Talk:List of political philosophers

Wittgenstein

I confess myself mystified about Wittgenstein's inclusion here. While he is an eminent philosopher, and though he was known to be generally sympathetic to the political left, I don't know of his ever having written anything that could reasonably be called political philosophy. — Dan | talk 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion redux

I notice that two years after the discussion here suggested that "people who are principally philosophers" is not a good description of the article's content, neither the description nor who is included has significantly changed. Three different editors seemed to agree that it should be changed to something about people who have made significant written contributions to political philosophy. But nothing is changed. Even worse, the list itself contains a section of "people whose inclusion in the above list is being discussed", when in fact there has been no such discussion going on for years!

I would recommend two things be done:

1. The inclusion criteria should be reworded to more accurately reflect the content. If you want William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson and Friedrich Hayek on the list, you can't plausibly say it is only for those who are "principally philosophers" (emphasized, no less), unless you've got some idiosyncratic explanation of what it means to be "principally" a philosopher. If changing the wording means that Sun Yat-sen or Ayn Rand have to be taken into the main body of the list, so be it.
2. The "Others" section is a non-encyclopedic intrusion of talk page issues into the article body. The entries in this section should either be incorporated into regular sections, or removed from the article entirely.

Feedback is welcome; otherwise I will be bold and start making changes. --RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the list should not be for those who are "principally philosophers" since few (if any) of the other philosophical list pages have such a strong restriction. --Polsky215 (talk) 3 May 2019

The names should be alphabetized (in each time period)

This would be consistent with other philosophers lists. byelf2007 | talk

No they should not. I like it as it is for it's practical value. If anything, make it a list sortable by date of birth, date of death and alphabetical order. That would add to its usefullness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.93.185 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the chronological listing of names is far more meaningful than an alphabetical one. Polsky215 | talk

"To be a philosopher, one must work to attain a coherent view of the theories that the various disciplines accept."

Jesus Christ did this, and so did Tupac Shakur as he is known as a social/political activist, also with http://www.amazon.com/The-White-Book-Makavelli/dp/0595424988. So I suggest both of them be mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.163.53 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ & Tupac Shakur

I have again reverted the addition of Jesus Christ to this page. Things to note;

• The WP:BRD guideline suggest that if something you have added is reverted, you take it to discussion. You don't repeatedly keep adding it back in until others get fed up. This is disruptive editing.
• If something added is to be discussed, it stays out until consensus is reached to include it. It doesn't work that it stays in until it is agreement is reached to remove it.
• The onus for establishing consensus is on the editor wishing to add the disputed content, not anyone else.
• This article clearly states at the top "Note, however, that the list is for people who are principally philosophers.". If you are going to argue that Jesus Christ was principally a philosopher, then please go ahead. If you are equally going to argue that Tupac Shakur was principally a philosopher, then you really do have a task ahead of you.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent standards for relevance (May 8, 2019)

The 2006 post on standards (May 8, 2019)

The last post recommending standards for inclusion was from 2006, and it has not received a reply. The standard proposed in 2006 was that authors born after 1900 have 25 citations on Philosophers Index in political philosophy journals, and that authors before 1900 be frequently mentioned as political philosophers.

First, this standard has not been accepted or applied to the page. For instance, authors such as Murray Rothbard and Sayyid Qutb, who have less than 25 citations on Philosophers Index for the subject "political philosophy" (22 citations and 3 citations, respectively), are still included among the list of political philosophers born after 1900. Moreover, authors who far exceed the standard, such as Jacques Maritain (54 citations), are deleted without explanation.

Secondly, the standard proposed in 2006 is problematic for two reasons. First, it fails to give clear criteria for relevance among philosophers born before 1900. Secondly, if it were applied (which it hasn't been), it would bias the list towards philosophers discussed in academia at times at the cost of philosophers discussed more in the general public. Usually, the impact of a philosopher on the general public and on academia will be proportional, but there are important instances in which a philosopher has a disproportionate effect on one or the other. Thus, rather than looking exclusively at Philosophers Index, it would be better to balance statistics from some academic search engine (e.g., Philosophers Index, Google Scholar) with a non-academic one (e.g., Google).

Although, as the section below shows, the Catholic political philosophers recently deleted do meet the statistical popularity obtained by authors who have not been deleted, I think it is important to look at more than statistical popularity. An earlier talk section on this page discussed the addition of Indian and Muslim political philosophers specifically in order to represent an area of political philosophy outside of the mainstream Euro-American tradition that occupies the bulk of this page. Similarly, this page fails to adequately represent the leading Catholic political philosophers of the last two centuries. Thus, I think these authors should be included even if some of them fall below desired statistical popularity standards for inclusion. In any case, I have shown that the Catholic political philosophers that were recently deleted do exceed (and often far exceed) the statistical popularity standards set by the political philosophers currently included on this page.

Polsky215 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Evidence of inconsistent standards on page (May 8, 2019)

The following political philosophers were recently deleted without warrant despite the fact that, on the talk page (see section below), a lengthy justification was given for their inclusion.

• Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)
• Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903)
• Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)
• G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)
• Jacques Maritain (1882-1973)
• Yves Simon (1903-1961)
• Charles De Koninck (1906-1965)
• Pope John Paul II (1920-2005)

If we compare Google scholar and Google search results for the authors currently included on this page with the results for those recently deleted, it is clear that inconsistent standards are being applied.

To show this, I have looked at three criteria:

• Google search: "Author name" "political" philosophy
• Google Scholar search: "Author name" "political" philosophy
• Google Scholar search: "Author name"

These three criteria capture (1) popular political impact of philosopher, (2) academic impact of philosopher within political philosophy, and (3) general academic impact of philosopher.

Here are the list of results for the philosophers who were recently deleted.

• Robert Bellarmine (4,720; 1,940; 48,100)
• Leo XIII (592,000; 19,000; 167,000)
• Hilaire Belloc (11,500; 5,820; 142,000)
• G.K. Chesterton (33,500; 17,000; 589,000)
• Jacques Maritain (33,300; 17,500; 178,000)
• Yves Simon (3,040; 1,260; 11,900)
• Charles De Koninck (2,030; 523; 10,700)
• John Paul II (101,000; 41,500; 2,080,000)

Now let us look at a comparison to a few authors who have not been deleted, but who are included on the list. This is obviously not a complete list of those mentioned on the main page, but I have tried to pull a few examples of extremely popular political philosophers (e.g., Thomas Hobbes) and, more importantly, political philosophers who show that inconsistent standards were applied when the eight authors above were deleted. This list does not exhaustively represent all of the authors included on the main page who go below the standard of popularity reflected in the political philosophers authors recently deleted.

• Mozi 13,000 4,250 96,600
• Hammurabi 52,400 13,700 404,000
• Mencius 38,000 23,100 221,000
• Chanakya 9,360 2,710 246,000
• Aeschines 16,100 6,980 56,400
• Thiruvalluvar 3,280 373 74,800
• Han Feizi 3,020 2,080 27,800
• Pliny the Younger 14,400 7,770 167,000
• Muhammad al-Shaybani 322 213 9,750
• Al-Mawardi 8,470 2,620 21,700
• Ibn Taymiyyah 6,160 3,290 49,800
• Richard Hooker 14,400 9,420 108,000
• Ibn Khaldun 31,700 18,400 154,000
• Christine de Pizan 16,300 6,500 82,000
• Thomas Muntzer 12,600 3,150 26,200
• Thomas Hobbes 146,000 81,300 996,000

BORN AFTER 1900

• Theodor Adorno 102,000 37,000 296,000
• Cornelius Castoriadis 20,600 6,600 74,600
• Murray Rothbard 7,640 5,040 161,000
• Judith Shklar 7,980 6,730 33,000
• Fazlur Rahman Malik 48 40 7,630
• Sayyid Qutb 17,700 11,200 161,000
• Michael Oakeshott 16,300 13,100 129,000
• Guy Debord 31,700 15,900 170,000
• Rae Langton 2,080 1,150 13,500
• Douglas Rae 2,250 1,100 6,590
• Lorenzo Peña 1,420 327 3,450

Given these results, it is wildly inconsistent not to include (minimally) Leo XIII, G.K. Chesterton, Jacques Maritain, and John Paul II. All four of these authors regularly beat philosophers currently included in all three criteria.

Likewise, Hilaire Belloc, who comes in lower than the other four authors, beats Mozi, Chanakya, Thiruvalluvar, Han Feizi, Muhammad al-Shaybani, Al-Mawardi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Thomas Muntzer, Murray Rothbard, Rae Helen Langton, Lorenzo Peña, Douglas Rae, and Fazlur Rahman for impact on academic political philosophy. He also beats all of them (except Thomas Muntzer and Mozi) for impact on academia in general.

Robert Bellarmine and Yves Simon are obviously quite a bit less discussed on Google/Google Scholar than Leo XIII, G.K. Chesterton, Jacques Maritain, and John Paul II as well as Hilair Belloc. Nevertheless, even these two authors beat many other political philosophers who are included. Both authors beat Rae Langton, Lorenzo Peña, Douglas Rae, Fazlur Rahman, Thiruvalluvar, and Muhammad al-Shaybani in every category (except regular Google searches for Thiruvalluvar and Rae Langton). For regular Google searches, Robert Bellarmine also beats Thomas Muntzer and Han Feizi, besides those just mentioned. Even Charles De Koninck, who is the least cited author in the list of authors recently deleted, beats Fazlur Rahman and Muhammad al-Shaybani in every category. He also beats Thiruvalluvar and Lorenzo Peña in the second category—which tracks an author's influence on academic political philosophy.

Polsky215 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Original post on deletion of Thomistic philosophers (April 2019)

Several very prominent Thomistic political philosophers were recently deleted without justification.

This article is not titled analytic political philosophers, but political philosophers. As such, the article should represent more than just analytic philosophers or those prominent in the analytic history of philosophy. Of course, obscure political philosophers should be deleted. Yet, this article should represent the prominent political philosophers from the major schools of philosophy through history.

Yet, the Thomistic political philosophers who were recently deleted are not at all obscure.

• Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
• Pope Leo XIII
• Jacques Maritain
• Yves Simon
• Charles De Koninck
• Pope John Paul II

Cardinal Bellarmine is the most prominent political philosopher of the 16th century, period. He also had a major influence on later American political philosophy. (See, e.g., Hunt, Gaillard. Catholic Historical Review; Washington Vol. 3, (Jan 1, 1917): 276).

Pope Leo XIII is the founder of the modern-day Thomistic school of philosophy. He had a major influence before and after becoming Pope on the Gregorianum, the most important university in Italy. He played a central role in turning a university that was once almost exclusively Cartesian into a center for Thomistic philosophy. (See, e.g., Boyle, Leonard, "A Remembrance of Pope Leo XIII: The Encyclical Aeterni Patris," in A Hundred Years of Thomism, ed. Brezik, (Houston, TX: Center for Thomistic Studies, 1981), 7-22).

Jacques Maritain is one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century, even outside of Thomistic philosophy. Maritain helped to write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after WWII, and his book Integral Humanism was partially responsible for the creation of Liberation Theology, which was a major 20th century Marxist political movement in South America. He also is regarded as one of the fathers of Catholic Personalism, which is the most prominent school of Catholic political thought today. He was a direct influence on Pope John Paul II. This information is all widely available. For some discussion of his influence, see, for instance: Ralph McInerny's book "The Very Rich Hours of Jacques Maritain," (University of Notre Dame Press, 2011); or Gerald McCool's "From Unity to Pluralism," (Fordham University Press, 1999).

Yves Simon is Jacques Maritain's leading defender in his debate with Charles De Koninck. Charles De Koninck was the most well-known critic of Catholic Personalism in the 20th century. He is also quite influential in his own right, being the leading member of the Laval School of Thomism. He directed Ralph McInerny's disertation, and many of his students went on to found Thomas Aquinas College in California.

Pope John Paul II should similarly need no explicit justification for inclusion in this list. After Jacques Maritain, he is the most important Personalist of the 20th century. As his own Wikipedia page states, "John Paul II has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down Communism in Central and Eastern Europe." His book, The Acting Person, was published in the prestigious Analecta Husserliana the year he was elected pope, prior to becoming pope. This makes him not just famous for being pope, but one of the most important phenomenologists of the 20th century in his own right. [[user:Polsky215|Polsky215]

It is also worth noting that although many of these authors are not only philosophers, but also theologians, there prominence in political thought is not due to their work qua theologian, but to their work qua philosopher. If this article excludes anyone who has a religious title, such as a pope or cardinal, then it should also exclude nearly every philosopher from the middle ages and renaissance because almost all of them were in religious orders or religious offices. Clearly, such an exclusion would be a mistake. If an author's work is well-known due to its arguments from reason and experience rather than merely because of exegetical arguments appealing to scripture or Church teaching, then that person warrants inclusion on a list of political philosophers. Polsky215 | talk

Did the deleted authors more than mention political philosophy? (May 8, 2019)

To respond to all the comments above. The fact that a philosopher of religion or theologian mentions political philosophy or talks about their inclusion is not enough really. The various Liberation Theologians writing in the 60s and 70s are better qualified (but not sufficiently so). Being notable as a philosopher is not enough either. This seems to be an attempt to do several mass insertions of Catholic names. Please also respect WP:BRD, you were reverted you need consensus to insert. We need some support here - for example Bellarmine is best known for his much misunderstood letter about Galileo. He was certainly political in much of what he did but I don't see a focus on political philosophy. So can we have some citations which state these names do political philosophy please. Your arguments sound like original research -----Snowded ^TALK 21:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You say this is a reply to "all the comments above", but you have only responded to the last paragraph. I have taken a considerable amount of time to show the statistical impact of these deleted authors on academic political philosophy as well as general political thought. I would appreciate if you read that analysis before deleting obvious additions to a list of political philosophers.

You have also misunderstood the argument of that paragraph. I was not claiming that these authors "mention" political philosophy. I agree that that is an insufficient standard. Some of these authors only wrote political philosophy within theological works, but the arguments concerning political matters were (a) philosophical in character (i.e., they did not appeal to scripture or faith, but reason and experience) and (b) extensive (i.e., not brief mentions, but whole treatises).

If your worry is that these authors did not write any books on political philosophy but only impacted it in a peripheral way, a simple Google search would show that this is a mistake. Here is a (by no means exhaustive list) of political writings of the various authors above.

Bellarmine

• De Officio Principis Christiani
• Controversiarum de Sumo Pontifice. Liber Primus qui est de Romani Pantificis Eclesiástica Monarchia
• De Potestate Summi Pontificis
• Controversiae de Ecclesia militante
• Bellarmine's "Opera Omnia" is available online in Latin, and some of his political writings have been translated "here" and "here".

Leo XIII

• On the Evils of Society
• On the origins of civil power
• On the Christian constitution of states
• On the nature of human liberty
• On the right ordering of Christian life
• On Christians as citizens
• On the rights and duties of capital and labor
• On Americanism
• On Christian Democracy
• Many of Leo XIII's political writings can be found in "this collection".

Hilaire Belloc

• "The Free Press"
• "The Servile State," Everyman, Vol. I, No. 7, 29 November 1912.
• "The Liberal Tradition." In Essays in Liberalism, Cassell & Company, 1897.
• "'Democracy and Liberty' Reviewed," The Catholic World, Vol. LXVI, October 1897/March 1898.
• "The Cambridge History of the French Revolution," The Bookman, Vol. XXVI, No. 156, September 1904.
• "The Protectionist Movement in England," The International Quarterly, Vol. X, October 1904/January 1905.
• "Contemporary France," The Bookman, Vol. XXIX, No. 173, February 1906.
• "Limits of Direct Taxation," The Contemporary Review, Vol. XCIII, February 1908.
• "The Inflation of Assessment," The Dublin Review, Vol. CXLII, No. 284-285, January/April 1908.
• "The Taxation of Rent," The Dublin Review, Vol. CXLV, No. 290-291, July/October 1909.
• "Lord Acton on the French Revolution," The Nineteenth Century and After, Vol. LXIX, January/June 1911.
• "The Economics of ‘Cheap’," The Dublin Review, Vol. CXLVIII, No. 296-297, January/April 1911.
• "The Catholic Conscience of History," The Catholic World, Vol. XCII, October 1910/March 1911.
• "The Beginnings of the Nations," The Catholic World, Vol. XCII, October 1910/March 1911.
• "Professor Bury’s History of Freedom of Thought," The Dublin Review, Vol. CLIV, No. 308-309, January/April 1914.
• "The Church and French Democracy," Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, The Catholic World, Vol. XCVIII, October 1913/March 1914; Part VI, Vol. XCIX, April/September 1914.
• "The Economics of War," The Dublin Review, Vol. CLVI, No. 312-313, January/April 1915.
• "Certain Social Tendencies of the War," The New Age, Vol. XIX, No. 8, 1916, pp. 174–175.
• "The Re-creation of Property," The New Age, Vol. XX, No. 6, 1916, pp. 125–127.
• "The Present Position and Power of the Press," The New Age, Vol. XX, No. 7, 1916, pp. 150–151.

Chesterton

• "What's Wrong with the World"
• "Utopia of Usurers"
• "Why I am Not a Socialist," The New Age, Vol. II, No. 10, 4 January 1908.
• "Objections to Socialism," The Forum, Vol. XLI, 1909.
• "The Modern Surrender of Women," The Dublin Review, Vol. CXLV, No. 290-291, July/October 1909.
• "What is Toleration?," The Dublin Review, Vol. CXLVII, No. 294-295, July/October 1910.
• "What is a Conservative?," The Dublin Review, Vol. CL, No. 300-301, January/April 1912.
• "The Chance of the Peasant," Everyman, Vol. I, No. 1, 18 October 1912.
• "The Collapse of Socialism," Everyman, Vol. I, No. 6, 22 November 1912.
• "Slavery and the American Store," The Century Magazine, November 1913.
• "The English Blunder about Russia." In: Winifred Stephens, ed., The Soul of Russia, Macmillan & Co., 1916.
• "Germany and Alsace-Lorraine: How to Help Annexation," The North American Review, Vol. 207, No. 748, Mar. 1918.
• "The Real Secret Diplomacy," The North American Review, Vol. 207, No. 749, Apr. 1918.
• "Sex and Property," The American Review, January 1934.
• "Euthanasia and Murder," The American Review, Vol. VIII, No. 4, February 1937.

Jacques Maritain

• "Christianity and Democracy"
• "The Rights of Man and Natural Law"
• "The Person and the Common Good"
• Integral Humanism

Yves Simon

• "A General Theory of Authority"
• "Philosophy of Democratic Government"
• The Tradition of Natural Law: A Philosopher's Reflections
• Freedom and Community
• Work, Society, and Culture

Charles De Koninck

• De la primaute du bien commun contre les personnalistes, dans Semaine religieuse de Quebec, vol. 55, 1942, pp. 179-186, 200-206, 216-220, 231-235. Reproduit par le n. 29 et repris dans le livre n. 19.
• Metaphysics and International Order, dans Philosophy and Order, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 1941, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press, 1942, pp. 52-64. Repris en francais sous le titre Le principe de l’ordre nouveau dans le livre n. 19.
• De la primaute du bien commun contre les personnalistes; le principe de l’ordre nouveau, preface de S. E. le cardinal Villeneuver, O.M.I., archeveque de Quebec, Quebec, Ed. de l’Universite Laval; Montreal, Ed. Fides, 1943, XXIII-195 p., 20 cm. Comprend les articles suivants deja publies:De la primaute du bien commun contre les personnalistes (5-79), cf. n. 15 et n. 29;Le principe de l’ordre nouveau(83-123), cf. n. 17.
• In Defence of Saint Thomas; A Reply to Father Eschmann’s Attack on the Primacy of the Common Good, dans Laval theologique et philosophique, vol. 1, 1945, n. 2, pp. 8-109.
• General Standards and Particular Situations in Relation to the Natural Law, in The Natural Law and International Relations, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 1950, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press [1950], pp. 28-32. Reprinted in LTP, vol. 6, 1950, n. 2, pp. 335-338.

John Paul II

• "Person and Community" (Collection of 22 essays on ethics and political philosophy)
• "The Acting Person"
• Evangelium Vitae
• America and the Culture of Death
• On Justice and the Global Economy

Polsky215 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Does secondary literature refer to "the political philosophy of" the deleted authors? (May 9, 2019)

I realize you've put a fair amount of effort into creating and linking these lists of works, but I'm sorry to say that it isn't really what is needed to address whether names should be included on this list. Content in Wikipedia articles should be based mostly on what independent reliable sources say about the subject. Posting long arguments for your own view of the subject is original research, and as such it is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. (Please understand that this is not an evaluation of whether your arguments are good or your conclusions are reasonable. It is about the content policies we have for our crowdsourced encyclopedia.) Instead, I would encourage you to redirect your efforts to finding third-party sources that support the entries. For example, if you want to include Jane Doe on the list, and there are books and/or articles about (maybe even titled) "the political philosophy of Jane Doe" then that's a strong case for inclusion. Or if Jane Doe has an article written about her in an encyclopedia of philosophy, and there is a section in the article titled "Political Ideas", then that's good also. Or if multiple sources refer to "Jane Doe, the political philosopher". Etc. This is the type of material that you should be looking for and that will support your case for including people on this list. --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Here, are secondary sources discussing the political philosophy of the authors in question.

Robert Bellarmine

• “Robert Bellarmine was one of the most influential theologians and political theorists in post-Reformation Europe.” Tutino, Stefania, "Introduction," in Writings on Temporal and Spiritual Authority by Robert Bellarmine, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), ix.
• Tutino, Stefania, Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth, (Oxford University Press, 2010),
• Robert Bellarmine is cited on 42 non-consecutive pages (more than any other author) in: Harr Höpfl, Jesuit Political Thought: The Society of Jesus and the State, c. 1540-1630, (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
• Hunt, Gaillard. “Cardinal Bellarmine and the Virginia Bill of Rights.” Catholic Historical Review; Washington Vol. 3, (Jan 1, 1917). This article discusses Bellarmine's considerable indirect impact on Thomas Jefferson's political thought. Bellarmine influenced Jefferson by means of a famous 16th century debate between Bellarmine, on the one hand, and defenders of absolute monarchy on the other.
• Rager, John Clement. The Political Philosophy of St. Robert Bellarmine. (Apostolate of Our Lady of Siluva, 1995).
• "It is solely, however, as a remarkable political thinker that Blessed Cardinal Bellarmine will engage our attention in this paper." Rager, John Clement. "The Blessed Cardinal Bellarmine's Defense of Popular Government in the Sixteenth Century," The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Jan., 1925), pp. 504-514.
• Here's a nice quotation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Bellarmine. Notice how this paragraph takes for granted that Bellarmine is famous as a political philosopher. "Bellarmine is famous, not because he invented the theory of the indirect power of the pope in temporal affairs, but because he used it so effectively in the history of CHURCH AND STATE relations, clearly distinguishing between the temporal and the purely spiritual power of the pope. By applying Thomistic political philosophy to the confusions and exaggerations of his age, he emphasized the purely spiritual power of the Church, yet showed that because the spiritual power of the Church is primary and the temporal secondary, the pope may act regarding those temporal things affecting the spiritual."

Pope Leo XIII

• "Probably no other pronouncement on the social question has had so many readers or exercised such a wide influence. It has inspired a vast Catholic social literature, while many non-Catholics have acclaimed it as one of the most definite and reasonable productions ever written on the subject." This is a quotation from the "Synopsis of [Leo XIII's] Rerum Novarum" in The Third Way: Foundations of Distributism as Contained in the Writings of Blessed Leo XIII and Gilbert K. Chesterton, (Veritatis Splendor Publications, 2012).
• Leo XIII: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leo-XIII. This article is mostly concerned with his political influence in Europe and the Church.
• O'Brien, David and Thomas Shannon, Catholic Social Thought: Encyclicals and Documents from Pope Leo XIII to Pope Francis.
• Leo XIII is cited on 39 non-consecutive pages in the prominent political philosopher, Michael Novak's book on political philosophy. Leo XIII is one of the most cited authors in that book and is cited on a wide range of political issues, including associations, the cause of wealth, civil society, individualism, liberalism, natural rights, private property, and socialism. Novak, Michael and Paul Adams, Social Justice Isn't What You Think it Is, (Encounter Books, 2015).

G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc

• Aleman, Richard ed. The Hound of Distributism: A Solution for Our Social and Economic Crisis, (The American Chesterton Society, 2015). This is a collection of essays on Chesterton and Belloc's political school, Distributism. This book contains essays by 17 different authors.
• Woods, Thomas. Beyond Distributism. (Acton Institute, 2012). This is a book-length critique of Chesterton and Belloc's political school.
• Campbell, W. E. (1908). "G.K. Chesterton: Inquisitor and Democrat," The Catholic World, Vol. LXXXVIII, pp. 769–782.
• Coates, John (1984). Chesterton and the Edwardian Cultural Crisis. Hull University Press.
• Stapleton, Julia (2009). Christianity, Patriotism, and Nationhood: The England of G.K. Chesterton. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Jacques Maritain, Yves Simon, and Charles De Koninck

• McInerny, Ralph. Very Rich Hours of Jacques Maritain. (University of Notre Dame Press, 2011). This biography on Maritain has multiple chapter devoted to the different stages in Maritain's political life: His early membership in the ACTION FRANÇAISE, his "return to the left," when, according to McInerny, many criticized Maritain of having become a Marxist, and his eventual rejection of the left-leaning political thought. This book also deals at length with the famous dispute between Maritain's supposed defender I.T. Eschmann and Charles De Koninck concerning whether Personalism was a correct political philosophy. It discusses how Yves Simon mediated the dispute, arguing Maritain and De Koninck were not in conflict with each other. Here is a quotation from the cover-flap showing the emphasis this book puts on Maritain's political philosophy: "Among the topics McInerny covers are Maritain’s remarkable and diverse set of friends, his involvement in French politics, and the development of his views on the nature and future of democracy, the church, and Catholic intellectual life."
• McCool, Gerald. From Unity to Pluralism: The Internal Evolution of Thomism (Fordham University Press, 1999). The chapter on Jacques Maritain in this book discusses central role that Maritain's Integral Humanism played in initiating the Catholic Marxist movement Liberation Theology.
• McCoy, Charles. The Structure of Political Thought: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (Routledge, 2017). This book also discusses the debate between De Koninck and Mairitain/Eschmann on the nature of the common good and personalism in political philosophy (see: Ibid., ix, xviii, 157-206).
• Dewan, Lawrence. "St. Thomas, John Finnis, and the Political Good." in The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review, v. 64, n. 3. Here is yet another academic source discussing the debate between Charles De Koninck and I.T. Eschmann about Jacques Maritain's Personalist political philosophy.
• Besides what I have already said about Yves Simon, he is referred to as "...political philosopher, Yves Simon," in countless sources, including: Biggar, Nigel. "AFTER IRAQ: WHEN TO GO TO WAR?" at Policy Exchange, 2017; Olsen, Glenn W. "Why and How to Study the." Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 3.3 (2000): 50-75; Biggar, Nigel. "A Christian View of Humanitarian Intervention." Ethics & International Affairs 33.1 (2019): 19-28; Pfaff, William. The Future of the United States As a Great Power. Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, 1996; Hall, T. (2008). Signs and Reversals of Identity: Sophocles’ Œdipus Tyrannus. Semiotics, 369-381; Philpott, Daniel, and Ryan T. Anderson, eds. A Liberalism Safe for Catholicism?: Perspectives from the Review of Politics. University of Notre Dame Pess, 2017.

John Paul II

• Here's a recent article announcing the publication of some of John Paul II's early writings: "New book by St. John Paul shows early political, social philosophy".
• Here's a book about John Paul II political philosophy: Barrett, Edward. Persons and Liberal Democracy: The Ethical and Political Thought of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. (Lexington Books, 2010).
• Here's another one, with a more historical perspective on his impact, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union. This is by a professor of political science: Kengor, Paul. A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century. (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2017).
• Here's an article on his political thought: Spinello, Richard. "John Paul II’s Social and Political Doctrine: Lessons for Contemporary Poland", in The Polish Review, v. 60, n. 4, 2015.

I could keep adding to this list for days, but that is really far beyond the standards set for the addition of literally any other author into a list page like this. I have shown at considerable length that these authors are associated with the phrase "political philosophy" in thousands of sources both academic and general. Please read the section posted yesterday in the talk page before writing another comment. This is not original research. For those familiar with political philosophy, it is common knowledge that these are important political thinkers, and the statistics I detailed yesterday about the relative occurrence of the authors in political philosophy (both academic and popular) is sufficient evidence. Since you asked for evidence these authors wrote books in political philosophy, I posted a partial list of their books. Then you asked whether these authors have anyone in the secondary literature writing about their political philosophy. So, now you have a list (just added above) of some secondary literature on their political thought. Looking through the talk pages on other list pages in Wikipedia, I have never seen anyone have to provide so much evidence to warrant the inclusion of an author in the list. In summary, I have provided evidence from (a) statistical impact of author in conjunction with the phrase "political philosophy" in academic and general search engines, (b) analytic reasons for the importance of the author, (c) a list showing that each author wrote in political philosophy, and (d) a list of secondary literary sources discussing the political philosophy of the author.

Polsky215 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Of the four things you mention at the end of your post, only (d) relates to what I asked for. As far as I can see, no one has asked you to provide search engine results, "analytic reasons", or lists works by the individuals you want to add. Whatever effort you put into those was your own choice and not anyone's request. Fortunately, your latest effort should help progress things. For example, the existence of a book like Barrett's Persons and Liberal Democracy seems like a pretty good indication that John Paul II could be included here. I can't speak for everyone who watches this list, but my suggestion would be to pick one solid source for each entry and include that as a reference. (If you aren't familiar with the mechanics, there is a help page with explanations.) Ideally choose one that discusses that person as a political philosopher in explicit terms. For example, there is a book about Yves Simon called Virtue in Political Life: Yves Simon's Political Philosophy for Our Times – it's quite clear just from the title that the author considers him a political philosopher. You should not need to post a research catalog onto the Talk page (also, you might want to know that very long posts can be counterproductive on Wikipedia) or argue about the inclusion criteria. Just take simple steps to document the relevance of your additions. --RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Are you suggesting to re-add these authors with footnote references in the article itself? I can do that, but I don't see any examples of authors being listed with footnotes in other list pages or in the present article.

I apologize for the long posts. You have only asked for secondary literature referring to the deleted authors' political philosophy, but the editor who deleted my original additions called into question whether the deleted authors had even done more than mention anything on political philosophy and whether considering these authors as political philosophers was original research. This is why I took the time to show the strong statistical connection between the authors and "political philosophy" in academic and non-academic search engines as well as to list some of the political writings of these authors. These two actions were done in response to the person who originally deleted the authors. Similar criteria to the one I used had been mentioned earlier on this page--albeit without application to particular authors.

Polsky215 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. List articles should be referenced, but unfortunately this is often neglected. If you look at the articles that have achieved featured list approval (in theory our standard for what lists ideally ought to be), you will see that entries do have references. The philosophy lists in particular are bad about this (and there are 0 featured lists for philosophy), but in addition to being the preferred practice, it is also a good way to resolve this type of dispute. --RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

And you are inundating us with data. The fact that someone writes on political issues or engages in politics does not make them a political philosopher so I disagree on John Paul II. You need maybe one or two sources for each which describe them as such -third party reliable sources. Mos tof the arguments you make represent your own research and opinion -----Snowded ^TALK 09:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Snowded, why are you not showing the same interest in removing authors, like Lorenzo Peña, Muhammad al-Shaybani, or Thiruvalluvar, to name a few, who have far less of a claim to being on this page than John Paul II? You say you "don't buy those references." Editing criteria for these pages does not consist in meeting the subjective whims of a certain editor, even if he is someone who has been editing Wikipedia for a long time. If you insist on deleting authors with whom you seem to have very little familiarity, you need to state objective criteria to explain why some authors are included and others excluded. You have not made any positive contributions. To remind you: RL0919 stated: "Fortunately, your latest effort should help progress things. For example, the existence of a book like Barrett's Persons and Liberal Democracy seems like a pretty good indication that John Paul II could be included here. I can't speak for everyone who watches this list, but my suggestion would be to pick one solid source for each entry and include that as a reference." On 10 May, 2019, you then added that you wanted two sources. I complied with (and exceeded) the criteria that you and RL0919 stated. I gave 8 sources (4 times what you asked for). Your selective deletions seem far from honest. Polsky215 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree a lot need removing and very open to that; doesn't mean that we should make the problem worse. I'll repeat you gave sources which said they had a political impact and/or took part in politics. Also some which referred to them having a political philosophy. Now all of those apply to me, and I have a degree in the subject but it doesn't make me a political philosopher. John Paul II in particular is not and never was a political philosopher but he was very political. Find a solid source and propose it here then we can discuss -----Snowded ^TALK 21:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to state a criteria for who is a political philosopher. Once again, you have not responded to the substance of my comment, but have just reasserted your own judgment on the matter, which counts for nothing unless it is backed up by reasons. So, I will restate what I said in my previous comment. You and RL0919 stated what would be needed for you to have someone added to this page. RL0919 stated: "Fortunately, your latest effort should help progress things. For example, the existence of a book like Barrett's Persons and Liberal Democracy seems like a pretty good indication that John Paul II could be included here. I can't speak for everyone who watches this list, but my suggestion would be to pick one solid source for each entry and include that as a reference." On 10 May, 2019, you then added that you wanted two sources. I complied with (and exceeded) the criteria that you and RL0919 stated. I gave 8 sources (4 times what you asked for).

You say that John Paul II was not a political philosopher, but just political. You also say that you have a degree in "that subject" (presumably referring to political philosophy), but that you are not a political philosopher. Let me briefly respond to these points. Presumably like you, John Paul II received a doctorate in philosophy (approved by the Angelicum and granted by the Jagiellonian University). But he didn't just sit on the degree, he published in the topic (e.g., "Person and Community"; "The Acting Person"). As I said earlier, he was important enough in philosophy that, before becoming pope, he had his Acting Person published in the prestigious "Analecta Husserliana", making him one of the most important phenomenologists of the 20th century. After becoming Pope, he continued to make major contributions to political philosophy, not just by being political, but by addressing political matters in an enormous number of encyclicals, speeches, and letters (e.g., "Laborem Exercens"; "Centesimus Annus"; "Veritatis Splendor"; "On Justice and the Global Economy"; "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis"). This is not to mention the fact that John Paul II oversaw the production of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which made a major contribution--good or bad--to Catholic political philosophy. This is why John Paul II has people publishing books about his political philosophy and you do not. This is also why he gets to be on a list of political philosophers and other folks, such as yourself, who have degrees in philosophy, do not. Yes, you will say this is original research. But let me again reiterate that you asked for two sources talking about John Paul II's political philosophy and I gave you eight. You deleted them. Polsky215 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me try and explain it again. The fact that someone has a political philosophy does not make them a political philosopher. The fact that they write about political or moral issues does not make them a political philosopher, especially in the modern era. If writing articles and opinion pieces on politics makes you a political philosopher then we will have to list every journalist! Wikipedia is very clear on the need for a balance of reliable sources to support any statement. That means you have to have references that say he was a political philosopher, someone who was recognised for the study of the philosophy of politics, not someone who practices it, influenced it or whatever. The people writing books about John Paul II political philosophy may well be political philosophers but he isn't. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

First, why did you delete the references and state that these should be in the talk page? Recall, yesterday that RL0919 said: "List articles should be referenced, but unfortunately this is often neglected. If you look at the articles that have achieved featured list approval (in theory our standard for what lists ideally ought to be), you will see that entries do have references." No one disputed this.

Second, you just deleted three political philosopher (not John Paul II) with multiple citations. You don't seem to have even read the citations. Because if you had, you would realize that you were asserting your own amateur opinion about who is an important political philosopher against the opinions of professional historians, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and The Review of Politics. You are just stonewalling. You still haven't provided a criteria for inclusion on this page although I've asked for one four times and you have continued to make comments. Polsky215 (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a list, we don't need references in the main article. If something is disputed you provide the reference here and if agreed the entry can be restored. Please stop simply inserting a disputed name with what you think are references, use the talk page to get consensus first. I left two which were properly supported. I have clearly provided criteria several times. I will repeat - there must be a reliable third party source which says the individual was a political philosopher (which is not the same thing as they had a political philosophy or took political positions) -----Snowded ^TALK 14:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be getting caught up on the distinction between abstract and concrete nouns. A philosopher is someone who does philosophy. So, when countless sources discuss John Paul II's political or social philosophy that is the same thing as calling John Paul II a philosopher. If an article discusses Nancy Pelosi's legislation or David Beckham's soccer technique that means that Nancy Pelosi is a legislator and Beckham is a soccer player. Of course, sometimes non-philosophers use "philosophy" in a vague way, for instance, if they are talking about Bob Marley's philosophy or the philosophy of South Park--the sorts of things you see at Barnes and Noble. But the sources I have cited are academics speaking about the philosophy of someone who had a doctorate in philosophy and was the Ethics Chair in the Philosophy Department of a major university and who was widely published in the area of philosophy. Articles about the political philosophy of John Paul II are only grammatically different from articles calling John Paul II a political philosopher. Polsky215 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I am getting remotely caught up in anything. Most people have some sort of political philosophy it doesn't make them political philosophers. The fact that someone is a major political player means that their political philosophy and actions are more likely to be studied by Political Philosophers. The meaning is very different - and Ethics is not Political Philosophy either, they are separated in most departments. Remember this is in the modern section and while one might think (and I speak as a Catholic here) that John Paul II belongs more in the medieval period he is judged for inclusion in this list by current usage. You have evidence that his politics had been studied and commented on - no surprise there. You do not have evidence he was a political philosopher. All Popes have been political players of some type and one hopes have reflected on political philosophy. But based on your arguments we would list every Pope here not to mention a fair number of Cardinals and it gets nonsensical. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding John Paul II hardly entails adding "all popes." Not all popes were well-established philosophers before being pope or had the same sort of impact on academic philosophy. If you want to maintain that the use of the word "philosophy" in the articles I have cited is colloquial in the way a non-philosopher or political scientist may mention Nixon's philosophy toward China, for instance, then you need to show that in the articles. If on the other hand, the articles are talking about John Paul II's Personalist philosophy (which they obviously are), then the articles are referring to a philosophical school for which both the "Stanford Encyclopedia" and the "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" consider John Paul II a foremost member. Polsky215 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Not all Philosophers are Political Philosophers and I'm repeating myself now. Your addition of Francisco Suárez today was marginal - he was metaphysics and law in the main but his work on Just War Theory (which is bringing back memories from the 70s and Liberation Theology) qualifies him. But I don't agree with you on John Paul II for all the reasons stated -----Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, you are repeating yourself because you are not making any substantive engagement with anything I say. So let me repeat (with only minor additions): Adding John Paul II hardly entails adding "all popes" or "all philosophers." Not all popes were well-established philosophers before being pope or had the same sort of impact on academic philosophy. If you want to maintain that the use of the word "political philosophy" in the articles I have cited is colloquial in the way a non-philosopher or political scientist may mention Nixon's philosophy toward China, for instance, then you need to show that in the articles. If on the other hand, the articles are talking about John Paul II's Personalist philosophy (which they obviously are), then the articles are referring to a philosophical school for which both the "Stanford Encyclopedia" and the "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" consider John Paul II a foremost member. Polsky215 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Fully engaged but I've run out of ways to explain to you something which seems pretty self-evident. I've accepted changes where there is a clear reference to the individual being political philosopher, I've rejected changes where you are seeing in infer it from references to political engagement, having a personal political philosophy etc. etc. -----Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, these are just assertions. I'm the only one who has provided evidence here. I asked you to substantiate your highly implausible claim that the sources on John Paul II that I cited were using the phrase "political philosophy" in the merely colloquial way you are suggesting. You have failed to do so despite three responses, which tells me that you don't have any evidence. Polsky215 (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No I've been very specific that what you are doing is, in my opinion, your own synthesis in respect of John Paul II. You don't accept, or you don't understand the argument. That happens on wikipedia. I've accepted any addition where there is a clear secondary source which calls them a political philosopher - and given the benefit of the doubt in one case. So I'm trying to work with you here. You don't have consensus to this one change, you can either drop it and move on or wait for other editors to take a position. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, that is not an argument but an assertion of the contrary conclusion. In order to have an argument, you need a middle term. What is your middle term? On what grounds can you maintain that a book about John Paul II's political philosophy is just talking colloquially about his "personal philosophy" (whatever that means) and not a bona fide academic philosophical school for which he was a leading member according to two sources already cited? Polsky215 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And you say Francisco Suarez is "marginal - he was metaphysics and law in the main". First, should we delete John Locke from the list of epistemologists since John Locke was more prolific in political philosophy? Should we delete Kant from the list of political philosophy since he was more prolific in epistemology and ethics? Just because someone wrote more in one field does not mean they don't belong on a list of philosophers in one of the other fields they wrote in. Suarez was quite literally a renaissance man. Thank you for not deleting him. Second, do you realize how implausible it is that, prior to my addition of Suarez, there were no professional Catholic philosophers on the list born in the 16th century? You do realize that a majority of European universities in the 16th century were still loyal to Rome? So do you think all those university professors and Catholic humanists were sitting by idly not saying anything about political philosophy as much of Northern Europe broke from Rome and declared the absolute authority of local princes? or as Venice, Genoa, Spain, and Portugal established or fought to maintain massive empires over seas, forcing a discussion of the ethics of slavery and conquest? There were leading Catholic political philosophers in the 16th century--Thomas More from England (1478-1535), Suarez from Spain, and Robert Bellarmine in the Italy, to name a few. Polsky215 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw him as marginal because Philosophy of Law is not the same thing as Political Philosophy but at the time he was writing the distinction is less important that it would be now. To my mind his work on Just War which I know qualifies him - but that is a little bit of synthesis on my part but I thik acceptable. I can see an argument for More if we can get a reference (I think I may have one at home linked to his work with Erasmius), less so Bellarmine. I'm not arguing on the basis of what was more or less prolific but if there are reliable third party sources that say they were political philosophers. No issue with Locke there. As I've also said I think there should be deletions (Calvin for example) where there are no such sources I can see. On your first point I would expect political philosophers to write about the political impact and views of John Paul II, that does not make him a political philosopher. -----Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

References