Talk:List of political theorists

Untitled

As this list is almost entirely redundant with and doesn't see nearly the amount of editing activity or discussion as List of political philosophers, I've changed this article into a redirect. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, a lot of names here that ought to remain on the new and merged article. --Thorsen 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This list: arbitrary traditions

This list has a problem. Orgnization of names into traditions" can be too arbitary and inconsistent. I suggested chronological orgnization. Chronological orgnization is less arbirary.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no counterargument in my suggestion. It seems that chronological organization is better. Y-S.Ko (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

There are powerful counter-arguments:

• A chronological list is arbitrary in the sense that it is meaningless. Nobody cares that, say, Proudhon was born in 1809. But people care that he is an anarchist—”the father of anarchism,” even, as the antonomasia states.
• Furthermore, the typical work on political philosophy follows this structure, mapping the exponents of distinct ideological traditions.
• Also—people seem to appreciate this format. You are the only person who has complained about it.

Trakking (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trakking:

• Many lists of people are alphabetical or chronological. See?:
  • Alphabetical: List of physicists, List of chemists, List of geographers, List of philosophers of language, List of critical theorists, List of logicians, List of economists, ...
  • Chronological: List of Epicurean philosophers, List of aestheticians, List of rationalists, List of Austrian School economists, ... There are some lists sorted by other criteria. But calling alphabetical or chronological criteria "meaningless" is ... too value-based and subjective. Alphabetical or chronological organization is much closer to standard of wikipedia.
• I would say the typical work of list, including work on politics, follows alphabetical or chronological structure.: List of political slogans, List of social and political philosophers, Template:Social and political philosophy ...
• Also, why is whole structure change in 9 March 2021‎, not mentioned in talk page? I can say my suggestion meets no disagreement in one month. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I said organization of names into traditions can be too arbitrary and inconsistent. I suggested one example. 'Social liberal' list contains John Stuart Mill. but 'classical liberal' list does not. But, I can find many references which describe him as a classical liberal. For example, someone wrote "Mill established the character of English liberalism and in so doing established himself as England’s greatest classical liberal." These examples show organization into traditions has problems. I already showed alphabetical or chronological organization is much closer to standard of Wikipedia. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)