Talk:Power: A New Social Analysis

Power: A New Social Analysis was one of the Philosophy and religion 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
Date	Process	Result
December 20, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
December 30, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Literature / Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Social and political philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Power: A New Social Analysis#Naked|as noted earlier]] The anchor (#Naked) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

GA pass

Passed GA. May want to create articles for redlinks.Rlevse 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional/Revolutionary/Naked Power

From what I can recall there is a cycle:

Traditional power is primarily based on a custom/habit. When this breaks down it may resort to naked power:

'If the traditional creeds are doubted without any alternative, then the traditional authority relies more and more on the use of naked power.'

In this context revolutionary power based on a new creed may emerge culminating in a conflict of naked force.

If/when the revolutionary power succeeds it's creed becomes the basis for a new traditional power, initially provisional but gradually consolidating over time. This continues for as long as it takes for general assent to it's creed to, in turn, decay, and the cycle repeats. Peaceandlonglife (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too long

this article is clearly too long. Russell's work is very minor, his thesis outdated and irrelevant to mainstream thought on social sciences, anywhere except perhaps the anglopocentric world... it is just a 300 irrelevant pages books and you dedicate to it so many pages you might as well print the whole book. It amazes me that masters of the socialist, historic etc. schools with have a major impact in mankind and true history from sombart to spengler, from trotsky to Adorno have far less pages that this irrelevant work. i know wikipedia is mostly a vehicle for anglopocentric cultural domination but the fact this article is on top of its length, boredom and irrelevance highlighted as a master article is just hilarious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.58.20 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015‎

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Power: A New Social Analysis/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.

I am the main author of this article. To my knowledge, the wiki is fully cited, and is at least GA/A class. It is presently an FAC as well, but I won't class it as FA on the assessment scale until/unless it has formally succeeded. WikiBook project folks are welcome to review and comment! { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 03:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Power: A New Social Analysis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this 2007 listing use the deprecated WP:PAREN citation style, which can be fixed pretty easily, but it contains excessive detail (7,000+ words) on "The Content" of the work, and not enough detail on its background, reception, and legacy. Thus, [[WP:GACR|GA criteria 2b) and 3b) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Besides the points being raised so far, the great majority of the article relies exclusively on the book itself as a primary source. This is problematic for a work on philosophy that requires interpretation to make sense of things. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.