Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles C‑class(Level 2)
WikiProject iconPolitics has been listed as a level-2 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Former good articlePolitics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
March 19, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 23, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 25, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crystalnicole47.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nytasia123.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Under "A variety of methods are deployed in politics" there is a creditable list that, in sum, implicitly emphasize the competition of openly-expressed viewpoints. Quite clearly, the whole of the history of politics has included also a heavy reliance on subterfuge, deception and especially propaganda to control the beliefs of the populace. I suggest these deserve a mention in the list of techniques employed.

Image edit warring[edit]

We need some discussion regarding the series of reversions and de-reversions and de-de-reversions between these edits (and more broadly between these edits over 3 days). We have edit summaries alleging that the inclusion of an image "was an ethno nationalistic POV edit", that someone isn't telling "us the *real* reason this image bothers" them, that the article on Politics mentions Aristotle too many times, and that an image taken in the last few years is somehow "too old" to be in an encyclopedia article. Responding to a reversion of my edit in one of the diffs above with the rationale that I was restoring the edit of "a sock obsessed İP": I'm interested in the content, not contributors, and the image of an Iranian municipal election looks like a perfectly fine illustration to me. Frankly I actually think that picture is well above the average quality of the illustrations of Wikipedia's politics articles. The bust of Aristotle also seems fine -- probably it's overly narrow for the article on all of politics, but that's a more subtle conversation and it definitely didn't need to be removed in a hurry without discussion. And when both images were in the article I didn't think it detracted from anything, nor did it infringe on any MOS guidelines that I'm aware of. So we need a discussion here explaining why various images do or do not belong in the article, and at a minimum we need edit summaries that actually discuss encyclopedic content. We especially need to stop with the fierce ad hominem attacks on other contributors. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that claims of ethnonationalism or claiming that images are too old is unhelpful, as well as unconstructive. People aren't going to budge if they feel like they're being personally attacked, even if one thinks the criticism is valid.
That being said, I totally understand the concern over Wikipedia being a global encyclopedia, and to make sure that our biases don't impact too much on our editing (which includes which pictures to use within the article). I also think that while there isn't a specific MOS guideline against this, it seems to go against the spirit of established policies such as MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES.
Perhaps there needs to be some sort of centralised discussion on this issue? GnocchiFan (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should simply drop the lead image spam that has nothing to do with the prose text by it...pure decorative junk. Moxy- 20:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]