Talk:List of political scientists

Criteria for listing

I don't think I understand this article - something's wrong when the list doesn't include Plato and Machiavelli, who to my knowledge were the only political scientists to actually apply scientific methods. Peter Grey 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Gray: Plato and Machiavelli were political theorists or philosophers, not political scientists in the contemporary academic sense. Your knowledge is completely wrong; neither Plato or Machiavelli applied scientific methods to political phenomena the way that the individuals on this list do. Go pick up a copy of APSR or another journal somewhere. THAT is political science. BUT, my problem with the list is that Fareed Zakaria is listed as a political scientist, while Lipset, Wildavsky, Key, and others do not appear. Zakaria does have a PhD, but he writes for Newsweek primarily, doesn't he, and not in the journals or serious academic discussion? Either way, he hasn't done nearly as much as MANY unlisted people.

It does seem clear that we need to discuss the criteria for listing. I agree with anonymous that Lipset, Wildavsky, Key, etc., belong, and Zakaria probably doesn't. Looking over the history, there are a number of people added, then deleted, either by vandals or more likely by someone who disagrees on the criteria for listing. So rather than that, let's talk criteria:

1. Actual political scientists, doing the kind of work APSA would recognize.

2. Influential in some way: Their work is assigned in classes, or cited by others in similar work (e.g., you can't write on political parties without citing Why Parties?). Still A Student 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

However, there are still theory papers that make their way into APSR. I'm thinking of creating a List of political theorists article and putting a differentiating header at the top. Edit: It's been done, so perhaps we just need blurbs at the top of each article that mention the difference?

--Vince | Talk 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been done. I'm not sure I would have agreed. PT is one of the subfields of Pol Sci. But it is an ill-defined discipline. Still A Student (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is ASPA and the APSR assumed to be the arbiter of what counts (and doesn't) as political science? If that becomes the criterion, then the list will be continually criticised for its parochialism - and rightly so in my view. Also be casreful about the distinction between 'political science' and 'political theory'. Political theory is commonly thought of as a sub-field of political science (toegther with comparative politics and international relations). Even your 'APSA as adjudicator' approach would throw that one out! 137.205.8.2 17:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I didn't mean for APSA to be an adjudicator, but -- why throw out political theory? The discipline is large, mushy, etc. So the kind of work that is done at the major gatherings of political science would seem to be a good and appropriately vague criterion. Another would be to say that any work in the four or five general subfields of the discipline (CP, IR, PT, Methods and, in the U.S., AP) would count. APSA would recognize all of that. It's a starting point, but what would APSA recognize that should not be counted? What should be counted that APSA (or other organizations) would not?

Is it just me or this list is awfully too much concenstrated on the english-speaking world? Yes, I know very well that probably 90+% of political science is in english language, however, surely there's not that large majority of UK/USA-based authors compared to rest of the Western World for example? And I'm sure Japan, for example, has his "famous people" too!

Point being - this might be "english wikipedia", but the list should still try to cover political scientists equally from all around the world.

-- Androg.

Make this list more representative

This list is overwhelmingly slanted towards political scientists working in the United States. It is also - as some of the comments already made here betray - operating with a partial conception of 'political science'. Of course, the vast majority of the world's political scientists (past and present) are/have been based in the US and so perhaps there should be more Americans/US-based academics as a proportion of the total. But some serious attention should be given to non-Americans and particularly to non-Anglophone academics. But it's not just about geographic spread; the list should also be representative of the diversity of the discipline in terms of epistemological and methodological approaches. The APSR is not the only journal of political science in the world and as such should not be treated as the arbiter of what counts (and what doesn't) as legitimate and notable political science. Rozza1965 21:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Commie alert

What about comrade Marx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.209.79 (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the way this comment was phrased, I don't think the author intended it seriously, but in any case, Marx would most certainly not be a political scientist since his work was largely theoretical and not quantitative (and about economics). He would belong on the List of political theorists if anything.

--Vince | Talk 20:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So by your reckoning, anything that is (a) theoretical, (b) qualitative and (c) concerned with the economy is not political science? A lot of political scientists would have a big problem with that! --137.205.8.2 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily by my reckoning - see above for discussion of criterion. I'm only following precedent. However, I don't think these are bad criterion in separating political theorists from political scientists - propose an alternative.--Vince | Talk 07:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual narcisissm

This page is not necessary and should be deleted. Any political scientist needing a wikipedia page to make him feel notable is not worth his salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.142.148 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that Wikipedia pages about political scientists are there to make said scholar feel notable. There are people who are notable. (Many on this list, IMHO, are not so, but...) Those people should have pages. Someone who wanted to use wikipedia to help introduce themselves to the discipline would find this page very useful. Still A Student (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

All redlinks on this list should be deleted, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, unless they can be connected with reliable sources which affirm that the individual is genuinely notable. --Elonka 19:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the entire list should be deleted per WP:V. Wikipedia can not be used as a source, so the existence of an article on WP is not able to be used as a source. Funnily enough, I have now provided the only source for a person on the list, who just so happens to be a redlink. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to deleting this list, though perhaps this should be discussed at Template talk:Politics, since it's linked from there, and that template is used on many other pages. --Elonka 20:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

cleaned up the redlinks. everyone on here is now notable, until they are nominated for deletion. the list should probably deleted. --Buridan (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Move

These scientists only deal in civil government, not in politics (eg religiuos politics, ...) as a whole