Talk:The Three Types of Legitimate Rule

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles

Books

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 13:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Yes this page should be merged with the other very similar page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.162.213 (talk • contribs) 10:43, May 17, 2009

~~Agreed, I'll carry out the merger soon.~~ On the second thought, I am not sure if this is needed - one article is about the concept, other, about a book. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge indeed. This is not a book but a paper published posthumously; Weber has used his tripartite classification previously.Ael 2 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Joyous! | Talk 20:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV or NPOV?

At 20:12 (UTC), on the 31st January 2013 a contribution I have made adding a "See also" section with a link to * The three main principles that motivate citizen behaviour according to Montesquieu (1689-1755) has been undone by Arthur Rubin (talk) with the following motivation:

Reverted good faith edits by Maurice Carbonaro (talk): Badly formatted, and the only thing in common is "three" and "basis for rule" — it doesn't seem enough. ...

It looks Point of view to me and a violation to Neutral point of view that editors would normally expect from an Administrator.
Comments are welcome. Thanks. M aurice Carbonaro 07:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you have no idea what what you are saying means in English. Furthermore, I don't see any possible way what I said could possibly represent an NPOV violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you keep offending me. I understand very well what I am talking about: the article is about the "three legitimate rules" and the hyperlink I have attempted to add in the == See also == section was about the "* The three main principles that motivate citizen behaviour according to Montesquieu (1689-1755). You have rules and motivations. I guess there is some "connection". Anyway I will mark this as a minor edit as you wish. Cheers. M aurice Carbonaro 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a connection between "Three types of legitimate rule" and "Three principles that motivate citizen behaviour" other than the number "three" and that they are prinicples. There may be one, but I suspect rule of three is the only appropriate "see also" for either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]