Talk:Political machine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This should really not be a U.S.-specific article. Certainly relevant to Brazil, and Mexico's PRI was for years the ultimate political machine. And I'm sure it exists in dozens of other countries. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Internationally, and especially in Latin America, the key word in looking for material on this is "clientelism" (Spanish "clientelismo"). -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
- What do you know, there is an es:clientelismo. Unfortunately, it is a bit vague and general, but there is probably some material worth adding. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Clientelism should have its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.209.92 (talk • contribs) 13 Dec 2005
Contents |
[edit] Kwame Kilpatrick is not even close to having a political machine...
...not yet; why is he even listed in the historical list?
[edit] Modern political machines
I have noticed the term "political machine" being used in a modern context to describe tight-knit party organizations in modern cities and suburbs. For example, Tom Delay is said to have a political machine in Texas. Should the use of the term in this context be discussed on this page? Someone might come to this page having seen the term in a newspaper or heard in on the radio or TV used to describe a present-day political structure. Maybe this should be addressed? Griot 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Griot
- If it can be documented that Delay's machine is largely knitted together via patronage, then perhaps that belongs here. Otherwise, I'd disambiguate and considere it a different use of the term. PACs form an interesting middle ground here and should perhaps be mentioned: they are liable to bind elected officials to the controller of the PAC, but are not liable to bind voters. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Griot, it seems to me that your recent edit tilts this awfully far in favor of machine politics. It may have previously been too biased the other way.
It would be good if someone would seek a happy medium, preferably with cited praise and criticism of machine politics. - Jmabel | Talk 20:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sources
Guys, you can't use spanish wikipedia as a source!--Urthogie 10:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a reliable source, I agree entirely, but it is appropriate to cite one's sources even when they are poor sources. This is exactly how one makes clear what one's sources are. And policy is quite clear that when taking significant quanities of material from a foreign-language Wikipedia, one is supposed to cite it (along with any sources it cites; in this case, it cited none.) -- Jmabel | Talk
[edit] Parma
Why on earth do we have three external links about one race in Parma, Ohio, complete with a link caption telling us what to "notice"? This is not useful on a global scale for someone looking up political machine. In the worldwide scheme of things, Parma is pretty small change. I say move this stuff to the article on Parma, Ohio & make one link to that article from this one. - Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I deleted the Parma stuff but be warned, we have a local fellow who insists that the local newspaper called one minor Parma politician a "boss" and therefore it has to be in the encyclopedia. Please watch for this tool of the bosses. Rjensen
- Naw, keep the Parma stuff. Seems rather relevant to most . . . :) --172.147.9.193 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Parma is a joke--more exactly it is false. There is no evidence of a political machine, in the sense of many people working together over a period of years to control politics. It's just a local journalist's metaphor. Rjensen 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's more than just one journalist. Attend a council meeting and the independents and other politically active citizens will tell you that a machine does indeed exist and it's relevant as a side note to Cleveland in that it's alleged leader (Mason) is the COUNTY prosecutor. And by the standards of many people working together, yes, indeed the elite democrats in Parma have worked together to control the city. Best, --172.132.20.92 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- It has to last 25 years to get included as a machine. Rjensen 02:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Parma's machine has lasted that long . . .--64.12.116.131 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Look, the little town I came from had a (Republican) political machine, too, but who cares? This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 16:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think something could be said about small towns even having political machines to show that the phenomenon permeates all levels of American government, i.e. that national, state, and local governments experiences forms of corruption. If the approach is presented in that fashion, then I think I fair compromise could be reached. So, perhaps a short paragraph noting that "Such smaller communities as Parma, Ohio and Freeport, New York also feature what might be classified as political machines, although these organizations do not have the power and influence of the more larger boss networks listed in this article." Surely, a true encyclopedia would include something to that effect? --24.154.173.243 16:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Offhand, I'm not currently interested in trying to do the research to get citations for Freeport's 1950s-1970s machine politics; I'm on the opposite side of the country (though if I'm back there some time, it might be interesting to research it at the library or historical museum). But, in general, yes, this would be a good way to approach it: mention it as a phenomenon, give perhaps three well-documented examples. In each case, this article should give a few relevant citations as notes, and there should be a link to a Wikipedia article on the particular town, which is where the story should really be told. Probably at least one should come from the Deep South, because small-town machine politics is pretty endemic there. - Jmabel | Talk 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, the basis is laid. Best, --172.148.9.12 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- WTF? I was inviting you to do some citably research, not to put this in there without documenting this. I have no idea if this is true of Freeport today, as you now assert. Are you just extrapolating from my talk page remark and considering that "good enough" for an encyclopedia? - Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Jmabel's word is good enough for me! If this dude says Freeport had a machine, why doubt him? Cheers, (a part Englishman . . .)--172.165.100.144 14:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- WTF? I was inviting you to do some citably research, not to put this in there without documenting this. I have no idea if this is true of Freeport today, as you now assert. Are you just extrapolating from my talk page remark and considering that "good enough" for an encyclopedia? - Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think something could be said about small towns even having political machines to show that the phenomenon permeates all levels of American government, i.e. that national, state, and local governments experiences forms of corruption. If the approach is presented in that fashion, then I think I fair compromise could be reached. So, perhaps a short paragraph noting that "Such smaller communities as Parma, Ohio and Freeport, New York also feature what might be classified as political machines, although these organizations do not have the power and influence of the more larger boss networks listed in this article." Surely, a true encyclopedia would include something to that effect? --24.154.173.243 16:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- It has to last 25 years to get included as a machine. Rjensen 02:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's more than just one journalist. Attend a council meeting and the independents and other politically active citizens will tell you that a machine does indeed exist and it's relevant as a side note to Cleveland in that it's alleged leader (Mason) is the COUNTY prosecutor. And by the standards of many people working together, yes, indeed the elite democrats in Parma have worked together to control the city. Best, --172.132.20.92 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Parma is a joke--more exactly it is false. There is no evidence of a political machine, in the sense of many people working together over a period of years to control politics. It's just a local journalist's metaphor. Rjensen 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Naw, keep the Parma stuff. Seems rather relevant to most . . . :) --172.147.9.193 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the Parma stuff but be warned, we have a local fellow who insists that the local newspaper called one minor Parma politician a "boss" and therefore it has to be in the encyclopedia. Please watch for this tool of the bosses. Rjensen
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Partner, so did Freeport have a machine or not? Was that mere conjecture? Stay safe! --172.169.35.76 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- For the umpteenth time: my talk page remarks are not a citable source on Freeport. I haven't put anything about this in the article precisely because I don't have adequate citation and I am (to say the least) uncomfortable that someone else is putting it in based on nothing but my talk page remark. - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- As long as it says "possibly" Freeport, I think it's valid. Everyone from Parma at least knows about the machine their, which they usually call the Good Old Boys. If you go to a council meeting, Martin Drabek, a political activist mentioned Sun News and Plain Dealer articles from time to time, and his wife amongst others love to spill the beans on this network. Deb Lime focused part of her failed mayoral campaign as being against Mason's machine and his Germana-DePiero puppets. There was also some incident involving former councilman Stover called Filegate that added to Parma's political scandals, although this matter would probably be better used on the actual Parma page. Keep it smooth!--140.254.69.123 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC
- For the umpteenth time: my talk page remarks are not a citable source on Freeport. I haven't put anything about this in the article precisely because I don't have adequate citation and I am (to say the least) uncomfortable that someone else is putting it in based on nothing but my talk page remark. - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (left)It's still unsourced. If it receives no source in a reasonable time, I will remove it, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Septentrionalis 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Various articles do support the possible existence of a machine in Parma, as found on Wikipedia's article for Parma. If Freeport is the only matter suspect, why delete the whole paragraph? Plus, someone other than the supporters of the inclusion of Parma's machine contributed the part of the paragraph about machines in the American South? I can understand removing what is not verifiable, but it just doesn't feel right to delete everything in a paragraph when other parts of the paragraph do make sense and have been contributed by more than just one individual. Regards, --172.145.222.96 20:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I wholeheartedly agree. Why detract the whole statement when only part is inaccurate? You don't kill a man if he's got a bad hand, n'est-ce pas? Anyway, smooth it shall be, can we at least agree at that much?--140.254.69.123 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] "Irresponsible"
This is the most irresponsible article I have ever found on wikipedia. Please post some sources for this machine theory. There are hundreds of books written on clientelism, several of which sit on my shelf, and none of them mention any nonsense about a "political machine." I have been a student of political science, studying clientelistic relationships, for many years, and I have never heard the concept "political machine" linked to the peer-reviewed scholarly work out there on clientelism. Admittedly, I haven't read everything on the topic, so if someone could just please post a few sources on this concept, I will gladly go out and read them and if necessary reconcile my present doubts. I will also look into the matter on my own. Otherwise, I am going to have to insist on the creation of a separate page for clientelism, and I will do it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.48.235 (talk • contribs) 24 September 2006.
- I believe that at one time these were two separate articles and were merged. At the time, no one raised any objections. I don't really see what the distinction between the two would be, but if you have material to bring forward to indicate a distinction, I would welcome it. If, however, the only distinction is that writers about Latin America tend to call it "clientelism" and writers about the U.S. and Canada tend to call it a "political machine", then that strikes me as a distinction without a difference. - Jmabel | Talk 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sloppy article
While some of this is quite accurate, the article is way under-cited (e.g. who says the Irish uniquely benefitted and other immigrant groups did not?), and many of the things that do have citation are sloppily cited (e.g. books mentioned, but no page numbers for the relevant passages). Also, some of it is so poorly worded I can't make out what it means to say: I cannot decipher "this view often coincided with a lack of period alternatives."
This could be greatly improved by someone willing to put some time into it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Political Machine (game)
Why isn't an option to the Political Machine (game) here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.184.19 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Clinton Machine
What about the political machine of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton? You often hear them talk of the Clinton Machine; I'm sure it deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.116.3 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'll do some research and see what I can put together. -- False Prophet (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fighting Bob
I have an issue with Robert M. La Follette, Sr. being on this list. If you have done any research on him, you will learn that he fought the political machine, and was an enemy of Boss politics. If no one can provide a rationale reason as to why he belongs here, I'll remove him Thursday (UTC). -- False Prophet (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
