Talk:Political science

Subfields

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)

As stated in my edit summary, it's even more inaccurate to cast American politics as merely a course offering. In most U.S. colleges, universities, and professional associations it's unquestionably a full-fledged subfield, and, in both teaching and research, it overlaps very little with international relations (or, for that matter, comparative politics) even if some IR scholars happen to "look at the US." Sgelbman (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not just for the US. As pointed out, most countries have a similar situation with their own local politics being a special subject. Obviously we can not make a full list of all countries and say for each one that the national politics is a subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Then get rid of the line about offering courses in American politics, which doesn't belong in a section about subfields anyway, and include one about some (not most, and probably not even many) countries' political science departments and associations treating their national politics as a distinct subfield. I agree that constructing a list of subfields that are unique to particular national contexts isn't worthwhile, but to pretend that the subfield of American politics doesn't exist, is merely a course offering, or could be subsumed under international relations is just as inane. Sgelbman (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, that sounds like a reasonable solution. I do not object to removing any implication of US politics being somehow under IR, and I had not really thought that was Vietminh's intention either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that a way to include 'American politics', as well as that of any other country, is to generalize it into subfields such as Voting behavior and/or Political structures or institutions. Of course that does create some overlap with Comparative politics, but comparativists are certainly a different tribe from those who study their domestic institutions and voters. DrMichaelWright (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

American politics is a major subfield in American universities — right next to comparative and theory. It's a primary track in most political science & politics and government departments at both the undergrad and graduate levels. Hybras1 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Political "Science"

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)

These things come under the heading of the social sciences. They do differ from the physical sciences quite a bit, as the article on social science acknowledges from the outset, but the term "science" for them is something that is broadly accepted and it is not for us to argue with the dictionary. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder why it is called political "SCIENCE". Many college offer the degree Bachelor of "Arts" in political science219.151.149.195 (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the term science can be used as shorthand to refer to the natural sciences, it has several other definitions as well. Look it up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science. Also, political hypotheses and theories are often tested in purposeful practice and by naturally occurring events.--TDJankins (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (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)

Bizarre edits by user Guitarguy84 on 18 July 2017

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)

No response, fixed it.--Coolcaesar (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Political Scientist" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Politology

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)

Thanks for weighing in Adamopoulos. For now I've removed the altname. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

The title picture of the current Wikipedia article on political science featuring Russian National Security Council Chairman Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev

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)

I missed when it was added a month ago. On content grounds alone an oblique low quality image of a politician facing away while talking to two unidentified political scientists is not a suitable image to lead this article. - Astrophobe (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Issues/worries about the further reading section

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))

Can we delete the map in the intro?

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)

Unsourced referenced removed from article

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)

Minutes later, a -20000 character reversion got rid of the whole mess and a lot more; this is likely a non-issue now. — MaxEnt 17:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article is getting a lot of junk added to it by IP socks of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hoaeter. MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)