Talk:Separation of powers

Splitting off 'branches of government': The solution to finally advancing past 'start class'?

Here's a thought. Why not move large parts of this article – the ones dedicated mostly to describing the structure of individual governments – to a separate article by the name "branches of government" (or something similar).

The way things are now, the principle and theory of separated powers is overwhelmed by the detailed and lengthy accounts of each country's arms of government, which I feel misses the point. I would consider "separation of powers" primarily a political philosophy, constitutional studies, and constitutional law concept, whereas the branches of government parts seem more like their own thing, mostly in the remit of descriptive political science (specifically, comparative government).
Readers might have an easier time finding what they are looking for if we distinguish these differing focuses. There's clearly a lot of interest in institutions and branches of government as a topic in itself, so it's probably worth its own article.

I think this split would also help better maintain WP:NPOV in the separation of powers article. Another pragmatic editorial reason to have two distinct articles is that they probably call for two somehwat different types of editor/expert: the more conceptually inclined and systematic ones for the separation of powers principle, and the more taxonomically inclined and particularist ones for the listing of different institutional structures of individual governments.

I'm at the beginning stages of this idea, so I'm happy to brainstorm reasons for and against. So, my fellow editors, what say you?
—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Pecopteris (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Support this. All that would have to be done would be to create a new article would be to split off the "In different countries" section. I've deleted some of the original research from that but not all of it: especially the United Kingdom section, 4 10-sentence paragraphs long and entirely unsourced. It might be difficult to pass the notability guideline: there are a few good sources in there (at least 2 by my count), but they're not all directly about separation of powers, even if they talk about it. However, it could be justified by it just being a page split, and sources obviously existing. Think it can be done. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You should probably just do it, this talk page is probably not going to get much traffic. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Created Draft:Branches of government, and cleaned up the formatting a bit. It still needs a lead, and I'm not sure how it would do with new page review, so I'm not going to move it to mainspace, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

---

I'm pleased to have received positive feedback from the both of you, and no objections. I told myself I'd observe the talk page for one month, and then perform the split – provided there were no substantiated objections to negate the presumption of WP:Consensus, naturally. The discussion seems to have come to a close organically after not quite a month. I guess now the 'branches of government' article exists, with the worthwhile sections from the second heading serving as a basis for the draft, the next step is the big one: deleting the entire second heading? So that, in effect, it will have been draftified?

Thank you also for doing a lot of necessary cleanup, Mrfoogles. I've come to realize that the explanation for the article's low quality may lie just as much in its approach – just listing a bunch of instances of the thing, rather than providing analysis and summary (for a description of this phenomenon, see essay WP:CARGO) – as it lies in off-topic material; but I balk at making sweeping deletions. The lack of sourcing for large parts is another good reason to remove them, however.

Funnily enough, even though, as you say, this talk page doesn't get much traffic, it garnered two responses within a few weeks; whereas my invitations to participate here, which I extended to WikiProject Philosophy, to WikiProject Politics and to WikiProject Law – each having ostensibly far busier talk pages – seem to have gone unacknowledged entirely.

—§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 21:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am late to this party but I also support this idea. Novellasyes (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

citing checks and balances

this is an often made claim and there is obviously truth value to it, but i cant seem to find any good source. any ideas? 216.164.249.213 (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Which claim do you mean, in particular?
I'm also a bit dubious whether 'truth value' is such a simple matter here – the relation between the principle of differentiating and separating powers and the idea of letting one power check and balance another is rather unclear and glossed over in much of the literature. —§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 20:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)