Talk:Political philosophy

Changes to the article

I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. Major parts of the article are currently unreferenced. Additionally, the article has the maintenance tags 1x excessive quote and 4x citation needed.

In its current form, the article's title should be "History of political philosophy" rather than "Political philosophy": the readable prose size of the history section is over ten times as long as the readable prose size of the rest combined. We are in a curious situation where this history section is almost three times as long as the corresponding history article, which it is supposed to summarize (see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). A better approach would be to move all the historical details to the history article and leave only a concise summary here. This would leave more space here to discuss other issues, such as the definition of political philosophy and its relation to similar fields (like ethics, political science, and social philosophy). This could also cover the relation to political theory: various reliable sources claim that it is a distinct field, so we can't simply state as an uncontested fact that it is a synonym.

Overview sources often discuss basic concepts (like justice, equality, liberty, rights, authority, political obligation, and legitimacy), which would also be good here. There could be one section dedicated to the main schools of thought and ideologies (such as liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, anarchism, totalitarianism, individualism, and communitarianism). Another prominent topic in overview sources is methodology, which should probably get either a section or a subsection.

There are more things to consider, but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Trakking, since someone else is actively doing a lot of work on the article, it would be a much appreciated courtesy to discuss such large-scale changes before implementing so many at once. More consistent use of descriptive edit summaries would also help to explain your bold decisions. I have not reverted anything because I don't want to get caught in the middle of this. But I wouldn't blame someone else for initiating the WP:BRD procedure. Thanks, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your comment. I did not make any bold decisions; I simply incorporated the older sections on political ideologies into a newly created section on the same exact topic. The only relatively bold edit I made was removing a paragraph on the political spectrum as it did not belong under a heading about distinct ideologies, although it could be re-added somewhere else in the article. Also—I shortened a few older paragraphs, one of which had been added earlier by myself (the Austrian School). I greatly appreciate the contributions made by Phlsph7 and have barely made any changes to their additions. Trakking (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay! It looked like a lot to me, but I've been known to misread diffs—especially when a lot of material is being moved around. But here's to hoping all interested contributors can collaborate amicably! Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Trakking and thanks for all your work on this article! As discussed in my initial explanation above, a key issue with the current section "History" (and with the material you moved from it in your recent edits) is that it contains many historical details that are too specific to include in this type of overview article. As I understand it, our article should provide a very condensed overview of the most important schools of thought and leave all the details to child articles. For example, looking at overview sources on political ideologies like Vincent 2010, Moseley § 3., and Gaus, D'Agostino & Muldoon 2013 § Part II, they do not treat Christian democracy and capitalism as the main political ideologies (probably in part because capitalism is more an economic system than a political ideology). I'm open to expansions of the content I added, but given the breadth of the topic and the limited space here, we have to be very selective about which information we want to include. There may be other potential issues with your changes, such as sourcing concerns, presenting populism as a major philosophical perspective, and ending the history section with Romanticism as the latest development.

My idea for addressing these issues was the following: Since our history section has too many details and the main article History of political thought has too few, it would make sense to move most of the content there (see WP:SS). This may be better than the alternative of keeping everything here but radically cutting it. The history section here would then be replaced with a concise summary overview. I've already started with a draft but it will take me some more time to finish. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Phlsph7. Thanks for your excellent work. This article was quite a mess before we started cleaning it up. I am interested in improving it in all ways possible, since political philosophy and the history of political ideas are my main areas of interest. To answer your comments:

• I agree that capitalism is more of an economic theory than a political ideology and ought to be removed from the list. Yet, the Austrian School and Objectivism are influential ideologies of capitalism. How about incorporating parts of it into the section on classical liberalism and libertarianism while removing the rest?
• Concerning the last point—do you think we should make Libertarianism a subheading under Liberalism, and Marxism a subheading under Socialism? Would it make the article easier or harder to navigate? Or maybe we could just condense these parts of the article and incorporate them into the section on the overarching ideology.
• Christian Democracy has been the major political ideology of Western Europe since World War II, making it worthy of inclusion. Anarchism is fringe and obscure in comparison. However, I agree that we ought to limit the list to the most notable ideologies in accordance with scholarly sources.
• Populism vs elitism has been one of the most central themes of political philosophy ever since Plato criticised democratic majoritarianism and advocated the rule of a philosopher king. Ideas such as popular sovereignty and elite theory are major topics within the discipline.
• Ending the history section with Romanticism is logical, since all the major ideologies were born during the same era (around year 1800). The former "Modern era" section was centred around modern political ideologies. However, there are other issues with the History section, as you mentioned.

Overall I agree with your take on the article. We ought to keep it short and sweet and limited to the most notable ideas, themes, and people. I appreciate all the improvements and I am hoping for even more! Trakking (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think your suggestions about a condensed summary of capitalism and Marxism, possibly in subsubsections, could work. I'll see if I can come up with something.

The reliable sources that I'm aware of, like the ones mentioned above, all discuss anarchism as a major political ideology but none discuss Christian democracy as a major political ideology. I'm not against an explanation of christian democracy in some form but I feel uneasy about presenting it as one of the main ideologies discussed by political philosophers even though our sources don't. You are right that there are many Christian democratic parties in the Western Europe, but that does not automatically mean that this is a major category in political philosophy.

Are you sure that the specific term "populism" is used in the wide and influential historical context you suggest? Both Scruton 2007 and McLean 2005 give a much more narrow definition of the term. Our article Populism associates this stance primarily with modern/contemporary politics. Many overview sources don't even mention the term, like Knowles 2001, Moseley, and Tuckness & Wolf 2016.

Would you mind if we restore the previous section structure with subsections only for a handful of the most important ideologies? This structure had a subsection called "Others" where each other view that should be mentioned gets between a few sentences to one paragraph. I think this approach does a better job at showcasing relative WP:WEIGHT and avoids lengthy lists of subsections. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent recommendation moving the smaller ideologies—feminism, communitarianism, environmentalism, republicanism, and perhaps also Christian democracy—to an "Others" section. That way we can keep them (for now at least) while giving them a subordinated place. I have seen a similar structure in works on political philosophy, where the major ideologies are presented first and then some "Contemporary" or lesser known ideologies follow. I will go ahead and execute this move.

You are correct that the term populism may not be well-established from a historical perspective. Maybe "elite rule vs popular rule" is a better subheading. The idea, however, is indeed very central to the topic. Trakking (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope that editors can take advantage of Chat GPT to track new grand theories of political philosophy published since 2000.

Can you type the following in ChatGPT in order to find new theories of political philosophy created in recent years?

Can you name some original books of political philosophy published since 2000?

Or:

Can you name some original systematic theories of political philosophy created since 2000?

I hope that this entry of political philosophy can reflect new theories of political philosophy timely.

Xing Yu 于星 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but most of the sources cited in the article were actually published after 2000. Please be aware that the use of LLMs to write articles is mostly prohibited, see WP:NOLLM. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ideologies

Had this one on my watchlist and noticed all the changes. This article is looking vastly better and surely (hopefully) another FA candidate. However, I think the section on political ideologies is missing a few important elements:

• Neoliberalism -- perhaps one of the most important political ideologies of the late 20th century in the Western world; worth a line in the "Liberalism" section
• Social Democracy and Third Way politics -- still among the most important political ideologies in the West and historically important much further afield, but not mentioned in the article currently, Social Democracy probably needs a mention in "Socialism", and the "Third Way" as a sentence on SD's remaking in the neoliberal world

• Radicalism, Progressivism -- both need mentioning as contrasting approaches to (typically) liberalism
• Agrarianism -- "Parties representing farmers have been a significant feature of many Western political systems, but are now declining in importance" (source)
• Monarchism -- this was the dominant political ideology until the early 20th century and remains relevant in the significant minority of monarchies today; it is also a fringe ideology in some republics; worth a line maybe in the paragraph on republicanism or on conservatism

• Syndicalism -- referenced in many books on political philosophy and ideologies (e.g. here), this was an important expression of socialism in the 19th and 20th centuries and is relevant in many parts of the world where trade unions still exercise more power than they do in the West; I'd suggest a mention in "Socialism"

• Neoconservatism -- one particularly relevant in international relations, the successor to realism and the counterpart to (neo)liberalism

• The discussion on Socialism is lacking the important libertarian/humanist strands of Marxism/communism; these a rather different from the more well-known statist versions but were (and remain) very influential in countercultural politics

  We have very limited space for the discussion of Marxism/communism, so it's probably better to focus on the basics then to get into all the varieties. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• There is not much here on the far-right. Particularly fascism, nativism, militarism -- while fringe in many countries, they have probably been more influential (and are certainly more influential right now) than anarchism, which gets its own section
• Around the world, the ideologies of imperialism, colonialism, irridentism, and expansionism continue to matter -- just look at Ukraine; the oppositional movements like anti-imperialism and postcolonialism are also worth mentioning. I would add a paragraph on these ideas, perhaps alongside separatism and supremacism
• Religious ideologies in politics matter enormously especially outside of the West; I can see we have a paragraph but I do wonder if we need a little more. Christian democracy remains one of the most important ideologies in Europe, Catholicism is a dominant influence on Latin American politics (even in elements of the left), Islamism is a major factor in politics in large parts of the world, and Hindu nationalism is the governing ideology in the world's most populous country (which accounts for almost a fifth of the world's population). Again, anarchism has its own section despite being fringe in comparison; religious ideologies may need their own subsection too. Regardless, there should be mention of secularism and the various oppositional ideologies which exist.
• Is there cause of mention oligarchy as a system of government?

  Oligarchy is currently already discussed in the subsection "Government, power, and laws". Or is your point that it shouldn't be discussed? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

"Catholicism is a dominant influence on Latin American politics (even in elements of the left)" Because Latin American liberation theology has been a primarily Catholic movement, with the exception of a few Presbyterian theologians who were also calling for reforms. Dimadick (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Many of these ideologies and philosophies have oppositional equivalents, such as anti-communism
• Is there a space for pirate politics in libertarianism? (A little niche, but I don't know how much coverage this gets in top-level literature nowadays)
• I think there should be mention of anti-politics, anti-establishment and protest politics, and satirical political movements
• Finally, is there something to be said for how ideologies can be blended together, e.g. left-wing populism, agrarian nationalism, right-wing Islamism?

  In principle yes, but we already present various blends throughout the text. The point is also discussed more explicitly in the paragraph on environmentalism, so I think it should be clear as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC).

Hello Noswall59 and thanks for all the helpful suggestions! I was able to implement many of them, but maybe not with the emphasis that you had hoped for. You are probably right that many of the suggested ideologies are influential in contemporary politics, in some cases maybe more influential than anarchism. The goal of the section is to present the most discussed schools of thought specifically in political philosophy. The main focus of political philosophers does not always reflect the dominant categories in contemporary politics (for whatever good or bad reasons). To decide weight, I usually try to follow overview sources on political philosophy, and many of them have a separate section on anarchism but not, for example, any sections on the specific religion-inspired ideologies. In case you are interested, there was a similar discussion somewhere above about why anarchism gets a more prominent treatment than Christian democracy. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Phlsph7, thanks very for making these changes -- I did not expect you to add much at all, given the need for a high level of abstraction here, but I do appreciate you accommodating many of the requests. Good luck with this project -- it's fantastic to see improvements like this across so many of our vital articles. --Noswall59 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Several things, but an echo of what I've written here in the talk page of the List of political ideologies article. Avoid listing things that aren't political ideologies. That means forms of government, organizations, religions, ideas within political ideologies, and political movements. In addition, leave the detailed typology to the main articles for each ideology. JasonMacker (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

African political philosophy

Hi Phlsph7, I'm unsure whether this is due even a sentence as I doubt overview sources even mention African political philosophy, but the Routledge Handbook of African Political Philosophy (2023) looks very useful. Bar pan-Africanism, I don't see a significant development that would be due for the history section, but the topics of state failure, colonial borders/legacies, and development don't appear to have been discussed in the article (although I don't see a suitable place for it). History of political thought also doesn't cover any of this. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Thanks for the suggestion. I found a way to add one sentence to the section on schools of thought. It's not the ideal place but it may be better than the alternatives. It's probably a borderline case regarding WP:PROPORTION, but I hope a single sentence is fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Political philosophy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 08:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 18:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello The Blue Rider and thanks for reviewing the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you for bringing one of my favourite topics to GAN! I will finish up the review at most by Sunday. The Blue Rider 17:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Going to take a break, should finish up later this day, if not by Monday, sorry. Also, if you think I am being too harsh reviewing, feel free to call me out. The Blue Rider 18:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider: Thanks for the detailed review! I may try an FA nomination somewhere down the road, so I appreciate the scrutiny. I hope I was able to address all the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copyvio

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector points to 14,5%, that is, a violation is unlikely. Nevertheless, I suggest rephrasing the sentence the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people and ownership and control of the means of production

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Stability

• Last edit on 24 August 2025; no edit war in place.

Media

• All media are tagged with a copyright status, are relevant for the topic and have suitable captions.

Definition and related fields

• Per WP:WEASEL, unless the source specifically says it like that, specify what's "some interpreters" or rephrase it

  Supported by Heywood & Chin 2023, pp. 5–6. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• If you are going to mention them, specify how philosophy of law and economics are connected to political philosophy

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Basic concepts

Government, power, and laws

• I suggest rephrasing the following to reflect that nations may share more than just those three traits, as the current wording makes it seem like they're the only ones: “based on shared culture..." → such as shared culture...

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• The following statement is very disputed: Many states today are nation-states.... Dunn, 1994 says ...it is unlikely there is a single nation state in the world... or Walby, 2003 says ...nation-state is more mythical than real., and many more.

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• The sentence, Some governments set down fundamental principles, called constitution, that outline the structure, functions, and limitations of governmental authority, while others exercise unconstrained authority., seems misleading; the UK has no ("traditional") constitution yet it has constrained authority, for example. Even authoritarian governments are constrained, be it domestically or internationally.

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• No mention of one-party dominant systems when talking about autocracies?

  This is an important category in other forms of political disciplines but, as far as I'm aware, not so much in political philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Shouldn't aristocracy be paired with oligarchy?

  It could, I'm not sure which one is better. The paragraph discussing oligarchies focuses on the number of people deciding (all, few, one). The paragraph discussing aristocracies focuses on the type of people deciding (elites, engineers, religious leaders). I think that works also as an organization principle. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  I only suggested this due to Aristotle's six government types, in which he puts aristocracy and oligarchy in the "few", but I understand your reasoning as well

• When explaining federalism and confederalism, add a explanatory note saying that in the latter the regional governments have sovereignty.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Add wikilink to charismatic leader (optional)

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Why only one of the tripartite classification of authority is mentioned?

  The sentence in question discusses power rather than legitimate rule and only uses charisma as an example. I added a footnote to the following paragraph about legitimacy to mention Weber's classification. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Specify that certain regimes don't have a separation of powers and thus it's concentrated in a single entity.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Give an example of how someone may have authority but no effective power to act.

  An example could be an officially elected ruler overthrown by a military junta. Our source does not give an example. I checked through a few sources on coups but they don't explicitly explain it in terms of authority without power. If you know of a source, I would be happy to include an example. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:WEASEL, unless the source specifically says it like that, specify what's "some theorists" or rephrase it

  Supported by Friedrich 1972, pp. 89–90 and Green 1998, § 1. The Nature and Forms of Authority. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• I think the example given of authoritarian regimes narrows too much the scope of about civil disobedience, which may very well happen in legal positivists systems.

  It's just given as an example so it does not exclude civil disobedience in less clear cases. In philosophy, it is often difficult to find uncontroversial examples since they often depend on intuitions about political or moral principles that not everyone shares. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• I suggest rephrasing the following to reflect that propriety may entail more than just those five rights, as the current wording makes it seem like they're the only ones: “including the rights to use..." → such as the rights to use...

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Justice, equality, and liberty

• I suggest rephrasing the following to reflect that discrimination may be of more than just those four traits, as the current wording makes it seem like they're the only ones: “unfair treatment based on race..." → unfair treatment such as based on race...

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• When I think of autonomy, in political philosophical terms, I think of neoliberalism; not as straight of an association as liberty and liberalism, but worth a mention in this review. Lemme know what you think.

  Neoliberalism is currenlty mentioned in footnote [k], so we have it already covered in a different context. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:WEASEL, unless the source specifically says it like that, specify what's "some philosophers" or rephrase it

  Supported by Tuckness & Wolf 2016, pp. 5–7.

Major schools of thought

Anarchism

• Remove duplicated wikilink to egalitarianism.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Of all types of anarchism, "utilitarian anarchism" doesn't seem to be worth a mention.

  It's only used as an example to help illustrate the difference between priori and posteriori anarchism. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• No mention of important anarchists?

  We have an image of Proudhon to the right. Otherwise, I tried to focus the schools-of-thought subsections on the theories rather than the theorists. The theorists get their share in the later history section. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Anarchism could be developed further, specifically, how do they achieve a stateless society and the rule of law of said society.

  There are lots of things that could be further developed in this and the other subsections. However, I think for the purposes of an overview article like this one, it's better to have a condensed presentation that leaves more specific details to child articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Conservatism

• Put italics in "status quo".

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• A paragraph is given to the ideological variants of conservatism but not to the arguably more important, national variants. Why is that?

  My impression was that they got more attention in the sources. It also fits the focus of an article on political philosophy rather than political science: it's more about identifying general patterns of political phenomena rather than specific instances. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• There should be a mention about minorities (women, ethnic minorities, etc) in the criticism paragraph.

  Done. I used the term "marginalized groups" instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• No mention of important conservatists?

  See above. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Liberalism

• Per WP:WEASEL, unless the source specifically says it like that, specify what's "some liberals" or rephrase it

  I presume that this and other expression that use words like "some" are supported by the sources, like the previous mentions where I looked up the precise locations. Please let me know if you have a good reason to doubt it for this or some of the following instances, in which case I would have a look at the sources again. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• When mentioning John Locke view, it should be specifically mentioned that he is talking about the natural laws.

  The contrast between natural law theory and legal positivism is already discussed in an earlier section. I think it fits better there than here. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:WEASEL, unless the source specifically says it like that, specify what's "others" or rephrase it.
• Private property seems too central to liberalism to only be worth a passing mention.

  Private property is mentioned in the first paragraph. The next paragraph talks about the free-market economy, discussing "privately owned businesses" and "means of production are mainly privately owned". I think that should be fine as far as emphasis is concerned. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Remove duplicated wikilink to negative liberty

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Socialism

• Of the many definitions of socialism, "equal distribution of basic goods" is not something that comes up a lot. I would suggest to just mention the first one as it is the most important.

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:WEASEL, unless the source specifically says it like that, specify what's "some socialists" or rephrase it.
• Socialism has more criticism other than on its economics, such as authoritarianism and other pro-individualist arguments.

  I expanded the paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Others

• In realism, actors mainly use hard power; soft power is a much newer concept that, while yes, can complement realism it doesn't have a strong association. Bilgin and Eliş, 2008 admit that ...realism have continued to subscribe to an unrealistic notion of power as 'hard'

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• There should be a mention about the anarchic global system that realism and even neoliberalistic views hold.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• There should also be a mention to cooperation since it's of uttermost importance to idealism.

  The sources that I'm aware of focus primarily on morality and ideals rather than cooperation. If you know of a source than I can look into it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• In pluralism, is there examples of said values?

  The last sentence of the paragraph discusses the values of liberty and equality in pluralism. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• I know you can't explore all of them in detail but I think Confucianism is important enough to warrant a little explanation, and you could mention Taoism in a passing manner.

  They are both discussed later in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why "Secularism" is capitalized?

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Worth a mention in contractarianism that the social contract is used to legitimize the authority of the state.

  This is discussed in the paragraph starting with "Contractarianism and contractualism are views...". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Methodology

• Add wikilink to particularism (optional)
• Add wikilink to foundationalism (optional)

  I think this and the previous one belong to epistemology rather than political philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• It's the 3rd time utilitarism is used as an example, is there any reason to choose it over others?

  It's an important view and sources often use it as an example. For instance, the whole methodology section in our source, Knowles 2006, revolves around the example of a utilitarian sheriff. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• What historically influential form of foundationalism is that?

  The one that grounds politics in human nature. Hobbes is discussed as an example in this paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

History

• While a little redundant to the already mentioned Plato and Aristotle, Socrates is foundational enough in its political thought to get a mention.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Put italics in Rig Veda.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• The Middle Ages paragraph only mentions Christian philosophers; there could be a mention of other religions.

  The next paragraph discusses political philosophy in other traditions during this period. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• How did Mill adapted Bentham's philosophy?

  He reinterpreted some aspects of utilitarianism, like the contrast between quantitative and qualitative utilitarianism, and used these ideas to support his liberalism. I don't think the details are essential for this concise overview. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• All good here, nice job.

Spotchecks

• All sources numbers are from this version:

• 29, OK
• 56, OK
• 90, OK
• 126, OK

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 13:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that monarchy is superior to democracy, according to Plato's political philosophy?

• Source: Moseley, Alexander (2007). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Bloomsbury. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-4411-8861-8.

• • ALT1: ... that a war of all against all is inevitable without an authoritarian state, according to the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes? Source: Moseley, Alexander (2007). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Bloomsbury. p. 187. ISBN 978-1-4411-8861-8.
  • ALT2: ... that political philosophers focus on desirable norms, while political scientists concentrate on empirical descriptions? Source: Wolff, Jonathan (2006). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-0-19-929609-5.
  • ALT3: ... that political philosophers examine ideologies like anarchism, conservatism, liberalism, and socialism? Source: Miller, David (1998). "Political Philosophy". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. § Political institutions and ideologies. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-S099-1. ISBN 978-0415073103.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hyde Park Presbyterian Church (Austin, Texas)

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 32 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC).

• QPQ done. Not seeing any problems (GA status confirmed, my spotchecks show no problems). Hook-wise, I prefer ALT2, as it is about the subject proper, rather than a random tidbit, the latter may also have some issues if we check whether the sources clearly say this is political pholosophy. ALT3 would be similar but arguably, the same can be said about poli scientists, so meh, I'd rather not quibble here but go with ALT2 which I feel is strong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Political philosophy

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas.

Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)