Talk:Coalition

Untitled

How do we link Coalition to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organizations ??

see the SchoolForge stub —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quinobi (talk • contribs) 23:48, September 18, 2004 (UTC)

Alliance

What's the difference in general, if any, between "coalition" and "alliance"? A wiki search on the two gives fundamentally different results. 195.24.29.51 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) coalition is also the name of a punk rock band. who have been together now for about a month (they rock it) Will someone ad to this? (anonomus)

Well an alliance is any general agreement between two actors/organisations/parties, in politics a coalition is specific and refers to the sharing of power between two parties. For instance two political parties might come to an "alliance" where they agree to support each other's proposals in parliament, but a coalition would be the two parties joining together to create a government.

Annoyingly the two terms sometimes get used to distinguish between groups. For example the news feed for the current Japanese general election calls the governing parties "the Coalition" and the opposition ones "the Alliance". I believe there was a coalition in one of the Australian states that was called "the Alliance", to distinguish it from the regular "Coalition". Timrollpickering (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we mention that an an alliance is synonymous with coalition, and put a list of synonymous after the definition with each word linking to their respective page. By moving alliance over to the synonyms we acknowledge the two words similarities but do not deter from the origin purpose of the page, which is to define the term "Coalition" not the term "alliance". Farilo (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Farilo

The current arrangement between the National and Liberal parties in Western Australia is that of an alliance not a coalition. I believe that this is matter perception that is given that these two parties are simply working together under the current circumstances and that they are not one political force which a coalition would greatly imply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.72.79 (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Zoology

A coalition is also the collective noun for a group of cheetahs. I don't know if it is used for any other animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ennisj (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

While this is an interesting fact I do not think that "zoology" needs it's own subhead. I think we can include that a group of cheetahs is called a coalition under the "types of coalition" subhead.

Farilo (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)farilo

I think that's a good point. The zoology aspect is interesting but, in my opinion, takes away from the term. There is a wiki page about cheetahs and the definition of the collective noun is defined there. I suggest we connect the Cheetah page to the coalition via either the "See Also" or under a new subhead "Types of Coalitions".Mujju2288 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

UK Coalition Example

Is the example of the current coalition in the UK necessary? Such coalitions happen all the time in European politics and the addition of a very recent example makes it sound otherwise. Rucha58 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

While i think the different types of coalitions are important, i dont think its necessary to have to address any single example thoroughly. I believe those importance can be derived from their own wiki page if there is one that is already made. If there are any, we can simply direct a link to go to that page. This way we wont have other details clouding the essence of the term.

Mujju2288 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

Dr. Weikard's comment on this article

Dr. Weikard has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Starts well, but subsections are not well elaborated. In the "economics" section the definition is too narrow. For example a Union is a coalition of workers. More generally, economics' concept of coalitions is closely linked to game theoretic notions to be discussed in the "mathematics section"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Weikard has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Hans-Peter Weikard & Leo Wangler & Andreas Freytag, 2009. "Minimum Participation Rules with Heterogeneous Countries," Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-077, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Farilo, Youngsvnnhrs, Dillon r, Mujju2288.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Coalition in Social sciences, Coalition in Mathematics, & Coalition in Computer science

I believe that these three sections don't contribute to the overall understanding of coalition. I found that "List of countries with coalition governments" fit better as its wikipedia page and I believe these "coalitions" would be better on their own as well. I think it would be beneficial to keep each with a small paragraph but the amount of information on the coalition Wikipedia currently is not necessary. I propose that this article should be split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngsvnnhrs (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Youngsvnnhrs (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Youngsvnnhrs

I agree. I think the layout of this Wiki page would flow better if we removed the subtitles "Coalition in social science/mathematics/computer science. Instead I think these subheads should be included into the "See Also" section, where it can still be accessed through the Coalition page.Mujju2288 (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

For the section that reads "Economics Economic agents can form coalitions. [9]Unions can be seen as coalitions of workers (usually of the same industrial sector). The cooperation of firms on particular tasks (for example Research and Development (R&D)) has been studied by Beath et al.,[10] for example. When the agents considered are countries, the formation of an international treaty (e.g. trade agreements, or international environmental agreements) can be seen as a coalition. In economics coalition formation and stability is mostly studied with tools from game theory." I propose that we change the wording slightly so that it is more readable. "Manny coalitions are formed with an Economic goal in mind and thus economic agents can form coalitions. [9] A union is an example of an economic coalition. Unions can be seen as coalitions of workers (usually of the same industrial sector). When the agents considered are countries, the formation of an international treaty (e.g. trade agreements, or international environmental agreements) can be seen as a coalition. In economics coalition formation and stability is mostly studied with tools from game theory." Making these changes omits non relevant detail that was mentioned previously and further elaborates points the original poster touched upon to better the readers understanding how an Economic Coalition. Farilo (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Farilo

For the sub section titled "International relations" I prose that we change the formatting as it is not relevant to the general understanding of the topic to go into detail about the "characteristics, and behavioral dynamics of international relations in general. By reorganizing the information I believe I can make a more succinct paragraph to demonstrate coalitions in international relation. A large portion of this section is also taken from another website and by reorganizing and re writing this section we can also avoid plagiarizing. Farilo (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)farilo

So I'm not too sure what the 'math' section is talking about, nor are there any sources that can prove what a coalition has to do with games. In mathematics the term coalition is linked to an exponential population growth equation which is derived using the Coalition Model for World Population Growth. These differentiation and integration techniques were first published by mathematician, Pierre François Verhulst in 1838.Mujju2288 (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

Theories for motivation

The current description under this sub-head is besides the point of what a coalition is. Theorists about coalition formation talk about the formation/maintenance/and break as the overall topic. I believe we should change this section to talk about things more along the lines of that. I think this biology aspect should be pushed to another section.Mujju2288 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

Definition

The current definition is difficult to understand because it needs to be more direct. I propose that we edit the definition at the start of the page to say: The term "Coalition" is the denotation for a group formed when two or more persons, faction, states, political parties, militaries ect.. agree to work together temporarily in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word Coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal. r,.

I also propose that we add Synonyms to this section. The synonyms I would like to include are; alliance, union, partnership, bloc, caucus; federation, league, association, confederation, consortium, syndicate, combine; amalgamation, merger. We can link them to their respective wiki page. Farilo (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)farilo By linking the synonyms we can aid people in understanding the term because it will provide people with a broader understanding because they can compare the words.

I like your definition. It's detailed and gives a better understanding of what the term means. We should update that definition.

Mujju2288 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

References

Formation

This section seems to have its content correct. its just lacking citations. Im going to look up as much as i can to validate the information presented is correct. If i cant find a proven source I'll get rid of it.Mujju2288 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

See Also

I think it would be beneficial to remove some of the sources in the see also section. Links like: List of political parties in Israel, Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Harapan do not add to the readers understanding and comprehension of the term coalition. This is an important edit because these sources could distract the reader away from the main point of the Wikipedia page.

Youngsvnnhrs (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Youngsvnnhrs

Power in Coalition

I think that Power in Coalition should be removed from the references because it is not linked to anything on the page and the link does not work when you click on it. It could be beneficial in the See Also if the link was functional.

Youngsvnnhrs (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Youngsvnnhrs

I think it is important to include a section on Black Power in Coalitions. In order to understand this, we must first examine some of the Myths of Coalition: 1) the notion that "what is good for America is good for the black people", 2)the assumption that a viable coalition can be effected between the politically and economically secure and the politically and economically insecure and 3)political coalitions are or can be sustained on a moral, friendly, sentimental basis, by appeals to conscience.

1)What's good for America is good for the black people White liberals cannot escape their overpowering influence on meaningful coalitions. Coalitions were important and necessary to challenge anglo-conformity and other prevailing norms. This notion readily accepts the American system and makes only peripheral, marginal reforms. The reforms are not adequate to rid society of racism. There is a rampant sense of superiority of white Americans.

2) A viable coalition can be effected between the politically and economically secure and insecure Organized labor is a great example of this. Their potential ally doesn't question the society's basic values and institutions.

3) political coalitions are or can be sustained on a moral, friendly, sentimental basis, by appeals to conscience. The goals in interest of black people first, reformers call this "racist" and therefore drop out of the coalition. All coalition groups want similar outcomes. The main issue in this type of coalition is serving self-interest vs. doing "the right thing". It is important to advocate for independence within a coalition because it is best to have an organization coming from within the coalition.

Teeny89 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Teeny89

References

External links

Is this revenant to the page? Canada is not mentioned anywhere else on the Coalition page, and when you click the link, the website isn't specific to coalition it's just a bunch of articles about Canada.

Youngsvnnhrs (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Youngsvnnhrs

Coalition in Social Sciences

I think this section needs some cleaning up, deleting and additional information. Farilo and I will work on this section. There seems to be a lot of plagiarism in this section that came from Habitat International Coalition - Housing and Land Rights Network With additional information this section could remain on the page but right now there is too much of other peoples work on here for it to be a credible on its own.

Youngsvnnhrs (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Youngsvnnhrs

I think it would be a good idea to take out the subhead Coalition in Social Sciences and put everything under History. The subject of this page is not social science it is just coalition. If everything is placed under history then the information will be revenant to the topic and the page will flow better.

Youngsvnnhrs (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Youngsvnnhrs

I agree @Youngsvnnhrs, by moving these subheads under the section "history" it is more relevant. Farilo (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)farilo

Removing Flagging

credible citations have been added and irrelevant information has been removed. Flow of the wiki page seems to work much better than how it previously sat. I suggest we take the flag off of the page.Mujju2288 (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

Merge

Very similar pages Political group, Coalition, Political alliance. Not to be confused with Coalition government, Parliamentary group. HudecEmil (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously only merge with the Government and politics section of this page, not the other use cases. HudecEmil (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Temporarily is not necessarily the right description

"A coalition is formed when two or more people or groups temporarily work together to achieve a common goal. The term is most frequently used to denote a formation of power in political or economical spaces"

I live in Australia and I am not sure temporarily is the right word for the description because the Coalition here has lasted for a very long time and therefore it is hardly temporarily. Perhaps removing the word temporarily from the description. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)