This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The article Genus-differentia definition is evidently part of the series of Aristotelianism. Unfortunately, at present, Aristotle is mentioned only in the most tangential and trivial fashion.
I don't propose making Aristotle the focus of this article, since it (sensibly) aims at a discussion of genus-difference in its modern form. This form seems pretty different that Aristotle's ideas since, as I understand it, Aristotle believed that the genus was more or less naturally given, whereas modern writers (like Copi) point out that from a purely logical viewpoint, the genus and difference are literally interchangeable. That is, in terms of the logic alone, one may as well take "rational thing" as the genus and "is an animal" as the difference in the definition of man as rational animal.
But I think that any treatment of this form of definition needs at least a word or two on its historical origins and Aristotle's philosophy. I am not familiar, however, with this aspect of Aristotelianism and hence would appreciate contributions from someone else on the matter. I'm thinking a short section on the topic would suffice, perhaps with a word or two of how attitudes have shifted over the centuries.
Any takers? Phiwum ( talk) 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an editor over at Free will who has been tendentiously pushing to have some nonsense about non-physicalist metaphysical libertarianism being defined by "freely choosing to believe whether or not a soul exists". He has been pushing this for over a year now, and works on no other topics, lurking for weeks and then coming back to make the change again when nobody's looking, and I have been arguing with him the entire time trying to get him to even make clear what the hell his point is. It began as some pseudo-religious POV-pushing in the lede and has now boiled down to this nonsense about one paragraph about one kind of metaphysical libertarianism, but he still seems extremely confused and yet insistent on his point. Nevertheless he seems to be honestly trying to make some point, and I don't just want to get into a revert war with him. The few other editors who have commented before have expressed similar dismay with understanding what he's even trying to say, but for the most part there's nobody active at that article besides me and him. I'd really love to have some experienced editors come and give their say to try to sort this all out!
Current talk section link:
Relevant past talk sections:
Thanks, -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 02:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion here which could use more comments. Thanks! u n☯ mi 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Genus–differentia definition: There has been an ongoing discussion on the talk page concerning several things.
Theosophy This lead topic in Metaphysics has been somewhat highjacked by a group of people who believe that the only Theosophy was that of the Blavatsky-Schools. I have been trying to get their page renamed - possibly to Theosophy (Blavatsky-Schools), or other. However - this appears contentious, since the Theosophical Societies somehow believe that they own the word. The Encyclopedia of Religion makes a strong distinction that Theosophy is not the Theosophical Societies. I am trying to get this fixed. The lead Page "Theosophy" really belongs in the Philosophy section of Metaphysics. In any case this is a violation of the first Pillar of Wikipedia, as I see it. They are attached to that name and seem to be squatting on it some. Guidance appreciated. JEMead ( talk) 12:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I could use some input on how we might present the meaning of "reject" within the field of philosophy in plain English. u n☯ mi 12:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that here (philo-sci).-- John Bessa ( talk) 17:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Eyes on Strict conditional, please. User:Hanlon1755 created Conditional statement (logic) and then nominated Strict conditional, an existing article, for deletion. That debate is now closed as withdrawn. Conditional statement (logic) now redirects to Strict conditional. Hanlon1755 has "revamped" Strict conditional and is now engaged in a slow burning edit war with an IP who wants to revert to the original status - the IP has argued on the talk page that Hanlon1755's edits are off topic for the article. Those with knowledge of this area, please intervene. Fences& Windows 21:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this requested move. Noetica Tea? 22:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A logical inconsistency can often (always?) be reformulted in the form of a pradox. Can anyone help with such a formulation on the talk page of Wikipedia:Primary and secondary source paradoxes in law related articles? PPdd ( talk) 21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Help wanted: Looking for Meta-Counsel for the insane, conflicted, or misrepresented at Talk:Marsden motion#Meta Counsel for the insane, conflicted, or misrepresented. PPdd ( talk) 21:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This article ( Protoscience) needs professional help. In my opinion it should list scientific disciplines and explain when they became a formal science. In stead it tends to focus on current protoscience which is a controversial topic.
The article use to look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Protoscience&oldid=464537545
We use to have a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_protosciences&oldid=2241750
The Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard recently decided to delete it [1] but I understand it is part of "the philosophy of science".
Any advice would be helpful.
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Folks, could you take a look at this category name, and my proposal to rename it consistent with all of the others in the philosophy department. I certainly would not like to see a massive restructure that would make it harder to categorize things. Greg Bard ( talk) 06:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as a related WikiProject, you might be interested to know that the article Consolation of Philosophy is now up for a Good Article Review. Best, It Is Me Here t / c 11:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This new article is questionable. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudorationalism. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not a member of the philosophy project, however, I was wondering if anyone could help with the Critique of Pure Reason article? Much of it is written in a way that violates WP:NOTESSAY, a problem that gets progressively more serious as the article goes along and is worst in the subsection of First Division: Transcendental Analytic dealing with The Metaphysical Reduction. I believe that much of that section violates WP:NOTESSAY egregiously, and may be flawed beyond redemption. I am considering wiping much of that section, but would like to hear other editors' views of the matter before proceeding with such a potentially controversial move. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Pope John Paul II article is on peer review. If anyone is interested in improving the article, please do.-- Marek. 69 talk 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Philosophy will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in philosophy - as subjects, philosophers, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Fallacy#Fallacy_vs_logical_fallacy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There are several proposals to move philosophy categories to namespaces with parenthetical titles. I am strongly opposed to this, and I am wondering if we need to make an organized project effort to do something about the larger issue. It seems to me that philosophy as a discipline and these articles and categories by extention are marginalized, and these parentetical titles are a symptom of this. Doesn't "logical syntax" make more sense than "Syntax (logic)?" Greg Bard ( talk) 04:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Augustinian theodicy was recently nominated as a Featured Article, which might be of interest to some people in this WikiProject. You can find the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustinian theodicy/archive1. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 20:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a large overlap between consequentialism and utilitarianism, which is a form of the former. For example, both articles cover rule consequentialism/utilitarianism, motive consequentialism/utilitarianism, negative consequentialism/utilitarianism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on consequentialism discusses both topics in the same article, and is our best external link about utilitarianism. The entry discusses utilitarianism and classic utilitarianism without defining the difference between the two. Utilitarianism refers to classic utilitarianism too without defining it. Even consequentialism is problematic and the topic of the SEP entry's "What is Consequentialism?".
In conclusion, while there is clearly a difference between both, the difference is not very clear, and there is clearly a lot of overlap in any case. I am wondering whether the articles should remain separate. -- Chealer ( talk) 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
rv, that's a good question :) I'll tag it with a merge suggestion.— Machine Elf 1735 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Can editors from this project please look into the recent edits at the above article. As shown in this version, the article was once stable and readable. As it stands now, though, it is an incomprehensible morass of bad english, random quotes and content of vague relevance. Other editor's opinions would be appreciated. Claret Ash 22:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been experimenting with a new navigation sidebox for philosophy of religion at User:ItsZippy/Philosophy of religion. Once it is ready, I'll move it into the mainspace (under a different name which isn't taken) and start to incorporate it into philosophy of religion articles. Before then, I'd like to invite comment on the idea and any specifics, as well as invite any members of this project to help improve the template. Everything that is currently there is provisional - the layout, headings and content can all change. I await your input. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Anybody interested in fixing Index of philosophy articles (R–Z)? It has 16 links to dab-pages and nobody seems to care about it. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to make any comments you might wish at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Activity regarding possible more closely coordinated activity between the various religion, philosophy, and mythology WikiProjects. John Carter ( talk) 21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that Drift chamber, who was recently blocked for largely incoherent additions to many articles, especially Infinity (philosophy), had created a copy/paste move article at Infinity (Oriental thought).
Any thoughts on what should happen to this?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I am currently working on improving Kantian ethics. Although I am pleased with what I have done with it so far, I am not expert in this area - could someone who more expertise perhaps have a look and see what they can do with it? In particular, reactions to Kant's ethics from other philosophers would be helpful. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there again. I'm just wondering if anyone here would be willing to review the FAC nomination of Augustinian theodicy. I've asked here before but the review page hasn't had a comment in the last 16 days - it would be good if someone could give their comments. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 15:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The article potential person has almost no links to it from various philosophical articles. (It is mostly linked to be articles on abortion debate, plus natalism, antinatalism and personhood). I know there has been a lot of thought about potential vs. actual things, ideals, etc. and people must have applied those ideas to humans. So I expect there should be logical places were other articles should cover/link to such an article. In cases like this I have often found articles that are essentially duplicates under different names, so such might exist in this case as well. However I am not well versed in philosophy, nor in its coverage here, so would appreciate it if those who are would introduce links to the article, or suggest where such links would be reasonable. (The article could also use attention from anyone well versed in philosophy to better connect it's coverage to the other articles here.) Thank you. Zodon ( talk) 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, fellow philosophers. I've recently been doing a bit of work on divine command theory, but I'm not an expert on the subject. I've made a fair bit of improvement, but it would be really helpful if someone who knows more about it that I do could have a look. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the following categories have been proposed for deletion:
Discussion is here. -- Lambiam 23:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there an article somewhere that treats the notion of individual in the sense of "object considered as a whole, eligible to be en element of a class"? Searches for phrases like "individual (philosophy)" are confounded by too many hits for the notion of an individual person. Searching for "individual (ontology)", I hit upon ontology components#Individuals, but this seems to be more from a computer-science perspective. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Peter Strawson's book "Individuals" deals with this. It starts with "bodies" and the identification of particulars. Persons are dealt with but are not the central issue. Its years since I read it, however.-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 05:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Some time ago I started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list and it eventually resulted in List of self-publishing companies. It seems that some of those publishers are used in this project, e.g. Vantage Press on Bertrand Russell's views on philosophy, etc. I am sure there are others. I am asking a few projects to help turn the tide against the invasion of Wikipedia by self-published sources by:
Eventually we will write a bot that checks these and leaves messages about them, and suggestions on that on Talk:List_of_self-publishing_companies will also be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 21:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The category Aesthetics literature was depopulated and then proposed for speedy deletion. That is not the proper way to accomplish that type of thing. So the question is whether or not the works category is a replacement for, or a clarification of the lit category. Is this going to be the trend for the 19 or so other lit categories? Greg Bard ( talk) 06:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I've requested a peer review of religious language; I was wondering if anyone here could take a look for me? The review page is here. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 20:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
A proposal to merge Scientific law into Laws of science is being discussed here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if there is someone here with the expertise to rewrite the lede of the article Being. We are looking for a few short paragraphs that introduce the term in much the same way it might be introduced to a freshman philosophy class.
Last december, I grossly simplified to the lede in order to remove some confusing prose, poor organization and (possible) original research. My simplification has been reverted with this recent edit. I don't want to get in an edit war over this, so I would appreciate a few more eyes. Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 09:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This is to inform people of a new (political) philosophy entry and ask for advice. My first entry on wikipedia was supposed to be on Libertarian Paternalism (term coined by Thaler and Sunstein in a 2003 article in The American Economic Review). However, I discovered that there was a redirect to "soft paternalism". Some authors have called libertarian paternalism a form of soft paternalism but the terms are certainly not synonyms, or even very close. I tried submitting a new article on libertarian paternalism anyway but had it rejected twice with the only explanation that there is an existing redirect. So now I have updated the old entry on soft paternalism to be in effect an entry on libertarian paternalism, with a clear statement that this is the case in the first sentence. This is not optimal though. If someone has the clout and expertise to rename the soft paternalism entry that would be swell. Or break the redirect and move the content to a new entry, or whatever is the best technical solution. Filofil ( talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The Knowledge Acquisition entry was initially about a stage in the building of computerized KBS (Expert Systems), it had nothing to do with philosophy directly. It has now devolved into a third rate entry about philosophy. All mention of KBS has disappeared but the links to Knowledge Engineering remain.
The current version seems to be the result of changes made by a very inexperience editor. It contains citations to Wikipedia (that's right "citations" not links) and the Britannica. It was flagged as within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy by user: Pollinosisss I think this was a mistake.
I do not think that Knowledge Acquisition can be treated separately from epistemology especially as there is an "Acquiring knowledge" section there. I propose that the entry be changed back to something about KBS and all reference to Wikiproject Philosophy deleted. A paragraph at the beginning could point readers to epistemology and to cognitive psychology. -- Logicalgregory 07:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal to delete the navigation bar on categories such as logic, aesthetics, etcetera. I am not seeing any very good reasons for the proposal, and it was at least a little bit of effort to create them. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
HI WikiProject Philosophy! I'm writing to inform you of my interest in starting a group that works on articles about globalization, in order to improve coverage of globalization on Wikipedia. Your group has banners on some of the articles that are key to this discussion, and I believe many perspectives and disciplines needs to come together if we're going to get it right. If you would consider supporting such a project, would you please swing by the Globalization Project Proposal and expressing that interest? Thanks so very much! LizFlash ( talk) 17:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It would be great with some extra attention to a discussion at Talk:Mind where another editor and I are attempting to work towards a better definition of "mind". ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I am hoping to submit religious language to FAC soon - I would appreciate it if someone could copyedit the article, please. Thank you, ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 17:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Philosophy members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee ( talk) 14:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
hello,
I requested a peer review for Fyodor Dostoyevsky, see here. Any comments are appreciated. Regards.-- GoP T C N 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter ( talk) 22:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A debate is going on over at Talk:Person right now, where two other editors are wanting to add substantial material on the subject of Personhood directly into the lede of Person, which is a summary-style article of Personhood and Personal identity. My objections on the redundancy of this seem to fall on deaf ears; they don't seem to acknowledge that Personal identity exists at all (ADDENDUM: One of the editors in question is now calling Personal identity "philobabble" and questioning whether we should even have an article on that subject at all), or for that matter to have even read Person beyond the lede, or to realize that we have an entire article on Personhood already where their contributions would be much more appropriate. I would greatly appreciate some experienced editors stopping by to give their opinions on the matter there. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 09:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Religious language problem is currently a featured article candidate; listed here. If anyone could review the article, I'd be grateful. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 14:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion for the category: Abstraction that could do with your input. Brad7777 ( talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This article, Graphing the history of philosophy, has a diagram constructed using the "influenced by" section of philosopher infoboxes. Greg Bard ( talk) 04:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have recently come upon the article Time and found that the lede definition (the very first sentence) was written strictly from the POV of experimental physicists, essentially saying that time is a measurement. The lede said nothing about how time is normally experienced by humans (and other being) as, for lack of better words, our sequential progress in our existence. This is what is in the primary definitions of all three major English dictionaries. It's highly POV to require the lede definition of time to be defined only in terms of measurement. As if time has no meaning outside of measurement. Especially when it ignores the dictionary definition and especially when there exists a Time in physics article.
Can we get some help there at Time? 71.169.176.253 ( talk) 14:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The above article was recently, so far as I can tell unilaterally, moved from the first title to the second. There has been a request for a move back to the old title at Talk:Existence of God(s)#Article title question, and I would welcome the input of any editors regarding the name and content of the article in question. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 20:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Category:Style, a recently created category, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. All are welcome to participate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What do people think of Max H. Siegel? It appears he may have created this himself. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Just to let you know, Religious language problem is still a feature article candidate; I'd appreciate it if anyone else could have a look and give comments. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I've put a draft together, as I said I might to Drmies, of how this could be as a proper philosophy article, rather than the grab-bag that it currently is and that people are objecting to. Have a look. Uncle G ( talk) 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the recent notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts#Proposed changes to WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed changes to WP:NOT as it effects all religion editors: "There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 08:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What a pile of excrement. Embarrassing. Someone ought to take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.23.99 ( talk) 00:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Newsletter for religion/philosophy/mythology?. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Augustinian theodicy is a Featured Article candidate; any comments there would be appreciated. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 19:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see:
Thanks. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 05:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Members of this wikiProject may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Mathematics -> Philosopher. Yaris678 ( talk) 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI, both Taoism and Tao Te Ching have been proposed to be renamed to the Pinyin romanization, see Talk:Tao Te Ching -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Alan_Liefting has proposed the deletion of a couple of category templates. These templates provide convenient links to categories that are not otherwise convenient due to quirks of the organization (e.g. Category "Ethics" is not easily reached from category "Philosophy" due to being under "Branches of philosophy"). Please see:
Greg Bard ( talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I am student at Rice University working on a Wikipedia article for class. I am proposing to edit the "Organ Trade" article to be more inclusive of the growing amount of information available about how the illegal organ trade impacts those in impoverished nations. Particularly, I am planning on updating the "Debate" section to include more about the scholarly discussion that is taking place as it regards the organ trade. I believe this issue is closely tied to ethics and morality, and as such I would greatly appreciate the assistance of this Wikiproject while editing the article. I look forward to working with you all! CoeA ( talk) 01:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I've made several proposals for changes to Mind-body problem, but aside from MachineElf, who is opposed to any change, there has been no interest shown on the Talk page. The article Mind-body problem is in pathetic condition, and some help editing this topic would be useful. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at the AFC John Anthony's Wager which is about a philosophical argument. I wrongly reviewed it (now amended) but I would like to provide some additional guidance to the submitter. I am not familiar even slightly with the subject matter so any suggestions in regards to what the minimum notability/referencing requirements might be for something like this would be helpful. Thoughts much appreciated, France3470 (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an article that talks a bit about the philosophy articles at Wikipedia. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in collaborating to expand the article on this important book by Deleuze & Guattari? We could each take a plateau. (There aren't really a thousand.) Just say hi on the talk page or call dibs on a chapter or something. groupuscule ( talk) 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 02:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
A while back, the article Logical consequence was moved to Entailment. I subsequently proposed to move it back. However, it was not. I have always found this to be a very troubling development. Recently, I have been adding reference resources to articles and categories consistent with those resources. This is one that is not consistent (and I said it at the time.) Please take a look at SEP, InPho, PhilPapers, and IEP, none of which has an article on "entailment" independent of "logical consequence." The article itself is a bit scattered, and this has been a big stumbling block for me to improving it. It is only one of the most important concepts in logic. Please support this move, as it is consistent with the scholarly literature on the subject, and Wikipedia is the odd resource out in this regard. Greg Bard ( talk) 07:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we do something about this dogs breakfast of a page? Category:Logic. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As a newby I'm surprised that General Semantics is not considered to be a philosophical subject. It certainly has a direct relationship to the nature of reality, which is definitely a subject for philosophy.
I beg your pardon, please ignore the preceding. I found the topic.
Sui docuit ( talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Sui docuit
Hello, do you have anything on Augustin Sesmat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Meltdown ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed for the category "metaphysical cosmology" to be deleted and its content to be moved to either "religious" or "mythological" cosmology. The word "metaphysics" in Wikipedia is reserved for scholarly and academic philosophers, not spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism. Let's not mish-mash the two. It is a disservice to legitimate scholars and hurts the credibility of WP, especially the philosophy department. Greg Bard ( talk) 02:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello can you help me out? I wrote a page about William Vorinlong, but i think it needs to be corrected and improved. I think it needs more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotia me genuit ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input from philosophers would be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought I would pass this along... You can download a ten volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy using this link. Greg Bard ( talk) 02:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Once again, User:Arthur Rubin has proposed to merge Metalogic and Metamathematics. In my opinion, Arthur's issues are POV related, and any merge will most likely result in substantial content deletion. Greg Bard ( talk) 15:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion involving retoring content from sources describing alternative medicine as being based on pseudoscience, antiscience, tradition, and bad science, including the first 14 sources of this version, such as Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Academic Medicine, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Medical Journal of Australia, Nature Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik ( talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Logical symbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dmcq ( talk) 15:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Should redirect for " Drittes Reich" and " Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?
Following discussion re MEDRS, ontologic status of psychiatric categories, and controversy re the scientific methodologies for attaching the term "disease" and "disorder" to the categories, if they really exist, on the psychiatry and related talk page, FiachraByrne wrote (bolfaced for emphasis of most relevant part -
As to the designation as a medical practice is a MEDRS issue at Wikipedia, not just a matter of determining common usage on the street. The same WP:MEDRS standards should be applied to psychiatry as to alternative medicine articles. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is also one of the oldest "medical" practices. There is rigorous enforcement by WP:MEDRS hawks (of which I am one) that assertions re TCM being healing " medicine", as defined in that article and by MEDRS standards. The only allowable edits are that TCM practitioners "claim" to heal. TCM uses supernatural etiological objects (" qi" flow blockage causing qi, not the heart, to propel the blood inadequately), and outright false statements about anatomies, developed without the "cutting" of the "tom" in "anatomy" (Greek "tom" means "cut", as in "a-tom" – meaning not further able to be cut, as atoms were thought to be), has also historically been designated "medicine". MEDRS has different standards than accepted common usage, and for good reasons well argued in setting up the policy. I believe that this topic should be noticed at Wikiproject Philosophy, MEDRS talk, and at Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. I am loathe to do so, however, as this will draw kooks and people with other agendas from the "alt med community" with no expertise in this technical topic of discussion, distorting and obscuring the discussion.
Discussion of "Should the psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and related articles be held to a lower MEDRS standard than alternative medicine and its related articles?" is here [5]. ParkSehJik ( talk) 17:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
File:WJStein 1.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.24.250.110 ( talk) 00:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated.
Hi everyone,
I'm looking to get other experienced editors involved at a dispute ongoing at Talk:Free will. An editor there is pushing to make some major changes which I think are clearly negative and reflect a general misunderstanding of the topic as a whole. The editor appears to be trying to use the talk page to come to an understanding himself of the topic, but meanwhile wants to completely rewrite the delicately-worded lede with his (ever-changing) current best understanding, and hasn't identified any problems in the article as it stands besides that he can't understand it. I have been trying to explain why his proposed edits are not acceptable and would be a major violation of WP:NPOV in one direction or another, and one other inexperienced editor is commenting occasionally in my favor, but this discussion is extremely time-consuming and I just don't know that I will always be there to keep this up.
So I would really like if some other experienced editors would at least keep an eye on the article and talk page discussion and hopefully join in the discussion, so that if I don't have the time to commit to this the other editor doesn't wreck the delicate POV balance that other editors have worked so hard to established over the years there. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The category for every field of philosophy has a "theories" subcategory. This makes it possible for readers to easily compare and contrast the competing theories in any of the various fields. It would seem to be a very important feature for our readers. User:Editor2020 has proposed to delete this category under philosophy of religion Metatheory of religion. I am not sure what the alternative is, and this would be a serious loss for the whole project. Please help me keep a consistent category structure, which I have worked so hard to establish. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Appeals seem to be a commonly used concept in philosophical texts, but the closest Wikipedia has to a description of an appeals meaning in philosophy is in the 'Argument' section of Appeal_(disambiguation). There it is simply summarized as "Various types of informal fallacy are described as an appeal to something:" followed by a list of proposed fallacies.
This is surely an unfortuneate disservice to understanding of philosophical language. I read many examples of appeals mentioned as areas of inquiry, or as an identification of a subject important to an argument. To presuppose that if such identification can be made then fallacy is implied is clearly nonsense (?) Yet that is all WPs present definition eludes to.
I have not been able to locate a description of appeals meaning in philosophy to correct the definition with reference. Can anyone suggest how to improve the situation?
To Appeal to a concept would seem to be originally a somewhat poetic device metaphorically gesturing toward whatever concept understanding might be sought from. Alas i don't expect a poetic explanation will suffice today. Lisnabreeny ( talk) 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone think its a good idea to make an article about supernatural entities such as heaven hell, angels, devils etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pass a Method ( talk • contribs)
The article on Philo needs lots of work. It was completely unattributed copy and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) a week ago. I'm looking for interested editors. The problem is, Philo seems to be too Greek Philosophy leading to Christianity for the Jewish History project and too Jewish for any Christian history editors (can't seem to find the right Christian project page). Help!
Why isn't there an archive search box on this page like on other voluminous talk pages? Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I demoted God is dead from B- to C-class for the reasons outlined in Talk:God is dead#This article needs re-factoring or re-writing. I lack the expertise to do the article justice, so I'm calling editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism to quickly improve the article at least to B-class.
In recognition of the Feb 28, 2012 death of William Hamilton (theologian), I'm further challenging both WikiProjects to work to get this to Good Article status if possible. Please follow up on the article's talk page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and happy New Year!, I am a philosopher and have spent my life invested into the most difficult subjects of our human condition. This year was spent practically explaining the theory behind our social problem's historical development, and how we could flip everything by creating quality free education, distributed on the Internet.
I do not separate my "personal" and "professional" life. I am alone in this life and spend it travelling the world, studying society both theoretically and practically while standing outside of it. I then create films (moderately popular considering I am fighting against mainstream) that attempt to receptively reinterpret wisdom into the actions of our society's individuals. I then distribute these films for free utilising most media distribution formats including many sources on the Internet and DVD's.
I would assert that I am more closely connected with my work than anyone else in the world because my heart is all in it. I live the life of an anchorite. And when the relational qualities of the dots of our constellations become clear to me, I am thrown into inspiration and then very quickly create very moving productions that will stand the test of time.
My work is all about me. But I have conditioned my psychology over my life to be all about our human condition. Thus from the reflections of me, if the work is examined in its entirety, we come to learn that my work is all about each and every one of us. I have spent my life attempting to remove bias from my thought process. And I closely examine each and every detail within my existence and contemplate different methods to understand and interpret this "reality" in front of me.
I am seeking for a way for my work to be referenced within Wikipedia. I have a great amount of work but have really only started creating professional audiovisual productions recently, so my old work would not need articles on them, but may be linked as references. I will not have a problem finding additional references for the articles because that is all included in my work anyway: I am a philosophy teacher.
Me and all of my productions that I would add to this site are EXTREMELY noteworthy and will one day be in physical encyclopaedias. I have given my life entirely to all of my fellow human brothers and sisters and one day the world will realise what I have done.
I do want to mention that my work is extremely controversial according to our modern society. But when we shine light over the ghosts we always find that they were only sheets draped over a chair. Dionysus is my method and Love is my game. I do all of this for free. I do not want anyone's money but instead, their heart. Love is free and my heart belongs to all of you.
Thanks! - Wendell Charles NeSmith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcnesmith ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It is sad because I see so many unexplained metaphors and allegories within mythology on Wikipedia and it irritates me and I am driven to clear them up. It will happen when the necessity for mass media is blown away by the Internet. BTW, Dr. NeSmith is my father. He is a professor in education. I have studied my entire life but never cared about getting a PhD because our education system is flawed at its very core, and I saw this reflected in my Father's life throughout my own. A PhD means nothing and I am here to show us all this. What we do with the conscious seconds in front of us means everything. Wcnesmith ( talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
My work is all backed up with scholarly sources. But the end result is new work as their relational qualities are examined and compared with our modern times. Most of what I do is reinterpret old wisdom but in this process I find new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcnesmith ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Greg. My interpretation of things is in my work and would only be outlined in Wikipedia, referencing to other material to further explain metaphors and allegories originally intended from the fables but not yet explored within the current articles (mythology and its deep meaning is really lacking on this site). All I desired to do was to point to that work for further interpretation on mythology, backed with sources. From this information, I do not think that my edits would be rejected. The only thing that I am unsure of is new articles, but I guess I will see because they will be backed by sources. This is why I wanted someone to review them and give me feedback on how to include them in the way that Wikipedia wanted me to. Like I said before, I am a philosophy teacher and I teach the history and development of philosophy. I am not throwing out ideals that are new: only applying old ideals to our modern times, digging up old forgotten wisdom. There is nothing new under the Sun.
I also do all of this for free and the conflict of interest really only stresses those who make money off of their material. I give myself for free to help develop society. My only interest is to help build our collective past, present, and future knowledge. Wcnesmith ( talk) 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I correct myself. My only edit so far with Pygmalion was removed. I am not going to bother with this project. Other people can one day reference me and you lose the original source. It is amazing how people even here lack the ability to do background research to verify the sources and their validity. Overlook the source and then get people to write about the source. Wonderful way to build collective knowledge. The mythology sections here are not very accurate and their metaphors and allegories remain hidden. Good bye Wikipedia. I have much bigger fish to fry. Happy NY. Wcnesmith ( talk) 12:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The article Genus-differentia definition is evidently part of the series of Aristotelianism. Unfortunately, at present, Aristotle is mentioned only in the most tangential and trivial fashion.
I don't propose making Aristotle the focus of this article, since it (sensibly) aims at a discussion of genus-difference in its modern form. This form seems pretty different that Aristotle's ideas since, as I understand it, Aristotle believed that the genus was more or less naturally given, whereas modern writers (like Copi) point out that from a purely logical viewpoint, the genus and difference are literally interchangeable. That is, in terms of the logic alone, one may as well take "rational thing" as the genus and "is an animal" as the difference in the definition of man as rational animal.
But I think that any treatment of this form of definition needs at least a word or two on its historical origins and Aristotle's philosophy. I am not familiar, however, with this aspect of Aristotelianism and hence would appreciate contributions from someone else on the matter. I'm thinking a short section on the topic would suffice, perhaps with a word or two of how attitudes have shifted over the centuries.
Any takers? Phiwum ( talk) 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an editor over at Free will who has been tendentiously pushing to have some nonsense about non-physicalist metaphysical libertarianism being defined by "freely choosing to believe whether or not a soul exists". He has been pushing this for over a year now, and works on no other topics, lurking for weeks and then coming back to make the change again when nobody's looking, and I have been arguing with him the entire time trying to get him to even make clear what the hell his point is. It began as some pseudo-religious POV-pushing in the lede and has now boiled down to this nonsense about one paragraph about one kind of metaphysical libertarianism, but he still seems extremely confused and yet insistent on his point. Nevertheless he seems to be honestly trying to make some point, and I don't just want to get into a revert war with him. The few other editors who have commented before have expressed similar dismay with understanding what he's even trying to say, but for the most part there's nobody active at that article besides me and him. I'd really love to have some experienced editors come and give their say to try to sort this all out!
Current talk section link:
Relevant past talk sections:
Thanks, -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 02:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion here which could use more comments. Thanks! u n☯ mi 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Genus–differentia definition: There has been an ongoing discussion on the talk page concerning several things.
Theosophy This lead topic in Metaphysics has been somewhat highjacked by a group of people who believe that the only Theosophy was that of the Blavatsky-Schools. I have been trying to get their page renamed - possibly to Theosophy (Blavatsky-Schools), or other. However - this appears contentious, since the Theosophical Societies somehow believe that they own the word. The Encyclopedia of Religion makes a strong distinction that Theosophy is not the Theosophical Societies. I am trying to get this fixed. The lead Page "Theosophy" really belongs in the Philosophy section of Metaphysics. In any case this is a violation of the first Pillar of Wikipedia, as I see it. They are attached to that name and seem to be squatting on it some. Guidance appreciated. JEMead ( talk) 12:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I could use some input on how we might present the meaning of "reject" within the field of philosophy in plain English. u n☯ mi 12:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that here (philo-sci).-- John Bessa ( talk) 17:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Eyes on Strict conditional, please. User:Hanlon1755 created Conditional statement (logic) and then nominated Strict conditional, an existing article, for deletion. That debate is now closed as withdrawn. Conditional statement (logic) now redirects to Strict conditional. Hanlon1755 has "revamped" Strict conditional and is now engaged in a slow burning edit war with an IP who wants to revert to the original status - the IP has argued on the talk page that Hanlon1755's edits are off topic for the article. Those with knowledge of this area, please intervene. Fences& Windows 21:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this requested move. Noetica Tea? 22:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A logical inconsistency can often (always?) be reformulted in the form of a pradox. Can anyone help with such a formulation on the talk page of Wikipedia:Primary and secondary source paradoxes in law related articles? PPdd ( talk) 21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Help wanted: Looking for Meta-Counsel for the insane, conflicted, or misrepresented at Talk:Marsden motion#Meta Counsel for the insane, conflicted, or misrepresented. PPdd ( talk) 21:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Transhumanism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This article ( Protoscience) needs professional help. In my opinion it should list scientific disciplines and explain when they became a formal science. In stead it tends to focus on current protoscience which is a controversial topic.
The article use to look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Protoscience&oldid=464537545
We use to have a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_protosciences&oldid=2241750
The Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard recently decided to delete it [1] but I understand it is part of "the philosophy of science".
Any advice would be helpful.
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Folks, could you take a look at this category name, and my proposal to rename it consistent with all of the others in the philosophy department. I certainly would not like to see a massive restructure that would make it harder to categorize things. Greg Bard ( talk) 06:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as a related WikiProject, you might be interested to know that the article Consolation of Philosophy is now up for a Good Article Review. Best, It Is Me Here t / c 11:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This new article is questionable. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudorationalism. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not a member of the philosophy project, however, I was wondering if anyone could help with the Critique of Pure Reason article? Much of it is written in a way that violates WP:NOTESSAY, a problem that gets progressively more serious as the article goes along and is worst in the subsection of First Division: Transcendental Analytic dealing with The Metaphysical Reduction. I believe that much of that section violates WP:NOTESSAY egregiously, and may be flawed beyond redemption. I am considering wiping much of that section, but would like to hear other editors' views of the matter before proceeding with such a potentially controversial move. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Pope John Paul II article is on peer review. If anyone is interested in improving the article, please do.-- Marek. 69 talk 21:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Philosophy will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in philosophy - as subjects, philosophers, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Fallacy#Fallacy_vs_logical_fallacy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
There are several proposals to move philosophy categories to namespaces with parenthetical titles. I am strongly opposed to this, and I am wondering if we need to make an organized project effort to do something about the larger issue. It seems to me that philosophy as a discipline and these articles and categories by extention are marginalized, and these parentetical titles are a symptom of this. Doesn't "logical syntax" make more sense than "Syntax (logic)?" Greg Bard ( talk) 04:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Augustinian theodicy was recently nominated as a Featured Article, which might be of interest to some people in this WikiProject. You can find the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustinian theodicy/archive1. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 20:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a large overlap between consequentialism and utilitarianism, which is a form of the former. For example, both articles cover rule consequentialism/utilitarianism, motive consequentialism/utilitarianism, negative consequentialism/utilitarianism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on consequentialism discusses both topics in the same article, and is our best external link about utilitarianism. The entry discusses utilitarianism and classic utilitarianism without defining the difference between the two. Utilitarianism refers to classic utilitarianism too without defining it. Even consequentialism is problematic and the topic of the SEP entry's "What is Consequentialism?".
In conclusion, while there is clearly a difference between both, the difference is not very clear, and there is clearly a lot of overlap in any case. I am wondering whether the articles should remain separate. -- Chealer ( talk) 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
rv, that's a good question :) I'll tag it with a merge suggestion.— Machine Elf 1735 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Can editors from this project please look into the recent edits at the above article. As shown in this version, the article was once stable and readable. As it stands now, though, it is an incomprehensible morass of bad english, random quotes and content of vague relevance. Other editor's opinions would be appreciated. Claret Ash 22:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been experimenting with a new navigation sidebox for philosophy of religion at User:ItsZippy/Philosophy of religion. Once it is ready, I'll move it into the mainspace (under a different name which isn't taken) and start to incorporate it into philosophy of religion articles. Before then, I'd like to invite comment on the idea and any specifics, as well as invite any members of this project to help improve the template. Everything that is currently there is provisional - the layout, headings and content can all change. I await your input. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Anybody interested in fixing Index of philosophy articles (R–Z)? It has 16 links to dab-pages and nobody seems to care about it. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to make any comments you might wish at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Activity regarding possible more closely coordinated activity between the various religion, philosophy, and mythology WikiProjects. John Carter ( talk) 21:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that Drift chamber, who was recently blocked for largely incoherent additions to many articles, especially Infinity (philosophy), had created a copy/paste move article at Infinity (Oriental thought).
Any thoughts on what should happen to this?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I am currently working on improving Kantian ethics. Although I am pleased with what I have done with it so far, I am not expert in this area - could someone who more expertise perhaps have a look and see what they can do with it? In particular, reactions to Kant's ethics from other philosophers would be helpful. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there again. I'm just wondering if anyone here would be willing to review the FAC nomination of Augustinian theodicy. I've asked here before but the review page hasn't had a comment in the last 16 days - it would be good if someone could give their comments. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 18:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 15:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The article potential person has almost no links to it from various philosophical articles. (It is mostly linked to be articles on abortion debate, plus natalism, antinatalism and personhood). I know there has been a lot of thought about potential vs. actual things, ideals, etc. and people must have applied those ideas to humans. So I expect there should be logical places were other articles should cover/link to such an article. In cases like this I have often found articles that are essentially duplicates under different names, so such might exist in this case as well. However I am not well versed in philosophy, nor in its coverage here, so would appreciate it if those who are would introduce links to the article, or suggest where such links would be reasonable. (The article could also use attention from anyone well versed in philosophy to better connect it's coverage to the other articles here.) Thank you. Zodon ( talk) 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, fellow philosophers. I've recently been doing a bit of work on divine command theory, but I'm not an expert on the subject. I've made a fair bit of improvement, but it would be really helpful if someone who knows more about it that I do could have a look. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the following categories have been proposed for deletion:
Discussion is here. -- Lambiam 23:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there an article somewhere that treats the notion of individual in the sense of "object considered as a whole, eligible to be en element of a class"? Searches for phrases like "individual (philosophy)" are confounded by too many hits for the notion of an individual person. Searching for "individual (ontology)", I hit upon ontology components#Individuals, but this seems to be more from a computer-science perspective. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Peter Strawson's book "Individuals" deals with this. It starts with "bodies" and the identification of particulars. Persons are dealt with but are not the central issue. Its years since I read it, however.-- Logicalgregory ( talk) 05:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Some time ago I started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_publishing_list and it eventually resulted in List of self-publishing companies. It seems that some of those publishers are used in this project, e.g. Vantage Press on Bertrand Russell's views on philosophy, etc. I am sure there are others. I am asking a few projects to help turn the tide against the invasion of Wikipedia by self-published sources by:
Eventually we will write a bot that checks these and leaves messages about them, and suggestions on that on Talk:List_of_self-publishing_companies will also be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 21:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The category Aesthetics literature was depopulated and then proposed for speedy deletion. That is not the proper way to accomplish that type of thing. So the question is whether or not the works category is a replacement for, or a clarification of the lit category. Is this going to be the trend for the 19 or so other lit categories? Greg Bard ( talk) 06:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I've requested a peer review of religious language; I was wondering if anyone here could take a look for me? The review page is here. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 20:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
A proposal to merge Scientific law into Laws of science is being discussed here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if there is someone here with the expertise to rewrite the lede of the article Being. We are looking for a few short paragraphs that introduce the term in much the same way it might be introduced to a freshman philosophy class.
Last december, I grossly simplified to the lede in order to remove some confusing prose, poor organization and (possible) original research. My simplification has been reverted with this recent edit. I don't want to get in an edit war over this, so I would appreciate a few more eyes. Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 09:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This is to inform people of a new (political) philosophy entry and ask for advice. My first entry on wikipedia was supposed to be on Libertarian Paternalism (term coined by Thaler and Sunstein in a 2003 article in The American Economic Review). However, I discovered that there was a redirect to "soft paternalism". Some authors have called libertarian paternalism a form of soft paternalism but the terms are certainly not synonyms, or even very close. I tried submitting a new article on libertarian paternalism anyway but had it rejected twice with the only explanation that there is an existing redirect. So now I have updated the old entry on soft paternalism to be in effect an entry on libertarian paternalism, with a clear statement that this is the case in the first sentence. This is not optimal though. If someone has the clout and expertise to rename the soft paternalism entry that would be swell. Or break the redirect and move the content to a new entry, or whatever is the best technical solution. Filofil ( talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The Knowledge Acquisition entry was initially about a stage in the building of computerized KBS (Expert Systems), it had nothing to do with philosophy directly. It has now devolved into a third rate entry about philosophy. All mention of KBS has disappeared but the links to Knowledge Engineering remain.
The current version seems to be the result of changes made by a very inexperience editor. It contains citations to Wikipedia (that's right "citations" not links) and the Britannica. It was flagged as within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy by user: Pollinosisss I think this was a mistake.
I do not think that Knowledge Acquisition can be treated separately from epistemology especially as there is an "Acquiring knowledge" section there. I propose that the entry be changed back to something about KBS and all reference to Wikiproject Philosophy deleted. A paragraph at the beginning could point readers to epistemology and to cognitive psychology. -- Logicalgregory 07:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a proposal to delete the navigation bar on categories such as logic, aesthetics, etcetera. I am not seeing any very good reasons for the proposal, and it was at least a little bit of effort to create them. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
HI WikiProject Philosophy! I'm writing to inform you of my interest in starting a group that works on articles about globalization, in order to improve coverage of globalization on Wikipedia. Your group has banners on some of the articles that are key to this discussion, and I believe many perspectives and disciplines needs to come together if we're going to get it right. If you would consider supporting such a project, would you please swing by the Globalization Project Proposal and expressing that interest? Thanks so very much! LizFlash ( talk) 17:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It would be great with some extra attention to a discussion at Talk:Mind where another editor and I are attempting to work towards a better definition of "mind". ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I am hoping to submit religious language to FAC soon - I would appreciate it if someone could copyedit the article, please. Thank you, ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 17:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Philosophy members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee ( talk) 14:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
hello,
I requested a peer review for Fyodor Dostoyevsky, see here. Any comments are appreciated. Regards.-- GoP T C N 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter ( talk) 22:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A debate is going on over at Talk:Person right now, where two other editors are wanting to add substantial material on the subject of Personhood directly into the lede of Person, which is a summary-style article of Personhood and Personal identity. My objections on the redundancy of this seem to fall on deaf ears; they don't seem to acknowledge that Personal identity exists at all (ADDENDUM: One of the editors in question is now calling Personal identity "philobabble" and questioning whether we should even have an article on that subject at all), or for that matter to have even read Person beyond the lede, or to realize that we have an entire article on Personhood already where their contributions would be much more appropriate. I would greatly appreciate some experienced editors stopping by to give their opinions on the matter there. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 09:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Religious language problem is currently a featured article candidate; listed here. If anyone could review the article, I'd be grateful. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 14:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion for the category: Abstraction that could do with your input. Brad7777 ( talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This article, Graphing the history of philosophy, has a diagram constructed using the "influenced by" section of philosopher infoboxes. Greg Bard ( talk) 04:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have recently come upon the article Time and found that the lede definition (the very first sentence) was written strictly from the POV of experimental physicists, essentially saying that time is a measurement. The lede said nothing about how time is normally experienced by humans (and other being) as, for lack of better words, our sequential progress in our existence. This is what is in the primary definitions of all three major English dictionaries. It's highly POV to require the lede definition of time to be defined only in terms of measurement. As if time has no meaning outside of measurement. Especially when it ignores the dictionary definition and especially when there exists a Time in physics article.
Can we get some help there at Time? 71.169.176.253 ( talk) 14:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The above article was recently, so far as I can tell unilaterally, moved from the first title to the second. There has been a request for a move back to the old title at Talk:Existence of God(s)#Article title question, and I would welcome the input of any editors regarding the name and content of the article in question. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 20:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Category:Style, a recently created category, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. All are welcome to participate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What do people think of Max H. Siegel? It appears he may have created this himself. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Just to let you know, Religious language problem is still a feature article candidate; I'd appreciate it if anyone else could have a look and give comments. Thanks. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I've put a draft together, as I said I might to Drmies, of how this could be as a proper philosophy article, rather than the grab-bag that it currently is and that people are objecting to. Have a look. Uncle G ( talk) 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the recent notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts#Proposed changes to WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed changes to WP:NOT as it effects all religion editors: "There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 08:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What a pile of excrement. Embarrassing. Someone ought to take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.23.99 ( talk) 00:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Newsletter for religion/philosophy/mythology?. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 21:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Augustinian theodicy is a Featured Article candidate; any comments there would be appreciated. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 19:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see:
Thanks. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 05:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Members of this wikiProject may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Mathematics -> Philosopher. Yaris678 ( talk) 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI, both Taoism and Tao Te Ching have been proposed to be renamed to the Pinyin romanization, see Talk:Tao Te Ching -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
User:Alan_Liefting has proposed the deletion of a couple of category templates. These templates provide convenient links to categories that are not otherwise convenient due to quirks of the organization (e.g. Category "Ethics" is not easily reached from category "Philosophy" due to being under "Branches of philosophy"). Please see:
Greg Bard ( talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I am student at Rice University working on a Wikipedia article for class. I am proposing to edit the "Organ Trade" article to be more inclusive of the growing amount of information available about how the illegal organ trade impacts those in impoverished nations. Particularly, I am planning on updating the "Debate" section to include more about the scholarly discussion that is taking place as it regards the organ trade. I believe this issue is closely tied to ethics and morality, and as such I would greatly appreciate the assistance of this Wikiproject while editing the article. I look forward to working with you all! CoeA ( talk) 01:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I've made several proposals for changes to Mind-body problem, but aside from MachineElf, who is opposed to any change, there has been no interest shown on the Talk page. The article Mind-body problem is in pathetic condition, and some help editing this topic would be useful. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at the AFC John Anthony's Wager which is about a philosophical argument. I wrongly reviewed it (now amended) but I would like to provide some additional guidance to the submitter. I am not familiar even slightly with the subject matter so any suggestions in regards to what the minimum notability/referencing requirements might be for something like this would be helpful. Thoughts much appreciated, France3470 (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an article that talks a bit about the philosophy articles at Wikipedia. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in collaborating to expand the article on this important book by Deleuze & Guattari? We could each take a plateau. (There aren't really a thousand.) Just say hi on the talk page or call dibs on a chapter or something. groupuscule ( talk) 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 02:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
A while back, the article Logical consequence was moved to Entailment. I subsequently proposed to move it back. However, it was not. I have always found this to be a very troubling development. Recently, I have been adding reference resources to articles and categories consistent with those resources. This is one that is not consistent (and I said it at the time.) Please take a look at SEP, InPho, PhilPapers, and IEP, none of which has an article on "entailment" independent of "logical consequence." The article itself is a bit scattered, and this has been a big stumbling block for me to improving it. It is only one of the most important concepts in logic. Please support this move, as it is consistent with the scholarly literature on the subject, and Wikipedia is the odd resource out in this regard. Greg Bard ( talk) 07:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Can we do something about this dogs breakfast of a page? Category:Logic. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
As a newby I'm surprised that General Semantics is not considered to be a philosophical subject. It certainly has a direct relationship to the nature of reality, which is definitely a subject for philosophy.
I beg your pardon, please ignore the preceding. I found the topic.
Sui docuit ( talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Sui docuit
Hello, do you have anything on Augustin Sesmat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Meltdown ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed for the category "metaphysical cosmology" to be deleted and its content to be moved to either "religious" or "mythological" cosmology. The word "metaphysics" in Wikipedia is reserved for scholarly and academic philosophers, not spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism. Let's not mish-mash the two. It is a disservice to legitimate scholars and hurts the credibility of WP, especially the philosophy department. Greg Bard ( talk) 02:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello can you help me out? I wrote a page about William Vorinlong, but i think it needs to be corrected and improved. I think it needs more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotia me genuit ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input from philosophers would be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought I would pass this along... You can download a ten volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy using this link. Greg Bard ( talk) 02:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Once again, User:Arthur Rubin has proposed to merge Metalogic and Metamathematics. In my opinion, Arthur's issues are POV related, and any merge will most likely result in substantial content deletion. Greg Bard ( talk) 15:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion involving retoring content from sources describing alternative medicine as being based on pseudoscience, antiscience, tradition, and bad science, including the first 14 sources of this version, such as Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Academic Medicine, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Medical Journal of Australia, Nature Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik ( talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Logical symbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dmcq ( talk) 15:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Should redirect for " Drittes Reich" and " Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?
Following discussion re MEDRS, ontologic status of psychiatric categories, and controversy re the scientific methodologies for attaching the term "disease" and "disorder" to the categories, if they really exist, on the psychiatry and related talk page, FiachraByrne wrote (bolfaced for emphasis of most relevant part -
As to the designation as a medical practice is a MEDRS issue at Wikipedia, not just a matter of determining common usage on the street. The same WP:MEDRS standards should be applied to psychiatry as to alternative medicine articles. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is also one of the oldest "medical" practices. There is rigorous enforcement by WP:MEDRS hawks (of which I am one) that assertions re TCM being healing " medicine", as defined in that article and by MEDRS standards. The only allowable edits are that TCM practitioners "claim" to heal. TCM uses supernatural etiological objects (" qi" flow blockage causing qi, not the heart, to propel the blood inadequately), and outright false statements about anatomies, developed without the "cutting" of the "tom" in "anatomy" (Greek "tom" means "cut", as in "a-tom" – meaning not further able to be cut, as atoms were thought to be), has also historically been designated "medicine". MEDRS has different standards than accepted common usage, and for good reasons well argued in setting up the policy. I believe that this topic should be noticed at Wikiproject Philosophy, MEDRS talk, and at Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. I am loathe to do so, however, as this will draw kooks and people with other agendas from the "alt med community" with no expertise in this technical topic of discussion, distorting and obscuring the discussion.
Discussion of "Should the psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and related articles be held to a lower MEDRS standard than alternative medicine and its related articles?" is here [5]. ParkSehJik ( talk) 17:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
File:WJStein 1.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.24.250.110 ( talk) 00:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated.
Hi everyone,
I'm looking to get other experienced editors involved at a dispute ongoing at Talk:Free will. An editor there is pushing to make some major changes which I think are clearly negative and reflect a general misunderstanding of the topic as a whole. The editor appears to be trying to use the talk page to come to an understanding himself of the topic, but meanwhile wants to completely rewrite the delicately-worded lede with his (ever-changing) current best understanding, and hasn't identified any problems in the article as it stands besides that he can't understand it. I have been trying to explain why his proposed edits are not acceptable and would be a major violation of WP:NPOV in one direction or another, and one other inexperienced editor is commenting occasionally in my favor, but this discussion is extremely time-consuming and I just don't know that I will always be there to keep this up.
So I would really like if some other experienced editors would at least keep an eye on the article and talk page discussion and hopefully join in the discussion, so that if I don't have the time to commit to this the other editor doesn't wreck the delicate POV balance that other editors have worked so hard to established over the years there. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The category for every field of philosophy has a "theories" subcategory. This makes it possible for readers to easily compare and contrast the competing theories in any of the various fields. It would seem to be a very important feature for our readers. User:Editor2020 has proposed to delete this category under philosophy of religion Metatheory of religion. I am not sure what the alternative is, and this would be a serious loss for the whole project. Please help me keep a consistent category structure, which I have worked so hard to establish. Greg Bard ( talk) 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Appeals seem to be a commonly used concept in philosophical texts, but the closest Wikipedia has to a description of an appeals meaning in philosophy is in the 'Argument' section of Appeal_(disambiguation). There it is simply summarized as "Various types of informal fallacy are described as an appeal to something:" followed by a list of proposed fallacies.
This is surely an unfortuneate disservice to understanding of philosophical language. I read many examples of appeals mentioned as areas of inquiry, or as an identification of a subject important to an argument. To presuppose that if such identification can be made then fallacy is implied is clearly nonsense (?) Yet that is all WPs present definition eludes to.
I have not been able to locate a description of appeals meaning in philosophy to correct the definition with reference. Can anyone suggest how to improve the situation?
To Appeal to a concept would seem to be originally a somewhat poetic device metaphorically gesturing toward whatever concept understanding might be sought from. Alas i don't expect a poetic explanation will suffice today. Lisnabreeny ( talk) 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone think its a good idea to make an article about supernatural entities such as heaven hell, angels, devils etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pass a Method ( talk • contribs)
The article on Philo needs lots of work. It was completely unattributed copy and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) a week ago. I'm looking for interested editors. The problem is, Philo seems to be too Greek Philosophy leading to Christianity for the Jewish History project and too Jewish for any Christian history editors (can't seem to find the right Christian project page). Help!
Why isn't there an archive search box on this page like on other voluminous talk pages? Mnnlaxer ( talk) 21:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I demoted God is dead from B- to C-class for the reasons outlined in Talk:God is dead#This article needs re-factoring or re-writing. I lack the expertise to do the article justice, so I'm calling editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism to quickly improve the article at least to B-class.
In recognition of the Feb 28, 2012 death of William Hamilton (theologian), I'm further challenging both WikiProjects to work to get this to Good Article status if possible. Please follow up on the article's talk page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and happy New Year!, I am a philosopher and have spent my life invested into the most difficult subjects of our human condition. This year was spent practically explaining the theory behind our social problem's historical development, and how we could flip everything by creating quality free education, distributed on the Internet.
I do not separate my "personal" and "professional" life. I am alone in this life and spend it travelling the world, studying society both theoretically and practically while standing outside of it. I then create films (moderately popular considering I am fighting against mainstream) that attempt to receptively reinterpret wisdom into the actions of our society's individuals. I then distribute these films for free utilising most media distribution formats including many sources on the Internet and DVD's.
I would assert that I am more closely connected with my work than anyone else in the world because my heart is all in it. I live the life of an anchorite. And when the relational qualities of the dots of our constellations become clear to me, I am thrown into inspiration and then very quickly create very moving productions that will stand the test of time.
My work is all about me. But I have conditioned my psychology over my life to be all about our human condition. Thus from the reflections of me, if the work is examined in its entirety, we come to learn that my work is all about each and every one of us. I have spent my life attempting to remove bias from my thought process. And I closely examine each and every detail within my existence and contemplate different methods to understand and interpret this "reality" in front of me.
I am seeking for a way for my work to be referenced within Wikipedia. I have a great amount of work but have really only started creating professional audiovisual productions recently, so my old work would not need articles on them, but may be linked as references. I will not have a problem finding additional references for the articles because that is all included in my work anyway: I am a philosophy teacher.
Me and all of my productions that I would add to this site are EXTREMELY noteworthy and will one day be in physical encyclopaedias. I have given my life entirely to all of my fellow human brothers and sisters and one day the world will realise what I have done.
I do want to mention that my work is extremely controversial according to our modern society. But when we shine light over the ghosts we always find that they were only sheets draped over a chair. Dionysus is my method and Love is my game. I do all of this for free. I do not want anyone's money but instead, their heart. Love is free and my heart belongs to all of you.
Thanks! - Wendell Charles NeSmith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcnesmith ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It is sad because I see so many unexplained metaphors and allegories within mythology on Wikipedia and it irritates me and I am driven to clear them up. It will happen when the necessity for mass media is blown away by the Internet. BTW, Dr. NeSmith is my father. He is a professor in education. I have studied my entire life but never cared about getting a PhD because our education system is flawed at its very core, and I saw this reflected in my Father's life throughout my own. A PhD means nothing and I am here to show us all this. What we do with the conscious seconds in front of us means everything. Wcnesmith ( talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
My work is all backed up with scholarly sources. But the end result is new work as their relational qualities are examined and compared with our modern times. Most of what I do is reinterpret old wisdom but in this process I find new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcnesmith ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Greg. My interpretation of things is in my work and would only be outlined in Wikipedia, referencing to other material to further explain metaphors and allegories originally intended from the fables but not yet explored within the current articles (mythology and its deep meaning is really lacking on this site). All I desired to do was to point to that work for further interpretation on mythology, backed with sources. From this information, I do not think that my edits would be rejected. The only thing that I am unsure of is new articles, but I guess I will see because they will be backed by sources. This is why I wanted someone to review them and give me feedback on how to include them in the way that Wikipedia wanted me to. Like I said before, I am a philosophy teacher and I teach the history and development of philosophy. I am not throwing out ideals that are new: only applying old ideals to our modern times, digging up old forgotten wisdom. There is nothing new under the Sun.
I also do all of this for free and the conflict of interest really only stresses those who make money off of their material. I give myself for free to help develop society. My only interest is to help build our collective past, present, and future knowledge. Wcnesmith ( talk) 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I correct myself. My only edit so far with Pygmalion was removed. I am not going to bother with this project. Other people can one day reference me and you lose the original source. It is amazing how people even here lack the ability to do background research to verify the sources and their validity. Overlook the source and then get people to write about the source. Wonderful way to build collective knowledge. The mythology sections here are not very accurate and their metaphors and allegories remain hidden. Good bye Wikipedia. I have much bigger fish to fry. Happy NY. Wcnesmith ( talk) 12:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)