Talk:Comparative politics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahbarnes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I think that this article should be developed more. It lacks any sources and does not encompass the different methods. Let's discuss how we can develop this article. --Ghormax 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article is lacking is because the longer and more comprehensive article, which was started earlier and has gotten more edits and which more users have worked on, is at comparative government. I've now merged the articles together. Some universities call their department or refer to the academic discipline as "comparative government" and others call it "comparative politics," but they refer to the same thing. —Lowellian (reply) 09:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but: MSSD/MDSD and Mill's Method are NOT the SAME! This can be verified in nearly every textbook which discusses methods of comparative politics. MSSD/MSDS are case selection methods, Mill's methods arn't! 130.83.219.183 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I changed the position of Lipset's title I had hoped that someone would noticed that the same book has been mentioned twice. Obviously this has not happened. Do all of you want me to decide which of the two entries can be deleted? Khnassmacher (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no reason that there should be a whole section summarizing an argument for gendered perspectives on comparative politics. That's way off topic for an introduction to the subfield. 70.198.197.36 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article's main description is out of date. According to here, that was what described the field from the 60's to the 80's. Now, "Comparative Politics" does seem to usually refer to inter-country comparisons (please note that although this is an area of interest for me, it is not an area of my expertise).

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-027

" Large-n cross-national studies are now a prominent feature in the (comparative) study of politics—something that would have been hard to predict circa 1970s or even 1980s."

--PerfectlyGoodInk (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Comparative politics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

You cited that "Arend Lijphart argues that comparative politics does not have a substantive focus in itself, but rather a methodological one: it focuses on "the how but does not specify the what of the analysis"

But when i saw the true text Lijphart continue to said "The label is somewhat misleading because both explicit methodological concern and implicit methodological awareness among students of comparative politics have generally not been very high."

So I think you misunderstand about Lijphart?

(68.231.39.196 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)) The section on "comparative method" does not include an actual definition of it. It "classifies" it, it indicates strategies it uses, but does not define it. This shortcoming is also found in important works on comparative methodology, like Peter A. Hall's "Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Research" (2003), which states when the method is "normally applied" or the type of assumtions it requires, but never actually states "the comparative method is" or "is defined as"...[reply]

(68.231.39.196 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Last edited at 06:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 12:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

State collapse[edit]

This is a new and related article about recurrent collapses; eg Nazi Germany, USSR, Apartheid South Africa, Austria Hungary, Imperial Russia, Japan, fascist Italy, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, etc. As the article explains, comparative research in this area is very sparse. Does anyone reading this have a contribution to make to this new article? Many thanks. Crawiki (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link... State collapse Crawiki (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political midlife crisis[edit]

Political midlife crisis , same comments apply as for talk on State collapse above , many thanks Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

add a reliable source[edit]

In the section of major contributors in comparative politics,please add a reliable source to the year when The Republic by Plato was published. ʍʍʍʍ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taqveemwarraich (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3/4ths of the article is a list of "notable works"[edit]

This is not appropriate. The standards for inclusion as one of the "notable works" of comparative politics are also unclear. This would be more appropriate in a specific article on "notable works in comparative politics", but even that would fail wikipedia guidelines in my opinion, as the standards for inclusion seem arbitrary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]