This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Malta 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.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Considering Maltese history and its limited application that argument could be used for almost anything. And yet - Wikipedia should be comprehensive, and the inclusion of any and all information that is interesting, well referenced and relevant must be encouraged. Keep on keeping on!
46.11.30.197 (
talk)
21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with providing some information about a person who's not an non-entity and might be of interest to someone looking him up on Wikipedia? Farrugia's inclusion certainly satisfies
WP:BIO in that he is sufficiently interesting to deserve attention or to be recorded. His exclusion would be a mistake. Moreover, why can't Farrugia be both a
penologistand a
philosopher? In the 18th century the distinction would have made perfect sense since the 'specialisation' (or 'professionalisation') phase of philosophy had not began yet. Today, perhaps, we would have judged otherwise, and this might be the reason why Farrugia's name does not feature in the main article of
Philosophy in Malta. Nonetheless, failing to recognise a competence which in Farrugia's day would have been more than appropriate would be a historical blunder. Furthermore, the article offers sufficient information on Farrugia to keep his contribution in perspective. Merely stating that he was only a
penologist will not do him justice. As one can easily note, Farrugia's contribution is wider in scope than an 18th century
penologist would deal with. Besides, his logical methodology in dealing with his chosen themes (1778) is philosophical, which, in the last analysis, is what counts here. In other words, the qualification '
philosopher' (and a minor one at that) adds something significant to '
penologist' which is worth noting. --
Katafore (
talk)
06:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Malta 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.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Considering Maltese history and its limited application that argument could be used for almost anything. And yet - Wikipedia should be comprehensive, and the inclusion of any and all information that is interesting, well referenced and relevant must be encouraged. Keep on keeping on!
46.11.30.197 (
talk)
21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)reply
What's wrong with providing some information about a person who's not an non-entity and might be of interest to someone looking him up on Wikipedia? Farrugia's inclusion certainly satisfies
WP:BIO in that he is sufficiently interesting to deserve attention or to be recorded. His exclusion would be a mistake. Moreover, why can't Farrugia be both a
penologistand a
philosopher? In the 18th century the distinction would have made perfect sense since the 'specialisation' (or 'professionalisation') phase of philosophy had not began yet. Today, perhaps, we would have judged otherwise, and this might be the reason why Farrugia's name does not feature in the main article of
Philosophy in Malta. Nonetheless, failing to recognise a competence which in Farrugia's day would have been more than appropriate would be a historical blunder. Furthermore, the article offers sufficient information on Farrugia to keep his contribution in perspective. Merely stating that he was only a
penologist will not do him justice. As one can easily note, Farrugia's contribution is wider in scope than an 18th century
penologist would deal with. Besides, his logical methodology in dealing with his chosen themes (1778) is philosophical, which, in the last analysis, is what counts here. In other words, the qualification '
philosopher' (and a minor one at that) adds something significant to '
penologist' which is worth noting. --
Katafore (
talk)
06:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)reply