This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Teleology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Daily page views
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Carchasm - in April 2022, an OR tag was added with this edit
Noting TALK has no comment and the article seems to have no action for that tag, and no specifics about the concern, I have put in this section per the tag template where it says "Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."
I'm thinking that if the concern hasn't gotten any involvement, then it might as well be removed, but wanted to try this first.
Please contribute, e.g. by describing your concern with some specifics further than the edit comment "it would be difficult to name a single predicate in this article that originated from a reliable source".
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
User:Carchasm - in August 2022, a LEAD REWRITE tag was added by this edit with the edit comment "lead should be rewritten to follow MOS and be more accessible".
Noting TALK has no section for discussion and the article seems to have no action for that tag, and no specifics about where it differs from MOS or accessibility, I have put in this section. The template does not explicitly call for it and so the WP:WTRMT guide about when to remove a tag does not explicitly say this is cause for removal, but it does look like a lack of edits and/or talk page discussion.
Please contribute, e.g. by describing your concern with some specifics further than the edit comment, perhaps suggested content or detailing critiques of specific locations with reasoning.
I think obviously the lead could be rewritten --and will offer the below from a google then looking at Britanica or wikis or Stanford, and trying to keep content focused about the philosophy aspects -- but with such a randomly crafted alternative I have no idea if it is addressing whatever concern and I tail off is anything to say towards the bottom.
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I think obviously the lead could be rewritten...."
This section is wholly devoted to Ludwig von Mises (and his controversial "science" of praxeology), whose historical figure is not specified (Austrian, libertarian, right wing, heterodox, etc. could all be used). It also omits any discussion of Marx's historical materialism, which drew on Hegel's teleological philosophy of history and has been of far broader historical consequence than Mises. It finishes with external links to articles on a wiki devoted to Mises. 104.57.64.23 ( talk) 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Why is deontology even part of this article? Deontology is not a teleological ethical theory. Captchacatcher ( talk) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Refer to the Teleological argument section (contributed by @ Quercus solaris): is "polemic morass" a term of art in cosmology or ontology? A cosmological/ontological sense isn't obvious, so an indication of what it means here would be helpful. Is the proposition that the "... chief instance, and the largest polemic morass, of teleological viewpoint in modern cosmology and ontology is the teleological argument that posits an intelligent designer as a god" verifiable? Without a reference, it looks like original research. Can anyone help, please? --- Frans Fowler ( talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Teleology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Daily page views
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Carchasm - in April 2022, an OR tag was added with this edit
Noting TALK has no comment and the article seems to have no action for that tag, and no specifics about the concern, I have put in this section per the tag template where it says "Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."
I'm thinking that if the concern hasn't gotten any involvement, then it might as well be removed, but wanted to try this first.
Please contribute, e.g. by describing your concern with some specifics further than the edit comment "it would be difficult to name a single predicate in this article that originated from a reliable source".
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 20:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
User:Carchasm - in August 2022, a LEAD REWRITE tag was added by this edit with the edit comment "lead should be rewritten to follow MOS and be more accessible".
Noting TALK has no section for discussion and the article seems to have no action for that tag, and no specifics about where it differs from MOS or accessibility, I have put in this section. The template does not explicitly call for it and so the WP:WTRMT guide about when to remove a tag does not explicitly say this is cause for removal, but it does look like a lack of edits and/or talk page discussion.
Please contribute, e.g. by describing your concern with some specifics further than the edit comment, perhaps suggested content or detailing critiques of specific locations with reasoning.
I think obviously the lead could be rewritten --and will offer the below from a google then looking at Britanica or wikis or Stanford, and trying to keep content focused about the philosophy aspects -- but with such a randomly crafted alternative I have no idea if it is addressing whatever concern and I tail off is anything to say towards the bottom.
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 21:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I think obviously the lead could be rewritten...."
This section is wholly devoted to Ludwig von Mises (and his controversial "science" of praxeology), whose historical figure is not specified (Austrian, libertarian, right wing, heterodox, etc. could all be used). It also omits any discussion of Marx's historical materialism, which drew on Hegel's teleological philosophy of history and has been of far broader historical consequence than Mises. It finishes with external links to articles on a wiki devoted to Mises. 104.57.64.23 ( talk) 01:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Why is deontology even part of this article? Deontology is not a teleological ethical theory. Captchacatcher ( talk) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Refer to the Teleological argument section (contributed by @ Quercus solaris): is "polemic morass" a term of art in cosmology or ontology? A cosmological/ontological sense isn't obvious, so an indication of what it means here would be helpful. Is the proposition that the "... chief instance, and the largest polemic morass, of teleological viewpoint in modern cosmology and ontology is the teleological argument that posits an intelligent designer as a god" verifiable? Without a reference, it looks like original research. Can anyone help, please? --- Frans Fowler ( talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)