the Discussion page should be the place where the reasons for the changes are made. to not address the counterpoints- in whatever fashion you see fit, and then to simply change the oage places one in no other position than to wonder what the heck is going on. I do believe the reverts and overwrighting serve as a history of the conflict that even furthers the Wikipedia format in some sense. In effect, this little battle has created a point-counter-point history that a curious reader can read and see how views diverge. The bickering, however, serve no purpose. I definitely have better things to do for a while. I hope the history of the pages is not deleted by admin--Mikerussell 22:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have not exhibited a sufficent awareness of other ideas in your remarks made on this page, to let you mislead readers. Before you try to exert the power of doctorates, why not reason. Another point, don't make all these little edits, I have no choice but to revert to ones very far back. Please try to edit offline, then enter your final submission at one time. Thanks--Mikerussell 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

comparably, i think that i did reason. i edit as i edit, i never locked the page for editing, or anything like that. i just edit as i go. the discussion page is to work things out. as you will note, i never said my doctorate did anything, i said i teach this and i know it. --Buridan 23:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After reading your edit to date, I think you have better represented my points, at least a broader, if somewhat flaccid, account of p.s development is evident. I will keep checking back when I get the chance.--Mikerussell 00:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political Science Basics

What are our priorities for writing in this area? To help develop a list of the most basic topics in political science, please see political science basic topics.

Resembling other Disciplines?

Well, first we have to clean this up.... . I'm going to work on it little by little. bringing in materials abstracted from several histories of the discipline, including Ricci, Farr, Ross etc., but it will take time. eventually we should have something comparable to the sociology or psychology articles. --Buridan 19:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you have improved the article by inserting the notion that it should resemble other disciplines. This shows some misunderstanding about what Pol Sci is, its history, origin and current practice. The above message What are our priorities for writing in this area? To help develop a list of the most basic topics in political science, please see political science basic topics. referred to an earlier article, which has been improved upon. I think my own beginning was further improved by User:209.166.28.66 on Jan 9th. What possible reason could you have for thinking Political Science should resemble sociology and psychology articles? The word (Political Science) is not the thing (Political Science). It is just false to suggest that in the 19th century Political Science suddenly emerged. It began in Greece. It began as a distinct entity from Politics and Political Philosophy in the life and works of Socrates, Plato and Aristtotle. With all due respect, what sources do you have to suggest such a shallow view as to ascribe its foundations to the 1860s? Just because sociology and psychology were founded in European countries in that period, so what? They are not the same thing at all. The suggestion that bringing in materials abstracted from several histories of the discipline, including Ricci, Farr, Ross etc will add to the article is, with all do respect, almost comical. It is equivalent in logic, as suggesting the History article will be improved by what Political Scientists think of the discipline. Does that make sense to you? There are many biases which the historical perspective has which will adulterate, if not mutilate, any assessment of Political Science.--Mikerussell 05:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plato wasn't doing political science? Huh?

Well, it is also the case that plato wasn't doing political science, nor what aristotle. in fact, the notion of a science doesn't arise until much later in history, so what were they doing? they were doing philosophy, and if you want to put your material in political philosophy that is fine. don't get me wrong. there is space for history, but the history that was provided is not the history of political science, and is not even good history, it is opinion and decidedly western and biased toward what i tend to think of as the 'great tradition', which is fine, but it isn't political science. Political Science is a social science, it has a history, and that is documented, but it isn't documented here, what you have here is not political science, and if this article aspires to be anything, it should be about political science, not about political philosophy. your priorities in the area are now being disputed. --Buridan 17:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we have a very different set of priorities here- I completely agree with you on that point. I think you have absorbed a kind of unexamined view of what constitutes science, a type of rationality that really is self-ironical. To suggest that Plato was not doing political science, is no more logical than to say Thales was not doing science. The type of political science which you assume represents the phenomena is only possible because of the prior political science; the original or founding act. To relegate the origin to 'history' and granting 'there is space for history' is shallow and superficial, if not an outright misunderstanding. --Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Priorities of contributors

actually, i would say it is more likely that you have your own priorities here instead of the wikipedian goals. as for my unexamined view of what constitutes science, you probably want to be careful about assuming what i think. what i think might not be what i argue would be in a wikipedia article. as for thales, given the evidence that we have of his life, we can say that he may have been doing empirical research and perhaps even hypothesis testing, but... all we have of thales life are fragments and secondary literature, neither of which need be called science. oh, you can call that science, but you can be sure that he didn't call it science, not that it seems to matter much to you. i'm not going to get into any argument about what is science, i'm just going to represent the fact of when people actually said they were doing political science and i'll call the rest either political studies or political philosophy, there is a pre-scientific period to all sciences...... isn't there? --Buridan 14:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would hardly think a personal shot at my motivations reflect the best of Wikipedia. My priorities are not a personal axe to grind, they are of function of my education, and at least I am intellectually honest enough to use my own name and offer my background to Wikipedia readers. All I can base my assessment of you on is what you have written, I have not assumed anything but that- I have no privilege into your mind. I think you should assume good faith. Why not tell us who, and where you work? To be blunt, most university instructors at University of Toronto regard wikipedia a hobby at best, and would never spend their time working on such a scholarly-absent publication. You have piqued my curiosity by your references to your teaching credentials.

ad hominens aren't acceptable

ad hominens aren't acceptable, and yes, this is a hobby for me too, it is a hobby based in making sure my students and other students have reliable information about the discipline --Buridan 20:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you try to explain your decisions better. I think you are not as qualified as you make out. A Ph.D. candidate in Science & Technology studies at Va Tech is something of a lower status than you may believe. I don't think you are entitled to slight the suggestions of others, no matter how secure you are in your own mind. As I well know, there are many reasons for filling teaching positions at an institution. Just because you teach does not mean you know. The whole process is to teach and learn. Your professional background is not that deep in the traditional view of Political Science. With all due respect to Michael Vick, Virginia Tech is not the Ivy league. Students need further consideration.

You have not exhibited a sufficent awareness of other ideas in your remarks made on this page, to let you mislead readers. Before you try to exert the power of doctorates, why not reason. Another point, don't make all these little edits, I have no choice but to revert to ones very far back. Please try to edit offline, then enter your final submission at one time. Thanks--Mikerussell 22:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i've not asserted power of doctorates. as for the merit of my education, i'm perfectly willing to admit other expertise, but when someone posts a completely biased view, i'm going to reject it. the difference between the merits of my education and the merits of my knowledge, that is open to debate of course, all that is moot because as we know, expertise doesn't count on wikipedia, what counts is neutrality and evidence. --Buridan 23:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To be frank, I think there are many reasons why I have struggled to present an adequate account of Political Science. Part of the reason comes from my education at the University of Toronto, a department that requires all students with any minor, major or specialist degree in Political Science (note Science in the term) as studying POL 200Y, Political Theory. Thomas Pangle was one of my instructors at U of T and for this course. I would hardly regard him as a puppet or apostle of my mind. It is that simple, the University of Toronto mandates that to be properly educated in Political Science, a student must understand the origin. That is why it should be in the article. Narrowing it to your rigid demands is evidence of a ownership of the article which violates the theory and practice of Wikipedia. Of course, at any university there is academic freedom and the course taught by one prof may be very different than the same course taught by another. This is another reason why I question your credentials, to be honest, your inability to adequately resolve this matter with a solution which incorporates both of are objectives kind of worries me. The logical, liberal thing to do would be include my beginning, and moderate your insistence on the questionable qualities of your sweeping inaccuracies about the ‘social science’. My article stood in Wikipoedia for almost two weeks without any other user finding it my personal priority of the author. That is not a long period of time, but it certainly means many users read the material and did not see it as you do. Why is that?

it was probably because of the holidays. --Buridan 20:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am using common sense when I refer to Thales. Can we recognize what he was doing as scientific? I think yes. That’s the proper beginning point- common sense. You seem to be applying a kind of ridiculous standard when you say he did not call it science. The point is can we recognize that as scientific activity. Can you?

being able to say something then is similar to something now is fine, saying something then is the same as now discounts the history. plato wasn't doing science, aristotle may have been doing something we would call science, thales may have been doing something we would call science, we don't know, and we shouldn't assert they are, unless we know. --Buridan 20:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who invented social science

Apparently you have no interest or reverence for this founding act as exhibited in your inaccurate and lazily-lumped mish-mash of names (Homer..Euripides)To stand at this point in time, and to look back with such a narrow conception is nothing more than an academic conceit. In my opinion, it regards political science as a kind of imitation of modern physical science, which in fact severs Platonic political science from comprehension. To be so misinformed about the origin of something, and yet free to use it as a subordinate of 'social science', represents an irreversible narrowing of the topic. May I ask you, who invented social science? What makes social science possible? --Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

every person that i mention, i have taught in my political theory classes. they all dealt with politics, i tried to include your bit about abstraction and analysis in context. you can rewrite that of course, but there is no platonic political science. in fact, plato calls the study of politics it an art or craft in the statesman --Buridan 14:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You really teach political theory? What is the course? I would not want to be in your class. You think you would ask for a person to explain their opinion before judging it. I do in my classes, I don't go around slamming the door shut on people with different ideas than mine. There is an argument, and it is evidenced in Allan Bllom's interpretive essay, that Plato founded Political Science. By no means do I regard it as self-explanatory, but here is a quote which helps to prove i am not working solely from my own priorities. Let me quote Bloom exactly, "the Republic...is the first book which brings 'philosophy down into the cities'; and we watch in it the foundation of political science" (p.310). You can try tell me why I should not consider Bloom a Political Scientist, but the weight of his academic and popular success might diminish yours. He certainly taught within the department while at U of T. --Mikerussell 19:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yes, that is a straussian interpretation of the history, but just an interpretation, note that my version of article does not take any specific interpretation of the history as truth, i just provide the facts and evidence. --Buridan 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not my opinion. if you want to really exhibit the You are treating Political Science like a technological trademark patented in the universities of the late 19th century. It is not a proprietary discipline of the contemporary mind. Your take on things is shallow, and the article should include the broadest, not the narrowest of ideas. You seem to fixate on categories, instead of searching for the thing-in-itself. --Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the article should represent political science, the history section should represent the contextual or intellectual history. my interest here is to provide a solid, normal, wikipedia article that people can use. it won't be unnecessarily broad, and it won't be too narrow. it will be about political science, it will be clear, and it will be neutral to the topic. it will be something that you can take to a political scientist and she'll say ok, or it's a start. it won't be something where they say 'no, that's not political science', which was where the prior article was. --Buridan 14:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And you are the expert in that regard? You know the mind of every political scientist? Wow, you are bettter than me.--Mikerussell 19:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i think that i have feel for it. you might think that you do too, but ask yourself, is what you keep substituting what you would find in an encyclopedia article, is it that sort of knowledge? if you can honestly say yes, then I give up. i just wanted to get the article to be solid and useful to students and people interested in actually knowing what political science is, and i don't think giving one position in the debate is appropriate, i think we need to take the neutral position, and that is what i've tried to do, be neutral, use facts and evidence. --Buridan 21:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stephanous numbers

Take a look at Heidegger's essay The Question Concerning Technology; I cannot help myself but take a very pertinent passage from it, where he discusses the decapitation of science by modern science, when they treat nature as 'a coherence of forces calculable in advance'. Hence physics [modern physical science]...will never be able to renounce this one thing: that nature reports itself in some way or other that is identifiable through calculation and that it remains orderable as a system of information. (Heidegger, the Question Concerning Technology, p.21, harper edition, 1977). This is why, in my opinion, you have decided to call everything beyond your definition of p.s. as 'philosophy' or 'political philosophy'. Which is another grotesque inaccuracy of the activity.

Political philosophy is not exclusively known, or defined, as the philsophical study of political life. In fact, there is another definition, surely Platonic in origin, that defines political philosophy as the political treatment of philosophy. This definition is manifest in the Republic of Plato. The simple fact that this definition is possible, and can be rationally argued, undermines you entire relegation of p.s. to something subsumed by 'social science'. --Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

cite it with the stephanous number, and i'll see if i can give you a better translation from the greek. and also note that what plato thinks of political philosophy should go in political philosophy --Buridan 14:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You look foolish, at least to me, when you try to get haughty. You read ancient Greek- so what? You think that makes you an expert in Platonic thought or texts- wow! I read French, I guess I understand everyting about Sarte and Rousseau. If you really believe that, well…, I reserve comment. If wish to know of the Stephaneous numbers which i find most seminal to the discussion at hand, they are 454a-457c. Tell me how you teach that section. How does the community of wives and children relate to my comments that political philosophy can be defined as the political treatment of philosophy'

I will repair.--Mikerussell 19:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

actually that passage isn't about philosophy is about rhetoric or 'the craft of disputation', your interpretation may vary. --Buridan 21:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

indeed, it does. One might even argue it is the very heart of the entire dialogue, the 'wave' that turns Socrates free of the grip of the Athenian 'gentleman mob'. the philosophy is not in the text- it is in the reader, I think your interpretation looses sight of the dramatic context of the dialogue.--Mikerussell 17:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of topics

i don't think a list of anything works until you provide the context for the list, are able to define the bounds of the list, and really understand what the list is for. if you don't have that clearly delineated, then all you have is a list of opinions and a non-neutral one at that. so, we need a political science entry that is about political science first. feel free to disagree of course. --Buridan 17:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I agree with you here, I never thought the list was needed in the entry, nor did I place it there. I think it was added in hopes others would improve the previous 'stub'.--Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

now i agree, ricci, farr, and others are not universal, since they deal with north american political science primarily, but until we find authoritative materials elsewhere, we should go with what we have. this is supposed to be an encyclopedia no? encyclopedia are built by experts and lay people using authoritative sources that they have available no? --Buridan 17:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, I completely disagree, we should not 'go with what we have'; this is not a puzzle to be solved. A Wikipedia article is not like being lost on the way to a party. I don't want to become overbearing here, so I'll refer you back to my above comments. But it is just preposterous to say that a history of north american p.s. is the starting point for an article on p.s. Where are you coming from? The article you want to write could appropriately be titled - An Intellectual History of the Discipline Political Science as Evidenced in North American Universities.--Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

if you read the changes that are in the process of being completed, it is clear that i intend to provide a contextual account of the history of political science, but no scholar in their right mind would say plato was doing political science, unless they are prone to generalizations. now, i might not be the expert here, don't get me wrong, i've not polled the scholarly community.

a wikipedia article is based on what we have, and what we have are the facts, and several clear historical accounts of the developments of the history of political science, which we can use. in short, we should use the facts as facts, and build on it. that is the wiki way. i'll cut what i don't see as facts or directly pertinent to this article, as i'm revising to make this into a wikipedia article. --Buridan 14:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Word is not the thing' argument

in regards to your 'word is not the thing' argument. i will say that evidence is evidence. there was no such thing as political science until the movement to scientize moral philosophy, political economy, and history occured. this is just a matter of fact, it is not a matter of debate. to assert that plato is doing political science anachronistic and shows a complete misunderstanding of his work and project. likewise with the enlightenment philosophers, they were doing what they thought was natural philosophy or moral philosophy, and not pursuing anything 'scientific', natural science and the ideas of science, were not for humans at the time. so 'the word is not the thing' but truth is better than fiction. as for your other positions, most are non-starters in my opinion and one is a non-sequitur

I'll revise my introduction and reapply it, and be extending and revising as i go. we can debate the relative merits further when we actually have an article that deals with something that might be called political science --Buridan 17:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my insolence, but what the heck does scientize mean? And how do you know what the enlightenment philosophers were doing? Isn't that the exact same thing you are cslling me out for with Plato? Your facts are just values, I'm afraid. You need to revisit the fact/value distinction. You are labouring under a confusion about what constitutes 'facts' and what constitutes a 'value'. This makes me wonder whether you are the one with a completely misguided understanding of Plato's 'work and project'. I think I just might have a more complete understanding of his work and project because I can at least present more than one conception of it. To this very moment, people are still working to understand Plato's work and project. It is not a dead letter, as your comment implies. The above comment is just so much hooey. I disagree with you strongly. You actually think Machiavelli was doing natural or moral philosphy? natural science and the ideas of science, were not for humans at the time. Huh? Next thing you'll suggest is that nobody wrote anything until the printing press was invented. I will attempt to repair, naturally, you can rebut.--Mikerussell 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

here, you are wrong, especially with your fact value fetish. as for machiavelli, his work does many things. as for a conception of his work, i've taught machiavelli, 7 times now, my peers seem to think i'm solid in that area... i don't know why. --Buridan 14:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ideological Based Comments

Since academia has a heavy left-wing bias, academics sometimes treat political science as if it was the study of change. This is because academics don't like conservativism. In fact, however, non-change is always an option for any society.

I've removed the above from the main article. It is probably true as far as it goes (as a statement of present-day Western academics, anyway, as far as I know), but any potentially inflammatory remark like this needs to stated very diplomatically and fairly (see neutral point of view). I don't feel confident enough of my knowledge of political science to try to make an improvement. Anybody? --Larry Sanger

This is still in the main article. My recommendation is to remove it because, as you said, it is clearly inflammatory. As one who took a couple of political science classes 25 years ago, I don't think it is even true that political scientists assume anything about "change".

As a professional political scientist, I recommend it's removal. It is, in fact, true that political science as a discipline has more liberals than conservatives (conservatives, disliking government, are less likely to make a profession of studying it, so it's really just a self-selection process). But more importantly, the statement about change is probably false. Societies are dynamic systems, so non-change is not an option. Advancing technology, increasing or decreasing wealth, immigration or emigration, all will create changes. The political question between conservatives and liberals is not so much whether there will be change, but what kind of change to encourage or discourage and how to respond to the changes that actually happen.

---

I'm removing this line from the article

Some people have questioned whether "political science" is a science at all, since "science" generally suggests a formal discipline and strict training in a systematic method, whereas much of politics is improvisation: undisciplined, informal and without system.

This is a cheapshot disguised in NPOV-speak. I'm not a political scientist, so I'm not the right person to make the defense, but I know enough about political science to know that most political scientists would dispute this. -- RobLa

---

With regard to immediately above by RobLa: It contains a fallacy anyway. Scientists studying politicians or political process would not be involved in the "improvisation: undisciplined, informal and without system." They would be measuring the above or trying to measure the above as a step in the scientific method.

So I tend to agree. It is an opinion and cheap shot thinly veiled in npov speak mechanics. Good practice though! I hope they keep trying. 8) The first line is ok as a leadin to an alternate discussion about metrics and who is measuring with reference to scientific method etc. A lot of people like to equate science with math and clean answers. The problem (IMHO) with this tendency (which I have) is that no science would ever happen if scientists were not attempting to measure the inscrutable, fuzzy, and unknown. user:mirwin

---

Subject area of Pol Sci? Violence? Game Theory?

The definition was hopelessly sophomoric and said nothing about why poli sci was not simply economics or church social organizing. So I mentioned violence - the primary thing that poli sci is supposed to be containing... and the thing that makes it different from quantitative tradeoffs. I don't recall exactly where the "stupid rule of thumb" came from, but it's clearly on the mark. Decision science becomes political science at the moment you lose an eye, or anything else irreplaceable that you'd rather have than any amount of cash...

I shuffled things around and added a bit about game theory. The intro paragraph always bugged me, and the new prose that others added today seemed a much better start.

It still needs more work, though. I agree that the prevention of violence still needs to be explained and integrated further, which is where I started going with game theory. The idea behind good government is to change the rules of the game such that violence doesn't pay. -- RobLa

not quite: it is to *balance* the rules of the game so that violence that protects or amuses those the society views as "productive" or "useful" is enabled and justified e.g. by police, and violence that advances free riders at their expense is pre-empted, unrewarded, or reduced to tolerable levels. Specific theories of political economy "change the rules of the game such that violence doesn't pay." It's differences on *how* to do that that generate the different theories of political economy. The broader idea of political "science" is more like theories of mass human behavior...

also, violence for amusement (throwing Christians to lions, death penalty, bombing people who aren't actually the specific ones who will hijack planes to pilot into your tallest buildings, killing all Arafat's aides without killing *him*, etc.) is a sign that political *science* has failed and political *habit* (i.e. looking good for your tribe's females, "killing the bad people", "saving the world" by advancing your own "moral code", etc.) is taking over.

violence is absolutely central to politics and any definition that doesn't refer to bodily harm as the difference between political science and say sociology is problematic...

A significant proportion of political scientists would violently object to the suggestion that their discipline is merely applied game theory, and even the game theorists would almost all agree that game theory is a tool for analysis, not the discipline itself, so I've reworded accordingly.--Polonius 04:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont understand this at all!

I'm coming to this subject fresh, so I expect to have something comprehensible. Unfortunately the first paragraph is totally meaningless to me... Can anyone provide an introduction with more clarity? Ta, James

The term "political science"

...was first coined in 1880 by Herbert Baxter Adams."

This seems to be a very spurious beginning, it indicates that a History prof from Baltimore invented Political Science? Huh? I have not changed it because the word 'coined' is not the same as founded, and to be honest I have never heard of the Prof. Adams, although I do have a degree in Political Science from the University of Toronto. I assume good faith by the writer; however, maybe someoone else could place that aspect in better context.

Secondly, I have inserted the 'real' founding of political science, namely Plato. This article is very shallow and as someone wrote above, it makes pol sci seem as important as organizing wedding parties. I think I will try to add to the article, but I encourage others to try to 'rescue' this article from near irrelevance and misguided mal-confusions (if that's a word; if not, I just 'coined' it; please give me due credit.) --Mikerussell 18:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political science is the study of politics. It involves the study of structure and process in government - or any equivalent system that attempts to assure safety, fairness, and closure across a broad range of risks and access to a broad range of commons for its human charges. Accordingly, political scientists may study social institutions such as corporations, unions, churches, or other organizations whose structure and process approach that of government in complexity and interconnection. The term "political science" was first made popular in the United States in 1880 by Herbert Baxter Adams, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University.

I removed this section. It has a very weak definition of political science- defining it by the same term- politics, thus it is circular and useless. the reference to the founding of political science is, after further review, totally inadequate and I think factually incorrect. This history professor is a nobody, as far as I know. Thus I have begaun to work on the repair of this entire section and I encourage others to help when they see fit.--Mikerussell 20:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ancient greeks, mastery of nature

I reverted a recent edit, which I felt drastically overemphasizedthe importance of ancient greeks, as well as the "mastery of nature", and other theories (such as labour value). I think the ancient greeks get more than enough emphasis already, and while I think mention of locke and hume would be acceptable, it would been to be more balanced. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:11, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll add info on locke, hobbes, and others in due time, i think we can do justice to the history by making short histories of each era/area. i've only briefly laid out some of the areas that i'll fill in by providing links, but i'll probably add others. there is a distinctively western/great tradition bias, and including confuscian political theory, and middle eastern political theory in the history would certainly diversify and broaden the article because they still have broad influence in political science around the world today. --Buridan 15:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

in regards to the old oligarch, he was a poet/historian that existed at a key time in athenian history and provides evidence of the social transition from aristocracy to democracy. he was against the solonian laws that democratized athens and worth noting, but I'll have to write that article up before it is included, i guess. :) --Buridan 15:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I mightilly agree about the "great tradition" western-centric bias of the article, which of course likely occured naturally due to ours being the english wiki. In any case, ancient philosophers and lawmakers such as confucious and manu would be excellent additions. Glad to hear were on the same page, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roman - medieval=

this area will need more work of course. people that deserve mention here are john of salisbury, st. thomas, and marcilus of padua. that will take it to machiavelli and the italian renaissance. --Buridan 18:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Designing the Common Future Co-operatively--ModelEarth

ModelEarth [10]

This link above has nothing to do with the article as far as I can see, it really is a shameless plug (via a link) to odd, vapid monograph. --Mikerussell 04:45, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Political science, economics, mathematics and statistical modelling

Is Political science the only science where they do not do any kind of mathematical modelling? At a minimal the use of statistics should be discussed, perhaps in a separate article. At this day and age I expect there to also be some (large-scale?) models relevant to politics (and by models I mean mathematically formulated models based on statistics) - with the currently available computing power it should be possible to do inference on fairly complicated models. But I don't see any mentions in the article. Is there anything out there? --Olethros 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Political science is if anything laden with mathematical models, statistics and formal modeling. I'm adding some information on that, and I'm trying to bring the discussion of the fields and subfields into line with the way political scientists view them. In doing so, I no doubt am heavily editing some of what was already there. I urge the original authors to respond if these changes seem inappropriate. Still A Student 01:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

keep in mind that there is great diversity in the field of political science, some political scientists do not even see the formal modeling or theorizing part of the field as part of the field. the subfields also varie significantly by nation. --Buridan 03:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is true. But I don't think anything I added implies that formal modeling is the only part of political science. I also don't think most political scientists would deny that many political scientists do this sort of work. It is a big part of the "great diversity" you mention, and it belongs in the article. The idea that the above reader could look at this article and not know that formal modeling and quantitative methodology are so common in so many top departments is not a good sign.

I think I will also add a paragraph (tonight) on the Perestroika/quant/formal/methodological pluralism debate that has begun reshaping the discipline, and is a reaction to the perceived dominance of quant/formal work in political science.

As to variation by country, that's a more serious issue (which is why my edits say "in the United States.") But subfields are not rigid anywhere. And it is true that U.S. political science is very influential, that the APSR and APSA are major centers of the discipline (as the article already indicated), and so I think the article would be remiss not to describe how those influences shape the discipline. I've spent considerable time in political science departments in the United States and in Europe, and the broad outlines of the "big 4 or 5 fields" organizational framework are pretty common. Still A Student 15:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't want to create a new heading but the description of the methods sub-field ("refers to the development and application of statistical techniques to political questions") seems too restrictive. Non-statistically based modeling and simulation such as game theory, agent-based modeling, and some qualitative approaches all fit under the umbrella of 'methodology'. I'll edit the line unless anyone has any objections. --Demiansmark 07:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

removal of worldwide view tag

the tag was inflicting the overall appearance of the article, so i move the tag here. rebutte me if you want. cheers, --zachjones4 03:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Studies - "name issue"

I note that the paragraph dealing with alternative names has been shifted. Why is this? A significant number of people will locate this article using "Political studies" as that is what the discipline is frequently called in many (non-US) countries. Also, there are (perhaps) some important differences worthy of note. --Nicknz 22:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

it is noted, at the bottom. the intro isn't for details. if you think people will find it from political studies, then it will say 'redirected from political studies' and therefor the problem is solved. --Buridan 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone would be able to elaborate on the differences between political studies and political science (methodological? subject matter?) and include this as a separate section of the article? "Current fields of study" isn't an appropriate heading. -- Nicknz

be bold and do it if you want it to be done.--Buridan 02:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this "name issue" is a bit of a red herring. There is a single discipline, which in the United States is largely called "political science." In some departments (my own, for instance), it is called something else, but almost no one would say they are not doing the same thing if they are in a "politics" or "political studies" or "government" department. (For instance, the class bullitin at Cornell, where they call the department "government," actually says that the department is "what other schools would call 'political science.'") The same people publish in the same journals, ask the same questions, attend the same conferences, take part in the same debates and draw from the same (large and diverse) set of methods.

I think the article ought to note that the discipline is often called something else. And it does. But I don't think there are any real important differences, in practice. Still A Student 03:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)