This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
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)reply
Still, a lot of names here that ought to remain on the new and merged article. --
Thorsen 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
There is no counterargument in my suggestion. It seems that chronological organization is better.
Y-S.Ko (
talk) 01:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
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)reply
Still, a lot of names here that ought to remain on the new and merged article. --
Thorsen 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
There is no counterargument in my suggestion. It seems that chronological organization is better.
Y-S.Ko (
talk) 01:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply