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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
No one has added a section on epistemology in this article. Locke is one of the most important philosophers on epistemology in history. The article mentions his importance in the field but does not discuss his theories on epistemology at all. This is inexcusable. This should be a priority for WikiProject Philosophy. ProfGiles ( talk) 11:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This article has apparently been around awhile, and the category was created recently. They are under the scope of all sorts of areas, like "history of science," "sociology," "philosophy," "intellectual property law," and "Indigenous rights." I am quite dubious about the whole thing. There do appear to be sources for the term "Traditional knowledge" however, I believe this is a very unfortunate example of scholars in one area using a term like "knowledge" carelessly, whereas any scholar in the actual area responsible for studying "knowledge" (i.e. epistemology) would not use that term for this concept. They would call it "Traditional beliefs." Knowledge is true justified belief. So the question is 'what justifies "traditional knowledge?"' I do not belief it involves logic or science in this case. Greg Bard ( talk) 06:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have nominated
Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) and
Neohumanism in a Nutshell for deletion. Your input would be very welcome at the AfDs.
bobrayner (
talk)
11:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The usage of The Antichrist is under discussion, see Talk:The Antichrist (book) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 01:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned here a month ago, an editor at Free will is pushing some edits that were very controversial among the handful of other editors active over there, but the rest of us (I guess I can only speak for myself) seem to have run out of time and energy to keep repeating over and over again why they are not productive edits, and he has now managed to get a lot of them integrated into article. I don't want to just flat out revert him, but really I don't think any of the changes he has made (to the lede at least) have been productive at all; I've just run out of time to keep telling him why.
Please, if anyone has any time, give a look over the recent edit history at Free will and anything from the past several pages of talk archives and weigh in with your opinions so this guy doesn't have free reign to go about completely rewriting the article for the worse just because nobody has time to stop him anymore. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 04:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm just reading Steven Pinkers The Better Angels of Our Nature and I was kind of surprised that the Hobesian trap is still a red link. Would anybody like to give it a try? -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Liefting.27s_imposition_on_WikiProject_Philosophy
I have made a report to ANI concerning Alan Liefting's interference with this page. Greg Bard ( talk) 10:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hello Philosophy group. I would like to know if anyone knows how to find out in which legal copy-right-group an image falls. I would like to add an image (a map) to the article of Plato's The Laws. So, I read up on what to do and it clearly tells me to find out which legal copy-right-status an image has. But now how to figure that out. Does anyone know? -- Fan Singh Long ( talk) 12:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
A request for comment can be found under the header: RfC on two usages of 'physical determinism'. It concerns the difference between nomological determinism and physical determinism. One party claims they are unimportantly different, and the other claims that while sometimes they are used as synonyms, a useful distinction can be drawn. There also is a difference in interpretation of several published works in this area. The RfC was posted February 8, but so far has attracted little attention. Please consider adding your two cents. Brews ohare ( talk) 00:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all - I just posted a draft of an individual engagement grant proposal aimed at improving the English Wikipedia's coverage of topics that lay at the intersection of women and philosophy through targeted academic outreach. If it's approved, I would be conducting the project along with Alex Madva and Katie Gasdaglis. I'm hopeful that if approved and carried out, it would go a long way towards addressing Wikipedia's under-representation of our targeted topic areas, and would create a scalable model of educational outreach to underrepresented disciplines that can be used in other fields. A lot more details are available on the meta page. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 02:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of realism is up for discussion, see Talk:Philosophical realism -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Treachery is under discussion, see talk:Treachery -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Treacherous is under discussion, see talk:Treacherous (song) -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
What does everyone think about Philosophy of chiropractic? I had moved this article to "Foundations of chiropractic" since that is noncontroversial, but it was moved back. I am pretty sure that this is a non-careful use of the term "philosophy" by non-philosophers, and should not be permitted. Greg Bard ( talk) 18:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
So now he has moved it and other "of chiropractic" articles to "of Chiropractic" and he has also removed the Rational Skepticism wikiproject template (because, after all, there's nothing to be skeptical of here, right? Nothing to see here!). I am dubious about the appropriateness of WP:COMMONNAME. If a small group of chiroprators got together and called their technique a "mathematical subluxation treatment" (you know, because it's so precise and exact like mathematics) the Math Wikiproject would put the hammer down on that nonsense immediately. This situation is ridiculous. Greg Bard ( talk) 01:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here by User:DVMt. He said two other editors suggested he do so and this is probably as a result of previous comments I've made at the alternative medicine article. I guess a brute force attack is justified. We should first determine the term or terms most frequently used in the scholarly literature to indicate this topic. Google Scholar results of possible article titles are provided in the table below.
Search terms | Number of citations | Link to results |
---|---|---|
"Chiropractic philosophy" | 481 | [3] |
"Philosophy of chiropractic" | 438 | [4] |
"Chiropractic philosophies" | 17 | [5] |
"Philosophies of chiropractic" | 3 | [6] |
"Chiropractic philosophy" OR "philosophy of chiropractic" OR "chiropractic philosophies" OR "philosophies of chiropractic" | 791 | [7] |
"Chiropractic theory" | 384 | [8] |
"Chiropractic theories" | 352 | [9] |
"Theory of chiropractic" | 89 | [10] |
"Theories of chiropractic" | 29 | [11] |
"Chiropractic theory" OR "chiropractic theories" OR "theory of chiropractic" OR "theories of chiropractic" | 740 | [12] |
"Chiropractic principles" | 273 | [13] |
"Principles of chiropractic" | 254 | [14] |
"Chiropractic principles" OR "principles of chiropractic" [n 1] | 481 | [15] |
"Foundations of chiropractic" | 302 | [16] |
"Chiropractic foundations" | 10 | [17] |
"Foundations of chiropractic" OR "chiropractic foundations" [n 1] | 309 | [18] |
Based on the above I think that the article title should contain the word philosophy but that the preferred variant should be Chiropractic philosophy. The meaning is somewhat different from "philosophy of chiropractic" but it has the advantage of removing any grounds for dispute over the capitalisation of the "chiropractic" and it doesn't imply a formal branch of philosophy (although there are lots of "Philosophy of ..." articles that are plainly not formal branches of philosophy – e.g. philosophy of accounting. Of greater import, the article as it stands needs quite a bit of work. It reads from an insider's perspective which is most evident in the use of terms which are not explained in the article. Also, the focus of the article should be on chiropractic theories and concepts but it deviates from this quite regularly and the conceptual/philosophical content of the article is undeveloped. The quote box in the lead should be removed as a priority and nothing should be mentioned in the lead which is not in the body of the text. FiachraByrne ( talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Your comments welcome at Category talk:Traditional knowledge#RFC: Should category traditional knowledge be listed in category knowledge?. Dmcq ( talk) 11:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The move of "metaphilosophy" to "philosophy of philosophy" was very ill advised. InPho , IEP, and PhilPapers all use "metaphilosophy" as a subject heading. The SEP has no entry for either, but the term "metaphilosophy" is used in other entries, whereas "philosophy of philosophy" is completely absent. So that's 4 out of 4 of the major philosophy reference resources. I have made a great effort to stay consistent with the usage of terms, and categories in these resources. This move needs to be moved back immediately. Please in the future, consult these reference resources before deciding that one title or another is should be used or changed. Greg Bard ( talk) 09:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
An RfC concerning addition of a subsection to Philosophy can be found at this location. Please comment upon its inclusion and any modifications you think would help make it better. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an editor ( User:Star767) who has developed a strong opinion that he or she does not like {{ Philosophy reference resources}} for apparently aesthetic reasons. This editor has created the category Category:Process philosophy so as to split out members from Category:Process theory. While I am dubious at the usefulness of this split, I am willing to accept it, if this person or any other feels that it is useful. However, what I do not find acceptable is removing this template which provides links to philosophy reference resources. This template is extremely valuable for people wanting credible, reliable, scholarly information about the subject matter, and I find this person's idea that they do not please him or her aesthetically as boneheaded priorities. Could someone please comment on the category issue, or the template issue? Greg Bard ( talk) 02:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We could do with some eyes on meta-ontology and metametaphysics ---- Snowded TALK 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Star767: Subpages · Contribs · Edit count · SUL Info · Global Contribs |
This user has been going to town on philosophy articles and categories. He obviously has no special knowledge of the subject matter. I have reverted numerous contributions in the past 24 hours. Please help me monitor the situation. Greg Bard ( talk) 01:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's legitimate to publically target an editor and urge others to follow me around and revert my edits without any discussion. I worked very hard on some of those pages. You, Snowded, already told me to use the talk page to discuss, which I now do but you don't. You are reverting legitimate work I did without any apparent evaluation of the quality or any explanation of why you are reverting, other than using the wording of Gregbard's post that I was "on a mission", an assessment that you appeared to accept uncritically without evaluating my work. And you don't use the talk pages to explain, as you lectured me to do above.
You don't have to assume that I don't know what I'm doing. I certainly do in scientific areas and Gregbard doesn't seem to understand the areas of psychology, psychiatry and sociology, for example. He is pushing a ridiculous article Process (philosophy) which is up for deletion and almost certainly will be deleted. That's how I came to be involved, and realized that many of the Philosophy articles were way off track and in disrepair. Please reconsider. I suggested to Gregbard that we get outside views and help from uninvolved editors. He wasn't interested. Star767 ( talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We have a minor incident were an editor has place {{ Philosophy sidebar}} on more then hundred Bios as seen here. Not sure what others think but we now have a problem with many of the additions causing sandwiched text in the first paragraphs. Mass revert ? what do others think on this. Moxy ( talk) 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Folks, there are on-going issues that repeatedly affect the articles and categories, and discussions thereabout. Although I could mention a few specifically, what I mean to address is the over-arching situation that leaves our project at the mercy of people who have no education, nor experience in philosophy, even though very often, they are supremely confident that they know what is and is not appropriate for producing scholarly, academically supported, comprehensive, balanced in coverage and non-point of view pushing articles in our area. WikiProject Philosophy is a very small project. Only a handful of people do almost all of the work. Some of our very best contributors only work in very narrow areas. Many of our best contributors only contributed for a short time and no longer are with us. We are basically a tiny village, in a world-wide community. My recommendation to address this in only a very small way, is to formally adopt the Manual of style, and come to consensus formally on what we want so that when the larger community wants to get involved we have something to point to as guidance. In addition to what has been proposed (most of which since 2010), I would propose that we formally adopt a consensus in favor of the {{ Philosophy reference resources}} template on appropriate category pages, and the navigation banners (for instance, Template:Category-Philosophical_theories/header) on the few most important categories which have been repeatedly called into question by Rich Farmborough. For obvious reasons, I believe we need to limit the consensus to actual WikiProject Philosophy members. Greg Bard ( talk) 16:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much Snowded and Atethnekos. Your input is very constructive. I will try to incorporate you concerns into the MOS (unless you want to have a crack at it first). I'm feeling a bit under pressure, but I would like to take some time and notify active participants that the MOS is an issue to be addressed. Greg Bard ( talk) 05:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
An addition to meta-ontology is presented here. The article meta-ontology as it stands at the moment is focused upon the Carnap-Quine debate over what ontology is about that took place in the 50's. More has happened since that time. Comments and suggestions for improvement are solicited. Brews ohare ( talk) 01:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Snowded has mounted a filibuster to prevent addition of material about developments in Meta-ontology since the 50's. I call it a filibuster, because he never engages and keeps dragging up objections that become more and more vague. It is time for someone to pay some attention here. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The subject meta-ontology does not appear in the latest Oxford Companion. We do have meta-ethics, metalanguage, metalogic, metaphilosophy and metaphysics. I wonder if we should take a position that a"meta-X" which does not appear in a major third party source such as the Oxford Companion (or possibly two or more), should not have articles, but the material should me merged into "X". That would get rid of a lot of the problems of coatracks, original research and the like. ---- Snowded TALK 17:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposal to merge meta-ontology made here ---- Snowded TALK 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have been slogging through WP:VA creating footer navboxes for a wide range of biography articles. Only a few projects prefer to have sidebar subject lists rather than footer navboxes. WP:OPERA has historically had sidebars that only includes a list of opera compositions by author. However, if the composer has other notable subjects including non-opera compositions, they were excluded from the sidebar. Thus, I still had reasonable grounds to create opera composer navboxes. However, your sidebars seem to include all related subject matter. Nonetheless a small minority of important philosophers still have footer navboxes. I am not sure if I should get involved in createing navboxes for your project's important biographies or not. I have created one for Thoreau many months ago before I realized this preference today.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The article should be supplemented with the information about Łukasiewicz's reaserch on this axiom: it's quite important and without it an article about Nicod's axiom doesn't actually have much worth. Perhaps even moving it to "Nicod-Łukasiewicz axiom" is a good idea. I wite about it now, because I've just seen the English article, lacking interwiki to the Polish version ( pl:Aksjomat Nicoda-Łukasiewicza), which I'll soon add to it. I wasn't looking much for the English sources, but this article can give some ideas about it: [21]. Laforgue ( talk) 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
There's discussion about the criticism section and a talk thread. Comments or additions to this section of the article would be welcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to invite editors interested in philosophy of science to comment at the
peer review for
Parable of the Sunfish: Ezra Pound ponders literary and scientific epistemology by way of 19th C. pre-Darwinist biology. Many thanks,
Garamond Lethe
t
c
18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I posted about this on the Logic taskforce, but their talk page doesn't appear to get much activity, no posts since 2012, so I thought it might be better to bring this up here. For those who are familiar with logical fallacy, I am wondering if you might recognize whether or not this phrase describes a concept or misunderstanding or argument already covered under one of the existing articles.
I have read a lot of them, but nowhere near all, and it is difficult to remember all of them and relate ideas to them. I expect this familiarity is developed over time and would like to know, for those who have a better understanding, if it might be appropriate to redirect this phrase to an existing fallacy page which may be related to it.
It is nominated for deletion so I would prefer to find out quickly so a redirect could be done while keeping page history intact. There may be a lack of resources (I found a notable newspaper and 2 quotes by notable psychologists, but am being told it is inadequate) so until that is found, directing to the closest applicable logical fallacy page may at least be somewhat helpful. Ranze ( talk) 17:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Law of value needs some serious help. The article is composed mostly of original research, has trouble maintaining a neutral POV, and is way too long. We need some volunteers to help out with cleaning it up. I've gone through and tagged a lot of the original research, but the article is too overwhelming to work on alone. Also, we need some experts to come in, for help in highlighting trivial information that can be removed.
I've also requested help at WikiProject Socialism, which I think may be more applicable, but Law of value is also listed as belonging to this WikiProject. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It is proposed to start a page to replace the present redirect from Deflationism to Deflationary theory of truth. An RfC can be found on its talk page at Deflationism. Please make comments and provide suggestions for improvement. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
“ | Hi, I've created and populated a category for the presidents of the Aristotelian Society, referring to the links in the list on that page as a 'source'. The list itself isn't sourced (but the Soc. website is in 'External Links', and /is/ the obvious source) and a lot of the articles are stubs that don't mention the Society, or don't source the statement that they were a president. This is bad. 8( | ” |
I'm starting a thread about this at WikiProject_Organizations#Aristotelian_Society. Revent ( talk) 03:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings folks, It has been proposed that I be sanctioned with a topic ban in the area of local government, due to issues arising from my creation of the Category:County government in the United States. I maintain my innocence, and claim that administrators are seeing the world as a nail for no good reason. It also appears that the fact that I have defended myself and maintained my innocence has resulted in even more hatred toward me. If you appreciate my work here, or hate my guts, you have you opportunity to make your opinion known when it may help or hurt me the most. Greg Bard ( talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Honesty is in dire need of attention. Although it may not immediately be thought of as a philosophical topic, there is certainly much to be drawn from philosophy to fill out an article on such a concept. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The names Definitional implication, Causal implication, and Decisional implication each redirect to the DAB page Implication. The DAB page defines each term, but at present there doesn't seem to be anything to link to. Could members of this WikiProject help in either changing the targets of those redirects or creating articles (even stubs) at each name? Or maybe these should be handled in another way? Thoughts? Cnilep ( talk) 02:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The biography of Russian philosopher Aleksei Losev has recently been expanded but it needs some help from topic experts. The biographical details should be augmented by a discussion of actual philosophy—what ideas Losev drew from and what ideas he originated, especially what is his scholarly legacy. Any takers? Binksternet ( talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
A recently improved version of Indeterminacy of translation is disputed. It would be helpful to have some input on the discussion of Willard Quine's major thesis underlying (among other matters) the interpretation of modern science and how to present it. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment is invited upon including a sentence about a paper written by Carnap in a discussion of that paper by Quine. Snowded has suggested that such a reference is irrelevant to the topic, but I disagree. The RfC is found here. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
of Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida on deconstruction. See Talk:Deconstruction#Merger proposal. Kind regards, 㓟 ( talk) 13:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:CAT says, "Like disambiguation pages, category pages should not contain either citations to reliable sources or external links."
Greg Bard has been pushing a template that spams external links into philosophy-related categories and resisting all efforts to remove them. This has been discussed extensively at WT:CAT, and even Greg is unable to pretend that there is anything other than a minimum of 50% firm opposition to his external-link work (and others, including myself, count the numbers rather more strongly against him). Greg keeps saying that there is a clear consensus here at WikiProject Philosophy to post external links on all cat pages that overrules this opposition and the general rule against external links on these pages. I have read this entire page and found no evidence that anyone except Greg is determined to keep his external link template in place. Would the rest of you please join the discussion there, in the hope that we could get this settled? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear philosophers:
This article: Veganarchism appears to be mainly about a pamphlet written by one man. Is this the name of a legitimate philosophy, and, if so, is the extensive coverage and quotes from one source appropriate? I have already removed some promotional links to various sources which sell the pamphlet. — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hello, |
An RfC is posted at Talk:Quantifier variance#RfC: Quantifier variance, mereology, and philosophical realism for comment and suggestions. There is some conflict here, less about content than about a fruitful process for constructing this article. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Semeiotic is a short article on Charles Peirce's variant spelling of semiotics, and debate among some scholars about whether and Peirce and Saussure's different spelling preferences relate to their different theories of sem(e)iotics. Various discussions have begun in 2004 and again in 2006 at Talk:Semiotics (see "Peirce spelled the subject semeiotics" and "Semeiotic, Semiology, Semiotics") and in 2006-07 at Talk:Semeiotic#Merge with Semiotics? but no clear consensus ever emerged and no action has taken place.
I very nearly merged the content of semeiotic to a section of semiotics, but thought better of it. It is best to see if there is controversy on this action, and try to find consensus. Therefore I am inviting participants in WikiProject Philosophy and WikiProject Linguistics to comment at Talk:Semeiotic#Merge to Semiotics? Rename? Rewrite? Cnilep ( talk) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I found these two articles that are potential sources. Where are the best places for them?
Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've created a new article on gender studies lecturer, Nicholas Chare.
Further help with expansion would be most appreciated.
Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 06:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am writing Nothing to hide argument. I want to see if anybody can find "pro-nothing to hide" arguments, or people who agree with "nothing to hide" so I can include their statements in the article. Thank you WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
QUESTION: Which should go first in the lede characterization of Rothbard, "political theorist" or "economist?" RfC here SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have listed the article Jainism for peer review. A considerable part of the article is dedicated to Jain religious philosophy ( anekantavada, soul, karma etc). I request your help in making it a Featured Article at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jainism/archive4. Thanks, Rahul Jain ( talk) 17:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear philosophers: There have been some changes to the Thought article recently that may be of interest. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings folks, I finally created Category:Pseudophilosophy, as I have been meaning to for a while. For a long time I wondered whether or not the Philosophy project was strong enough, to deal with having this category. Already, we have an editor, ( User:Lerr) who has depopulated the category, and prodded it with the claim that "there is no such concept" as pseudophilosophy. Well, I think all of the serious philosophy editors know that not just anything is philosophy, and are frustrated and alarmed at some of the impressions of some non-academically oriented contributors. Some guy handing out photocopied sheets of paper with a tiny font and misaligned text on a street corner in San Fransico is not philosophy. Please help sustain the integrity of the Philosophy project, and Wikipedia in general, by monitoring this category. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
According to Pseudophilosophy, science and continental philosophy are pseudophilosophies. I don't think pseudophilosophy is a useful term for a category. It is more a pejorative for something you don't like. It would be better to not put things in the philosophy category rather than put this pejorative label on them. Bhny ( talk) 12:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 3#Category:Pseudophilosophy. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
I have attempted to cleanup the Template:Universalism infobox. But I feel it still needs some work. It would be good if others could have a look and see what they can add to it in the way of links, formatting and categorization. -- Devin Murphy ( talk) 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a parser error on the page Consequentia mirabilis, an article in the scope of this project, which I don't know how to fix. Ma t c hups 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there- I've just nominated throffer, an article on a fun little topic in political philosophy, at FAC. Any thoughts you may have would be appreciated. J Milburn ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Civilization is noted as an important article but is in terrible condition. The only project it is in is sociology. Do others agree with me that it should also be watched by this project? Anyway, if anyone has a moment or two maybe come and make an edit or three?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
I have proposed merging with sensus communis. It remains me of some other cases, and it strikes me that philosophical material is often split out of articles too quickly (for example when both are poor articles) creating questionable FORKs.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:47, 24 July 2013 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
No one has added a section on epistemology in this article. Locke is one of the most important philosophers on epistemology in history. The article mentions his importance in the field but does not discuss his theories on epistemology at all. This is inexcusable. This should be a priority for WikiProject Philosophy. ProfGiles ( talk) 11:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This article has apparently been around awhile, and the category was created recently. They are under the scope of all sorts of areas, like "history of science," "sociology," "philosophy," "intellectual property law," and "Indigenous rights." I am quite dubious about the whole thing. There do appear to be sources for the term "Traditional knowledge" however, I believe this is a very unfortunate example of scholars in one area using a term like "knowledge" carelessly, whereas any scholar in the actual area responsible for studying "knowledge" (i.e. epistemology) would not use that term for this concept. They would call it "Traditional beliefs." Knowledge is true justified belief. So the question is 'what justifies "traditional knowledge?"' I do not belief it involves logic or science in this case. Greg Bard ( talk) 06:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have nominated
Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) and
Neohumanism in a Nutshell for deletion. Your input would be very welcome at the AfDs.
bobrayner (
talk)
11:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The usage of The Antichrist is under discussion, see Talk:The Antichrist (book) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 01:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned here a month ago, an editor at Free will is pushing some edits that were very controversial among the handful of other editors active over there, but the rest of us (I guess I can only speak for myself) seem to have run out of time and energy to keep repeating over and over again why they are not productive edits, and he has now managed to get a lot of them integrated into article. I don't want to just flat out revert him, but really I don't think any of the changes he has made (to the lede at least) have been productive at all; I've just run out of time to keep telling him why.
Please, if anyone has any time, give a look over the recent edit history at Free will and anything from the past several pages of talk archives and weigh in with your opinions so this guy doesn't have free reign to go about completely rewriting the article for the worse just because nobody has time to stop him anymore. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 04:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm just reading Steven Pinkers The Better Angels of Our Nature and I was kind of surprised that the Hobesian trap is still a red link. Would anybody like to give it a try? -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Liefting.27s_imposition_on_WikiProject_Philosophy
I have made a report to ANI concerning Alan Liefting's interference with this page. Greg Bard ( talk) 10:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hello Philosophy group. I would like to know if anyone knows how to find out in which legal copy-right-group an image falls. I would like to add an image (a map) to the article of Plato's The Laws. So, I read up on what to do and it clearly tells me to find out which legal copy-right-status an image has. But now how to figure that out. Does anyone know? -- Fan Singh Long ( talk) 12:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
A request for comment can be found under the header: RfC on two usages of 'physical determinism'. It concerns the difference between nomological determinism and physical determinism. One party claims they are unimportantly different, and the other claims that while sometimes they are used as synonyms, a useful distinction can be drawn. There also is a difference in interpretation of several published works in this area. The RfC was posted February 8, but so far has attracted little attention. Please consider adding your two cents. Brews ohare ( talk) 00:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi all - I just posted a draft of an individual engagement grant proposal aimed at improving the English Wikipedia's coverage of topics that lay at the intersection of women and philosophy through targeted academic outreach. If it's approved, I would be conducting the project along with Alex Madva and Katie Gasdaglis. I'm hopeful that if approved and carried out, it would go a long way towards addressing Wikipedia's under-representation of our targeted topic areas, and would create a scalable model of educational outreach to underrepresented disciplines that can be used in other fields. A lot more details are available on the meta page. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 02:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of realism is up for discussion, see Talk:Philosophical realism -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Treachery is under discussion, see talk:Treachery -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Treacherous is under discussion, see talk:Treacherous (song) -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 00:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
What does everyone think about Philosophy of chiropractic? I had moved this article to "Foundations of chiropractic" since that is noncontroversial, but it was moved back. I am pretty sure that this is a non-careful use of the term "philosophy" by non-philosophers, and should not be permitted. Greg Bard ( talk) 18:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
So now he has moved it and other "of chiropractic" articles to "of Chiropractic" and he has also removed the Rational Skepticism wikiproject template (because, after all, there's nothing to be skeptical of here, right? Nothing to see here!). I am dubious about the appropriateness of WP:COMMONNAME. If a small group of chiroprators got together and called their technique a "mathematical subluxation treatment" (you know, because it's so precise and exact like mathematics) the Math Wikiproject would put the hammer down on that nonsense immediately. This situation is ridiculous. Greg Bard ( talk) 01:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here by User:DVMt. He said two other editors suggested he do so and this is probably as a result of previous comments I've made at the alternative medicine article. I guess a brute force attack is justified. We should first determine the term or terms most frequently used in the scholarly literature to indicate this topic. Google Scholar results of possible article titles are provided in the table below.
Search terms | Number of citations | Link to results |
---|---|---|
"Chiropractic philosophy" | 481 | [3] |
"Philosophy of chiropractic" | 438 | [4] |
"Chiropractic philosophies" | 17 | [5] |
"Philosophies of chiropractic" | 3 | [6] |
"Chiropractic philosophy" OR "philosophy of chiropractic" OR "chiropractic philosophies" OR "philosophies of chiropractic" | 791 | [7] |
"Chiropractic theory" | 384 | [8] |
"Chiropractic theories" | 352 | [9] |
"Theory of chiropractic" | 89 | [10] |
"Theories of chiropractic" | 29 | [11] |
"Chiropractic theory" OR "chiropractic theories" OR "theory of chiropractic" OR "theories of chiropractic" | 740 | [12] |
"Chiropractic principles" | 273 | [13] |
"Principles of chiropractic" | 254 | [14] |
"Chiropractic principles" OR "principles of chiropractic" [n 1] | 481 | [15] |
"Foundations of chiropractic" | 302 | [16] |
"Chiropractic foundations" | 10 | [17] |
"Foundations of chiropractic" OR "chiropractic foundations" [n 1] | 309 | [18] |
Based on the above I think that the article title should contain the word philosophy but that the preferred variant should be Chiropractic philosophy. The meaning is somewhat different from "philosophy of chiropractic" but it has the advantage of removing any grounds for dispute over the capitalisation of the "chiropractic" and it doesn't imply a formal branch of philosophy (although there are lots of "Philosophy of ..." articles that are plainly not formal branches of philosophy – e.g. philosophy of accounting. Of greater import, the article as it stands needs quite a bit of work. It reads from an insider's perspective which is most evident in the use of terms which are not explained in the article. Also, the focus of the article should be on chiropractic theories and concepts but it deviates from this quite regularly and the conceptual/philosophical content of the article is undeveloped. The quote box in the lead should be removed as a priority and nothing should be mentioned in the lead which is not in the body of the text. FiachraByrne ( talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Your comments welcome at Category talk:Traditional knowledge#RFC: Should category traditional knowledge be listed in category knowledge?. Dmcq ( talk) 11:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The move of "metaphilosophy" to "philosophy of philosophy" was very ill advised. InPho , IEP, and PhilPapers all use "metaphilosophy" as a subject heading. The SEP has no entry for either, but the term "metaphilosophy" is used in other entries, whereas "philosophy of philosophy" is completely absent. So that's 4 out of 4 of the major philosophy reference resources. I have made a great effort to stay consistent with the usage of terms, and categories in these resources. This move needs to be moved back immediately. Please in the future, consult these reference resources before deciding that one title or another is should be used or changed. Greg Bard ( talk) 09:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
An RfC concerning addition of a subsection to Philosophy can be found at this location. Please comment upon its inclusion and any modifications you think would help make it better. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an editor ( User:Star767) who has developed a strong opinion that he or she does not like {{ Philosophy reference resources}} for apparently aesthetic reasons. This editor has created the category Category:Process philosophy so as to split out members from Category:Process theory. While I am dubious at the usefulness of this split, I am willing to accept it, if this person or any other feels that it is useful. However, what I do not find acceptable is removing this template which provides links to philosophy reference resources. This template is extremely valuable for people wanting credible, reliable, scholarly information about the subject matter, and I find this person's idea that they do not please him or her aesthetically as boneheaded priorities. Could someone please comment on the category issue, or the template issue? Greg Bard ( talk) 02:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
We could do with some eyes on meta-ontology and metametaphysics ---- Snowded TALK 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Star767: Subpages · Contribs · Edit count · SUL Info · Global Contribs |
This user has been going to town on philosophy articles and categories. He obviously has no special knowledge of the subject matter. I have reverted numerous contributions in the past 24 hours. Please help me monitor the situation. Greg Bard ( talk) 01:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's legitimate to publically target an editor and urge others to follow me around and revert my edits without any discussion. I worked very hard on some of those pages. You, Snowded, already told me to use the talk page to discuss, which I now do but you don't. You are reverting legitimate work I did without any apparent evaluation of the quality or any explanation of why you are reverting, other than using the wording of Gregbard's post that I was "on a mission", an assessment that you appeared to accept uncritically without evaluating my work. And you don't use the talk pages to explain, as you lectured me to do above.
You don't have to assume that I don't know what I'm doing. I certainly do in scientific areas and Gregbard doesn't seem to understand the areas of psychology, psychiatry and sociology, for example. He is pushing a ridiculous article Process (philosophy) which is up for deletion and almost certainly will be deleted. That's how I came to be involved, and realized that many of the Philosophy articles were way off track and in disrepair. Please reconsider. I suggested to Gregbard that we get outside views and help from uninvolved editors. He wasn't interested. Star767 ( talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
We have a minor incident were an editor has place {{ Philosophy sidebar}} on more then hundred Bios as seen here. Not sure what others think but we now have a problem with many of the additions causing sandwiched text in the first paragraphs. Mass revert ? what do others think on this. Moxy ( talk) 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Folks, there are on-going issues that repeatedly affect the articles and categories, and discussions thereabout. Although I could mention a few specifically, what I mean to address is the over-arching situation that leaves our project at the mercy of people who have no education, nor experience in philosophy, even though very often, they are supremely confident that they know what is and is not appropriate for producing scholarly, academically supported, comprehensive, balanced in coverage and non-point of view pushing articles in our area. WikiProject Philosophy is a very small project. Only a handful of people do almost all of the work. Some of our very best contributors only work in very narrow areas. Many of our best contributors only contributed for a short time and no longer are with us. We are basically a tiny village, in a world-wide community. My recommendation to address this in only a very small way, is to formally adopt the Manual of style, and come to consensus formally on what we want so that when the larger community wants to get involved we have something to point to as guidance. In addition to what has been proposed (most of which since 2010), I would propose that we formally adopt a consensus in favor of the {{ Philosophy reference resources}} template on appropriate category pages, and the navigation banners (for instance, Template:Category-Philosophical_theories/header) on the few most important categories which have been repeatedly called into question by Rich Farmborough. For obvious reasons, I believe we need to limit the consensus to actual WikiProject Philosophy members. Greg Bard ( talk) 16:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much Snowded and Atethnekos. Your input is very constructive. I will try to incorporate you concerns into the MOS (unless you want to have a crack at it first). I'm feeling a bit under pressure, but I would like to take some time and notify active participants that the MOS is an issue to be addressed. Greg Bard ( talk) 05:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
An addition to meta-ontology is presented here. The article meta-ontology as it stands at the moment is focused upon the Carnap-Quine debate over what ontology is about that took place in the 50's. More has happened since that time. Comments and suggestions for improvement are solicited. Brews ohare ( talk) 01:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Snowded has mounted a filibuster to prevent addition of material about developments in Meta-ontology since the 50's. I call it a filibuster, because he never engages and keeps dragging up objections that become more and more vague. It is time for someone to pay some attention here. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The subject meta-ontology does not appear in the latest Oxford Companion. We do have meta-ethics, metalanguage, metalogic, metaphilosophy and metaphysics. I wonder if we should take a position that a"meta-X" which does not appear in a major third party source such as the Oxford Companion (or possibly two or more), should not have articles, but the material should me merged into "X". That would get rid of a lot of the problems of coatracks, original research and the like. ---- Snowded TALK 17:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposal to merge meta-ontology made here ---- Snowded TALK 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have been slogging through WP:VA creating footer navboxes for a wide range of biography articles. Only a few projects prefer to have sidebar subject lists rather than footer navboxes. WP:OPERA has historically had sidebars that only includes a list of opera compositions by author. However, if the composer has other notable subjects including non-opera compositions, they were excluded from the sidebar. Thus, I still had reasonable grounds to create opera composer navboxes. However, your sidebars seem to include all related subject matter. Nonetheless a small minority of important philosophers still have footer navboxes. I am not sure if I should get involved in createing navboxes for your project's important biographies or not. I have created one for Thoreau many months ago before I realized this preference today.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The article should be supplemented with the information about Łukasiewicz's reaserch on this axiom: it's quite important and without it an article about Nicod's axiom doesn't actually have much worth. Perhaps even moving it to "Nicod-Łukasiewicz axiom" is a good idea. I wite about it now, because I've just seen the English article, lacking interwiki to the Polish version ( pl:Aksjomat Nicoda-Łukasiewicza), which I'll soon add to it. I wasn't looking much for the English sources, but this article can give some ideas about it: [21]. Laforgue ( talk) 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
There's discussion about the criticism section and a talk thread. Comments or additions to this section of the article would be welcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to invite editors interested in philosophy of science to comment at the
peer review for
Parable of the Sunfish: Ezra Pound ponders literary and scientific epistemology by way of 19th C. pre-Darwinist biology. Many thanks,
Garamond Lethe
t
c
18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I posted about this on the Logic taskforce, but their talk page doesn't appear to get much activity, no posts since 2012, so I thought it might be better to bring this up here. For those who are familiar with logical fallacy, I am wondering if you might recognize whether or not this phrase describes a concept or misunderstanding or argument already covered under one of the existing articles.
I have read a lot of them, but nowhere near all, and it is difficult to remember all of them and relate ideas to them. I expect this familiarity is developed over time and would like to know, for those who have a better understanding, if it might be appropriate to redirect this phrase to an existing fallacy page which may be related to it.
It is nominated for deletion so I would prefer to find out quickly so a redirect could be done while keeping page history intact. There may be a lack of resources (I found a notable newspaper and 2 quotes by notable psychologists, but am being told it is inadequate) so until that is found, directing to the closest applicable logical fallacy page may at least be somewhat helpful. Ranze ( talk) 17:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Law of value needs some serious help. The article is composed mostly of original research, has trouble maintaining a neutral POV, and is way too long. We need some volunteers to help out with cleaning it up. I've gone through and tagged a lot of the original research, but the article is too overwhelming to work on alone. Also, we need some experts to come in, for help in highlighting trivial information that can be removed.
I've also requested help at WikiProject Socialism, which I think may be more applicable, but Law of value is also listed as belonging to this WikiProject. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It is proposed to start a page to replace the present redirect from Deflationism to Deflationary theory of truth. An RfC can be found on its talk page at Deflationism. Please make comments and provide suggestions for improvement. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
“ | Hi, I've created and populated a category for the presidents of the Aristotelian Society, referring to the links in the list on that page as a 'source'. The list itself isn't sourced (but the Soc. website is in 'External Links', and /is/ the obvious source) and a lot of the articles are stubs that don't mention the Society, or don't source the statement that they were a president. This is bad. 8( | ” |
I'm starting a thread about this at WikiProject_Organizations#Aristotelian_Society. Revent ( talk) 03:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings folks, It has been proposed that I be sanctioned with a topic ban in the area of local government, due to issues arising from my creation of the Category:County government in the United States. I maintain my innocence, and claim that administrators are seeing the world as a nail for no good reason. It also appears that the fact that I have defended myself and maintained my innocence has resulted in even more hatred toward me. If you appreciate my work here, or hate my guts, you have you opportunity to make your opinion known when it may help or hurt me the most. Greg Bard ( talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Honesty is in dire need of attention. Although it may not immediately be thought of as a philosophical topic, there is certainly much to be drawn from philosophy to fill out an article on such a concept. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The names Definitional implication, Causal implication, and Decisional implication each redirect to the DAB page Implication. The DAB page defines each term, but at present there doesn't seem to be anything to link to. Could members of this WikiProject help in either changing the targets of those redirects or creating articles (even stubs) at each name? Or maybe these should be handled in another way? Thoughts? Cnilep ( talk) 02:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The biography of Russian philosopher Aleksei Losev has recently been expanded but it needs some help from topic experts. The biographical details should be augmented by a discussion of actual philosophy—what ideas Losev drew from and what ideas he originated, especially what is his scholarly legacy. Any takers? Binksternet ( talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
A recently improved version of Indeterminacy of translation is disputed. It would be helpful to have some input on the discussion of Willard Quine's major thesis underlying (among other matters) the interpretation of modern science and how to present it. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment is invited upon including a sentence about a paper written by Carnap in a discussion of that paper by Quine. Snowded has suggested that such a reference is irrelevant to the topic, but I disagree. The RfC is found here. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
of Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida on deconstruction. See Talk:Deconstruction#Merger proposal. Kind regards, 㓟 ( talk) 13:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:CAT says, "Like disambiguation pages, category pages should not contain either citations to reliable sources or external links."
Greg Bard has been pushing a template that spams external links into philosophy-related categories and resisting all efforts to remove them. This has been discussed extensively at WT:CAT, and even Greg is unable to pretend that there is anything other than a minimum of 50% firm opposition to his external-link work (and others, including myself, count the numbers rather more strongly against him). Greg keeps saying that there is a clear consensus here at WikiProject Philosophy to post external links on all cat pages that overrules this opposition and the general rule against external links on these pages. I have read this entire page and found no evidence that anyone except Greg is determined to keep his external link template in place. Would the rest of you please join the discussion there, in the hope that we could get this settled? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear philosophers:
This article: Veganarchism appears to be mainly about a pamphlet written by one man. Is this the name of a legitimate philosophy, and, if so, is the extensive coverage and quotes from one source appropriate? I have already removed some promotional links to various sources which sell the pamphlet. — Anne Delong ( talk) 11:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hello, |
An RfC is posted at Talk:Quantifier variance#RfC: Quantifier variance, mereology, and philosophical realism for comment and suggestions. There is some conflict here, less about content than about a fruitful process for constructing this article. Brews ohare ( talk) 23:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Semeiotic is a short article on Charles Peirce's variant spelling of semiotics, and debate among some scholars about whether and Peirce and Saussure's different spelling preferences relate to their different theories of sem(e)iotics. Various discussions have begun in 2004 and again in 2006 at Talk:Semiotics (see "Peirce spelled the subject semeiotics" and "Semeiotic, Semiology, Semiotics") and in 2006-07 at Talk:Semeiotic#Merge with Semiotics? but no clear consensus ever emerged and no action has taken place.
I very nearly merged the content of semeiotic to a section of semiotics, but thought better of it. It is best to see if there is controversy on this action, and try to find consensus. Therefore I am inviting participants in WikiProject Philosophy and WikiProject Linguistics to comment at Talk:Semeiotic#Merge to Semiotics? Rename? Rewrite? Cnilep ( talk) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I found these two articles that are potential sources. Where are the best places for them?
Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've created a new article on gender studies lecturer, Nicholas Chare.
Further help with expansion would be most appreciated.
Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 06:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am writing Nothing to hide argument. I want to see if anybody can find "pro-nothing to hide" arguments, or people who agree with "nothing to hide" so I can include their statements in the article. Thank you WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
QUESTION: Which should go first in the lede characterization of Rothbard, "political theorist" or "economist?" RfC here SPECIFICO talk 23:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have listed the article Jainism for peer review. A considerable part of the article is dedicated to Jain religious philosophy ( anekantavada, soul, karma etc). I request your help in making it a Featured Article at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jainism/archive4. Thanks, Rahul Jain ( talk) 17:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear philosophers: There have been some changes to the Thought article recently that may be of interest. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Greetings folks, I finally created Category:Pseudophilosophy, as I have been meaning to for a while. For a long time I wondered whether or not the Philosophy project was strong enough, to deal with having this category. Already, we have an editor, ( User:Lerr) who has depopulated the category, and prodded it with the claim that "there is no such concept" as pseudophilosophy. Well, I think all of the serious philosophy editors know that not just anything is philosophy, and are frustrated and alarmed at some of the impressions of some non-academically oriented contributors. Some guy handing out photocopied sheets of paper with a tiny font and misaligned text on a street corner in San Fransico is not philosophy. Please help sustain the integrity of the Philosophy project, and Wikipedia in general, by monitoring this category. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
According to Pseudophilosophy, science and continental philosophy are pseudophilosophies. I don't think pseudophilosophy is a useful term for a category. It is more a pejorative for something you don't like. It would be better to not put things in the philosophy category rather than put this pejorative label on them. Bhny ( talk) 12:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 3#Category:Pseudophilosophy. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
I have attempted to cleanup the Template:Universalism infobox. But I feel it still needs some work. It would be good if others could have a look and see what they can add to it in the way of links, formatting and categorization. -- Devin Murphy ( talk) 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a parser error on the page Consequentia mirabilis, an article in the scope of this project, which I don't know how to fix. Ma t c hups 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there- I've just nominated throffer, an article on a fun little topic in political philosophy, at FAC. Any thoughts you may have would be appreciated. J Milburn ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Civilization is noted as an important article but is in terrible condition. The only project it is in is sociology. Do others agree with me that it should also be watched by this project? Anyway, if anyone has a moment or two maybe come and make an edit or three?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
I have proposed merging with sensus communis. It remains me of some other cases, and it strikes me that philosophical material is often split out of articles too quickly (for example when both are poor articles) creating questionable FORKs.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)