Talk:Polity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible sources for expansion

ANI suggested this source: scholarly book for expansion. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Relation between "polity" and "body politic" is unclear

This is an article on polity, but it talks primarily about body politic. I don't understand why. What's the relation between polity and body politic? I'm not doubting that the two terms are related (or possibly synonyms?). I'm just suggesting that the article is unclear in this respect. Someone who understands the subject should rewrite this to make it clearer. Omc (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Body politic is just another word for corporation, or artificial, that is, fictitious, person.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:C039:34A2:7670:3DE4 (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge with political division

Looking through inter-language links on Wikidata, en-wiki seems to be the only language to have different pages for polity and political division. Both of these stub articles seem to have the same definition: "a geographic area under the jurisdiction of a government, be it a sovereign state, regional government, or local government". The only difference is that once has a slight focus on the government whereas the other has a slight focus on the area, but we already have Administrative division to talk specifically about areas. Does anyone mind if I merge polity and political division? --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Against merging. This article needs edits, though. I believe that polity is a term in political science and political philosophy, meaning "something (such as a country or state) that has a government : a politically organized unit" [1]. This is therefore a more general term, and it is important historically -- a state is what historically evolved to be the highest and most complex and most recent form of polity. Littledogboy (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Opposition

I'm encountering opposition to the use of this term because it's 'degrading'. Anyone know the source of this belief? I couldn't find anything in the article. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not true, you are encountering opposition because it is not necessary on the articles concerned, there are simpler alternatives ----Snowded ^TALK 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If you can't get a local consensus for that which you wish to implement? Then open up an Rfc. Don't be trying to force what you want, into the article, via edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not true Snowded, I put 'degrading' in quotes for a reason. What are your alternatives? That's good advice, GoodDay. Would that more editors would follow it. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You picked one quote out of context from one editor and ignored the wider points made against you by many others. You then brought it to a page without providing any notifications to those involved. Its pretty normal behaviour for you but it needs pointing out. Take up the point on the talk pages concerned although you are likely to be rejected as has already happened. You are rapidly loosing what little good will was left by this behaviour. Its pathetic, polity is rejected on two articles so you immediately sneak it in on several others and game the 1RR rule (yet again). I'm pleased to see you supporting GoodDay's advice. I've yet to see you raise an RfC on any disputed points. You just sit back for a few weeks and try again. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Out of context? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Raise a RfC at the Irish MOS page if you want a change - stop trying the same minor edit on multiple pages. One of these days you might learn to work with the community, but I suspect an indefinite block will come first given the edit warring ----Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation you made and I'd like you to address it. Why do you say 'degrading' was out of context? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop wasting people's time ----Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You have some neck. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629232259/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-11 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)