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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 24 |
31 JULY 2013 SARTAJ HUNDAL
# Is an axiom merely mental content?
# How do we judge content that we cannot see? # If there exists invisible phenomena, then a theistic view of the Universe is permitted
as pure energy streams of 1's and 0's. Images of Jungian archetypes and alchemy come into the domain of our phenomenology.
Vektor-k ( talk) 03:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
An RfC regarding a figure involving ontology and ontological commitment is found here. Please comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see the summary of the present lamentable state of affairs on this subject here Comments needed. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please Note: Another editor has proposed that Category:Moral philosophers be merged into Category:Ethicists. Your participation in the CFD discussion would be greatly welcomed. Cgingold ( talk) 00:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a note at WT:PHYSICS about a discussion at template talk:Science concerning Template:Science ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all - as of late, I've been working a lot on bios of women philosophers. We were missing a lot of people who were not only notable, but foundational in their fields. Alison Jaggar for instance had no Wikipedia article at all until I wrote it this week. I would like to eventually transform my own efforts in to something like Keilana's Wikiproject Women Scientists, except for philosophers. I haven't set up all the infrastructure yet for an actual wikiproject, but for now I've put up a page in my own user space - here - that has a partial list of notable women philosophers who currently don't have articles. If anyone has the time and inclination, some help filling some of them out would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to add new names to the list, too! Kevin Gorman ( talk) 05:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png is up for deletion, it seems to be used on a lot of philo articles -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 09:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen on the Ayn Rand article talk page. Please come help out here: [1]. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Philosophy - Skysmith ( talk) 11:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This version of Pluralism (philosophy) has been subjected to a number of inadvisable changes by MachineElf. These changes have been carefully examined on its Talk page, but MachineElf refuses to comment. The issues of substance involve the definitions in the introductory section. We need some additional input on this page. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As it now stands, this article has important defects, including overly narrow and unsourced definitions and misstatement of subject. Changes are held hostage by MachineElf and Snowded, who refuse all discussion. There is nothing that can be done to improve this article (or indeed many philosophy articles on WP) without broader interest from this group. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Philosophical Papers assigns editors to keep bibliographies for certain subjects it calls 'categories'. An example is Ontological Pluralism maintained by Nurbay Irmak and another is Ontological commitment, a category in Philosophical Papers maintained by Henry Laycock. I entered these links under 'External links' as a service to readers interested in pursuing these topics, and Snowded has removed them [2] [3] on the basis that "we don't use searches as external sources". I think an editor-maintained list of papers is not equivalent to a Google search, and I also think these lists are useful to readers. We need some decision on this matter. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
After reading the remarks here so far, I don't see any reason why the proposed external links should not be allowed. WP:EL (or more specifically WP:ELNO) states,
It then lists 19 places to avoid. None of those 19 cases applies to the proposed links. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
My impression is that the discussion between Snowded and Brews ohare on this matter is dysfunctional. The two subject external links should have been added to the article by now but haven't. I don't have any more time for this and I regret having spent any time at all on it. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please ask MachineElf to stop interfering with the editing process in this article. I've asked for comments, hoping for people with appropriate expertise. Instead, MachineElf has decided to throw his weight around without demonstrating any knowledge of the subject. Editors should be allowed to develop material without an unnecessarily negative environment. ~ BlueMist ( talk) 23:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'd appreciate the opinion of people more knowledgeable about this kind of things on the appropriateness of this category name. See also this discussion on th talk page of the editor who created this category. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Abstractionism currently is an unsourced philosophy stub, but I propose turning it into a redirect to abstract art. Please discuss at Talk:Abstractionism if there are objections. Huon ( talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Core issues in ethics, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have posted this on the article's talk page, but I thought I'd post it here too as the article has a WikiProject Philosophy banner.
For a classical topic like courage, I think sections 5 ( As a strength in psychology) and 6 ( Bravery), based on the 2004 book Character Strengths and Virtues by Peterson & Seligman make up a large portion of this article (the book is cited 10 times). This gives undue prominence to these authors' point of view, theory, and categorization scheme. Per WP:UNDUE, I think these sections need to be removed/rewritten; they are fairly promotional of these authors' work, book, and institute (Virtues in Action, VIA).
Also to be noted is the fact that these parts have been added by a single-purpose account, I love courage. FireflySixtySeven ( talk) 11:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Category:Philosophy academics, Category:Philosophy writers and Category:American philosophy academics, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, WikiProject Philosophy,
I do a lot of work with categorization and I was working on some philosophers' articles which led me to look at the way philosophers are categorized. It looks like the talk page on the philosophy category page hasn't been used since 2006 so I'm bringing my question here.
Could someone who has a broad knowledge of the philosophy discipline and history look over these two categories and make sure that the contents are correct?
Category:Philosophers by tradition
Category:Philosophers by field
When discussing contemporary philosophers, it's not clear to me that there is a distinct difference between "tradition" and "field" since they both seem like academic specializations. But I'm not going to recategorize any of them, I thought I'd just bring it to your attention and maybe you can correct anything that is miscategorized. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I created this category for individuals who are already categorized under "Philosopher" categories but who write for the general public, a wider audience than academia. It's based on Category:Public historians which includes historians who are not part of the higher education system and the general concept of a public intellectual. So, for example, the category contains Ayn Rand and Martha Nussbaum who both wrote/write for a public audience and are already classified as philosophers on Wikipedia.
That was my idea behind it and I had only assigned a few philosophers to the category as I am currently working on Category:Women philosophers. But within a few hours, the category was already nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 27#Category:Public philosophers.
Now, it might be a valid new category for Philosophy or the folks at this WikiProject might think it is not useful. I'll leave that up to consensus. But I definitely think this question should be decided through conversation with WikiProject Philosophy and not just from those well-meaning Editors who frequent CfD...so please, if you have a moment, make your opinion (pro or con) known. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delectare. Cnilep ( talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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 may be removed from the article.
Template:Anthropic Bias ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear philosophers: This old Afc draft is soon to be deleted. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? Right now the word "Non-place" is a redirect. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A request for comment is posted to consider making Standard argument against free will a stand-alone article instead of a redirect to Dilemma of determinism. The proposed new article is found here and comments are invited here. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I've put together a script on Wikimedia Tool Labs and a new template which helps in linking to the Perseus Project texts of Plato: Template:citeplato.
I've tried to make it so that it is easy to use with current practices: You should just have to cite with Stephanus pagination mainly as you normally do, but just wrap it with the template, with a couple dividers. All the documentation with usage examples is at Template:citeplato.
So for example, writing {{citeplato|Republic|400c}} produces Republic 400c. Ranges of pages work fine too. And so do common alternative names and shortforms for titles. You can specify Greek by adding a "|greek" or even just a "|g" parameter at the end. You can't link just a book right now, you need to specify a Stephanus page (maybe I'll fix that).
Here's a diff of me converting a few cites on Atlantis to show how it can work with current practices: [4]. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 22:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a proposed wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/modern Japanese thinkers that overlaps your wikiproject. You may want to voice your opinion at the proposal. -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 11:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, but I remember a couple years ago I found the Wikipedia article on Denotation. Frankly, it's terrible--especially for an article so important. I check it every once in a while to see if it's been improved but it hasn't been touched since I found it. I'm just posting here in the hope that maybe it'll get fixed up if more people know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:15B:B7B0:9C1F:F8CE ( talk) 00:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been editing articles on various object-oriented topics in computer science. (BTW, I make my living in IT but I have a deep knowledge of philosophy, in areas that overlap computer science such as philosophy of mind but also in areas that are outside computer science such as ethics). I came across the following article: Object-oriented ontology Ontology is a very hot area of applied research in computer science these days because of the Semantic Web and languages like OWL (which is object oriented) so I was excited to see that someone started a page on the topic. However, what is currently in that article has nothing to do with concepts like object-oriented or ontology in that sense. Which is fine. I realize ontology gets gets used (and in fact of course got started as did a lot of things) as a philosophical concept. So I was curious, there are often philosophical concepts that are relevant to computer science research. The more I looked at that article though the more I felt that as it is it is terrible. Barely understandable. What is more the references and the whole "topic" as discussed looks to me like someone's PhD thesis turned into a Wikipedia article. There are lots of inline refs but check them out carefully. They have fancy sounding names like "Journal of Ontological Mooginess" but when you go there the "journal" is just a blog trying to look like it represents something more than one or two people's opinions. Also, there are "books" mentioned but the ISBN number of at least one isn't valid and I suspect that that "book" is just a PhD thesis, at best a PhD thesis that got vanity published. I've tagged the article with a tag about the references but I think there is a serious issue as to should any of the content remain. I think it's highly confusing for people looking for information on object-oriented concepts and ontologies. I haven't proposed deletion for the article yet I was curious if anyone here had an opinion. MadScientistX11 ( talk) 14:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit out of my depth here and would appreciate if some knowledgeable editors here could have a look at this article. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Some changes of direction are being proposed at the Reason article. User:Lonjers is concerned that the article is too "human-centric". While the article can certainly do with a fresh perspective, this is a critical philosophical term and I have suggested some more talkpage discussion first before making major changes. I suggest this requires more input from the community.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note the Consciousness causes collapse article is up for deletion under the name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum mind–body problem.— Machine Elf 1735 07:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have begun a draft at Draft:End of history, as a primary topic article to replace the current disambiguation page. Any help would be welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe the answer is yes. There are so few editors interested in this topic that many articles have received no attention since their creation years ago. Any suggestions for changes of these articles is met with indifference, or worse, unexplained resistance. Constructive exchange of views with the aim of making articles more complete or more up to date is very rare. An example of what can go wrong is this nonsensical exchange over adding a source to one line in Dilemma of determinism. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The situation is dire. The philosophy has always been worse off than any other academic area. If you keep an eye on the proposals that arise affecting our department (i.e. categories and articles for deletion, etc.) the results invariably depend on the collective will of non-members of WikiProject Philosophy. This has resulted in a great deal of dumbing-down, and reductions to lowest common denominators. I would like to establish an email list with just WP:PHILO members, but I believe this sort of thing is frowned upon since we don't actually have freedom of speech in Wikipedia (which, for some incredibly stupid reason extends to the talk namespace). Perhaps we need to do some outreach to academia. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if any of the editors here-assembled are interested at all in joining a discussion of the introduction to Dilemma of determinism to correct some limitations noted in this thread on its Talk page?? Brews ohare ( talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been no response from those here to this RfC, nor to the problem of unsourced assertions in dilemma of determinism. The result is that by default there is a stalemate concerning these issues between myself and editor Snowded, which has led to an inadequate treatment of both the dilemma of determinism and the standard argument against free will. This dispute between two editors cries out for other participation, and without it, the WP policy of sourcing challenged assertions will be ignored. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Dilemma of determinism continues to propose a parochial and completely unsourced view of the 'dilemma', and the redirect from Standard argument against free will to 'dilemma' leads to no discussion of this 'standard argument' or its connection to the 'dilemma'. Proposed sources have been suppressed. A proposal to re-institute Standard argument against free will as a separate article is supported by Vesal and BlueMist, but Blackburne and Snowded continue to block any such change, claiming insufficient support, but themselves registering zero comment on the issues involved, simply muttering about enforcement of bureaucracy. The Project Philosophy participants (if indeed there are any active members) remain unconcerned and uninvolved. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments are needed on this matter this matter: Talk:Nature and nurture#Requested move -- Change title of article to back to Nature versus nurture?. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Help is needed at Simone de Beauvoir. It is the UK's Google Doodle for today. It's not in a good state, mostly unreferenced. Many of these doodle WP biogs get 2-3 million hits each. Pairs of eyes and extra refs are appreciated. Thanks Span ( talk) 00:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt ( talk) 11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has been making some very controversial changes to WikiProject Philosophy-related articles; their editing consists in unwarranted editorializing and original research (linking mainstream philosophical figures with esoteric theology). I have recently reverted one of their edits; attention is needed for the pages they edit. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 06:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A user suggested number of quotes allegedly by Voltaire, about Islam and Muhammad, none of which are supported by any reliable sources or even multiple sources other than the wikipedia page itself, of Voltaire where he added. Till now, haven't seen any reliable sources from the user.
And then other user suggests some french sources, some of them seems to be incapable for the confirmation. Although I have proposed a lot better version, which includes the information, by multiple reliable sources.
Have a look at Talk:Voltaire#On_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard, other discussion -> Talk:Voltaire#Evolving_Views_that_go_from_bigotry_to_bigotry. Bladesmulti ( talk) 11:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear philisophers: My request for independent sources went unanswered on this Afc submission. Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, or should we let it fade away? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Attention is needed at Talk:Analogy of the Divided Line. It looks as though User:Mercer.philosophy is doing a rewrite of all Plato related pictures, templates, and articles. Comments are requested. BlueMist ( talk) 03:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt ( talk) 10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 18:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject!
Brian Leiter, a BLP article within your scope needs help in establishing a neutral criticism section. There have been concerns that the article's subject and his contemporaries may be editing the article to conform criticism to a specific POV, and that this has been going on for a few years. Anyhow, your expertise is welcome. Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 04:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
You may be interested to comment upon this RfC about moral responsibility. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marie-Jo THIEL. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
For the past few months Atticusattor has been aggressively promoting the non-mainstream views of Wheat ( 2012). At least twelve articles have been affected so far. The editor has so far refused to explain their editing activity with reference to Wikipedia policy. I just reverted one of their edits which was in blatant violation of WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:INTEGRITY, and WP:RS/AC. Details can be found on Atticusattor's talk page [5] and on the following two talk-pages: Talk:Thesis, antithesis, synthesis#Vandalism plus Incompetence and Talk:The Phenomenology of Spirit/Archive 1#Spirit Identified. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 14:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
At least three editors (including me) have been participating in the discussions above since early November. Atticusattor still refuses to engage in productive discussion with us. I am going το revert many of his edits with caution; some specific pieces of information he inserted are adequately sourced, but most of them either constitute original research or have Wheat 2012 as their sole source—the problem being that Wheat 2012 is contradicted by most (if not all) English-speaking authoritative sources on Hegel. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I was just over at Ludic fallacy and I found the article very wanting. I'm not seeing any thing that establishes notability here or on the web. It's a bit tough, because it's a pop culture book, so there are a number of places that reference it, but the idea is exclusively tied to Nicholas Nassim Taleb. From what I can tell, this idea is not an ongoing scholarly concern and does not exist independent of the corpus of Taleb's work. I'm thinking that it should be merged into another article, either The Black Swan or the article on Taleb himself. I thought I'd get a second opinion from the relevant wikiproject before officially making this proposal on the page. 0x0077BE ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
We need to consider changing the way influences are dealt with in infoboxes. Significant philosophers like Hegel accumulate 80+ people who were influenced by them (and I'm sure many more could be added), but there's little indication of the nature of the influence, and the lists quickly become unwieldy, particularly where someone is significant enough to have influenced much of what came afterwards. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Methinks there are some issues here. (although with a few simple tweaks it could be made quite a bit more robust, like assigning a weight to the influences of influences). Jaydubya93 ( talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree with SlimVirgin. Attempts to control these lists centrally does not work. In the meanwhile, Nikkimaria keeps going against consensus and continues her disservice to our readers (philosophy students). She blindly applies an obsolete usage note, and despite the fact that she makes an appeal to WP:V, most of the time challenge is not reasonable. The examples are countless. I will just mention a handful of them. She removed Descartes from Chomsky's influences (ahem... Cartesian linguistics); she removed Meillassoux from the list of philosophers influenced by Badiou (Meillassoux is a former student of Badiou who based his whole theoretical framework on his intent to oppose Badiou); she removed Casimir Lewy from the list of philosophers influenced by Wittgenstein (Lewy is Wittgenstein's doctoral student [7]); see also [8] and [9]. This sort of removals is downright unconstructive (it is of interest to note that she always reverts with the uninformative edit summary "fmt, rm unsupported"). After more than 20 days after her proposal to start enforcing Banno's usage note, the consensus remains against this usage note and in favor of long-standing project-specific practice. I am going to change the template documentation to reflect the consensus of this discussion: "Entries in influences, influenced, and notable ideas should be reliably sourced if they are challenged or likely to be challenged". -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benacerraf's identification problem - I have asked WikiProject Mathematics the same question. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I've put in a peer review request for the above article. I'm a nurse, but I don't have subject matter expertise in ethics or whistleblowing. This is a GA that I am thinking of nominating for FA at some point. I'm hoping to ensure that the treatment of the issues is robust enough for FA. I would love any comments that you have to offer. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 20:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The topic of Enaction (philosophy) is now an article. Editor Snowded has deleted a good deal more than half of this article, and so far has provided no reasons on the Talk page for his actions other than his personal unsupported opinions. We need some other eyes on this discussion to form a good article. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just submitted a peer review request for the article on Australian metaphysician and epistemologist David Malet Armstrong which I'd like to take to GA status at some point. Feedback and help would be appreciated. — Tom Morris ( talk) 05:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear philopsophers: Here's another old Afc submission. Is this a notable professor, and should the article be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear philosophers: This Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The newly written article Enaction (philosophy) is under discussion for deletion. The discussion is found here. If there are active members in the philosophy project, they should contribute to this discussion. As it stands, this article will disappear. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear philosophers: Is this old Afc submission about a notable philosopher, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 01:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC).
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Field Environmental Philosophy. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 19 April 2014 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 24 |
31 JULY 2013 SARTAJ HUNDAL
# Is an axiom merely mental content?
# How do we judge content that we cannot see? # If there exists invisible phenomena, then a theistic view of the Universe is permitted
as pure energy streams of 1's and 0's. Images of Jungian archetypes and alchemy come into the domain of our phenomenology.
Vektor-k ( talk) 03:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
An RfC regarding a figure involving ontology and ontological commitment is found here. Please comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see the summary of the present lamentable state of affairs on this subject here Comments needed. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please Note: Another editor has proposed that Category:Moral philosophers be merged into Category:Ethicists. Your participation in the CFD discussion would be greatly welcomed. Cgingold ( talk) 00:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a note at WT:PHYSICS about a discussion at template talk:Science concerning Template:Science ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all - as of late, I've been working a lot on bios of women philosophers. We were missing a lot of people who were not only notable, but foundational in their fields. Alison Jaggar for instance had no Wikipedia article at all until I wrote it this week. I would like to eventually transform my own efforts in to something like Keilana's Wikiproject Women Scientists, except for philosophers. I haven't set up all the infrastructure yet for an actual wikiproject, but for now I've put up a page in my own user space - here - that has a partial list of notable women philosophers who currently don't have articles. If anyone has the time and inclination, some help filling some of them out would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to add new names to the list, too! Kevin Gorman ( talk) 05:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png is up for deletion, it seems to be used on a lot of philo articles -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 09:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen on the Ayn Rand article talk page. Please come help out here: [1]. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Philosophy - Skysmith ( talk) 11:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This version of Pluralism (philosophy) has been subjected to a number of inadvisable changes by MachineElf. These changes have been carefully examined on its Talk page, but MachineElf refuses to comment. The issues of substance involve the definitions in the introductory section. We need some additional input on this page. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As it now stands, this article has important defects, including overly narrow and unsourced definitions and misstatement of subject. Changes are held hostage by MachineElf and Snowded, who refuse all discussion. There is nothing that can be done to improve this article (or indeed many philosophy articles on WP) without broader interest from this group. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Philosophical Papers assigns editors to keep bibliographies for certain subjects it calls 'categories'. An example is Ontological Pluralism maintained by Nurbay Irmak and another is Ontological commitment, a category in Philosophical Papers maintained by Henry Laycock. I entered these links under 'External links' as a service to readers interested in pursuing these topics, and Snowded has removed them [2] [3] on the basis that "we don't use searches as external sources". I think an editor-maintained list of papers is not equivalent to a Google search, and I also think these lists are useful to readers. We need some decision on this matter. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
After reading the remarks here so far, I don't see any reason why the proposed external links should not be allowed. WP:EL (or more specifically WP:ELNO) states,
It then lists 19 places to avoid. None of those 19 cases applies to the proposed links. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
My impression is that the discussion between Snowded and Brews ohare on this matter is dysfunctional. The two subject external links should have been added to the article by now but haven't. I don't have any more time for this and I regret having spent any time at all on it. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please ask MachineElf to stop interfering with the editing process in this article. I've asked for comments, hoping for people with appropriate expertise. Instead, MachineElf has decided to throw his weight around without demonstrating any knowledge of the subject. Editors should be allowed to develop material without an unnecessarily negative environment. ~ BlueMist ( talk) 23:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'd appreciate the opinion of people more knowledgeable about this kind of things on the appropriateness of this category name. See also this discussion on th talk page of the editor who created this category. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Abstractionism currently is an unsourced philosophy stub, but I propose turning it into a redirect to abstract art. Please discuss at Talk:Abstractionism if there are objections. Huon ( talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Core issues in ethics, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have posted this on the article's talk page, but I thought I'd post it here too as the article has a WikiProject Philosophy banner.
For a classical topic like courage, I think sections 5 ( As a strength in psychology) and 6 ( Bravery), based on the 2004 book Character Strengths and Virtues by Peterson & Seligman make up a large portion of this article (the book is cited 10 times). This gives undue prominence to these authors' point of view, theory, and categorization scheme. Per WP:UNDUE, I think these sections need to be removed/rewritten; they are fairly promotional of these authors' work, book, and institute (Virtues in Action, VIA).
Also to be noted is the fact that these parts have been added by a single-purpose account, I love courage. FireflySixtySeven ( talk) 11:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Category:Philosophy academics, Category:Philosophy writers and Category:American philosophy academics, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, WikiProject Philosophy,
I do a lot of work with categorization and I was working on some philosophers' articles which led me to look at the way philosophers are categorized. It looks like the talk page on the philosophy category page hasn't been used since 2006 so I'm bringing my question here.
Could someone who has a broad knowledge of the philosophy discipline and history look over these two categories and make sure that the contents are correct?
Category:Philosophers by tradition
Category:Philosophers by field
When discussing contemporary philosophers, it's not clear to me that there is a distinct difference between "tradition" and "field" since they both seem like academic specializations. But I'm not going to recategorize any of them, I thought I'd just bring it to your attention and maybe you can correct anything that is miscategorized. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I created this category for individuals who are already categorized under "Philosopher" categories but who write for the general public, a wider audience than academia. It's based on Category:Public historians which includes historians who are not part of the higher education system and the general concept of a public intellectual. So, for example, the category contains Ayn Rand and Martha Nussbaum who both wrote/write for a public audience and are already classified as philosophers on Wikipedia.
That was my idea behind it and I had only assigned a few philosophers to the category as I am currently working on Category:Women philosophers. But within a few hours, the category was already nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 27#Category:Public philosophers.
Now, it might be a valid new category for Philosophy or the folks at this WikiProject might think it is not useful. I'll leave that up to consensus. But I definitely think this question should be decided through conversation with WikiProject Philosophy and not just from those well-meaning Editors who frequent CfD...so please, if you have a moment, make your opinion (pro or con) known. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delectare. Cnilep ( talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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 may be removed from the article.
Template:Anthropic Bias ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear philosophers: This old Afc draft is soon to be deleted. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? Right now the word "Non-place" is a redirect. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A request for comment is posted to consider making Standard argument against free will a stand-alone article instead of a redirect to Dilemma of determinism. The proposed new article is found here and comments are invited here. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I've put together a script on Wikimedia Tool Labs and a new template which helps in linking to the Perseus Project texts of Plato: Template:citeplato.
I've tried to make it so that it is easy to use with current practices: You should just have to cite with Stephanus pagination mainly as you normally do, but just wrap it with the template, with a couple dividers. All the documentation with usage examples is at Template:citeplato.
So for example, writing {{citeplato|Republic|400c}} produces Republic 400c. Ranges of pages work fine too. And so do common alternative names and shortforms for titles. You can specify Greek by adding a "|greek" or even just a "|g" parameter at the end. You can't link just a book right now, you need to specify a Stephanus page (maybe I'll fix that).
Here's a diff of me converting a few cites on Atlantis to show how it can work with current practices: [4]. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 22:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a proposed wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/modern Japanese thinkers that overlaps your wikiproject. You may want to voice your opinion at the proposal. -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 11:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, but I remember a couple years ago I found the Wikipedia article on Denotation. Frankly, it's terrible--especially for an article so important. I check it every once in a while to see if it's been improved but it hasn't been touched since I found it. I'm just posting here in the hope that maybe it'll get fixed up if more people know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:15B:B7B0:9C1F:F8CE ( talk) 00:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been editing articles on various object-oriented topics in computer science. (BTW, I make my living in IT but I have a deep knowledge of philosophy, in areas that overlap computer science such as philosophy of mind but also in areas that are outside computer science such as ethics). I came across the following article: Object-oriented ontology Ontology is a very hot area of applied research in computer science these days because of the Semantic Web and languages like OWL (which is object oriented) so I was excited to see that someone started a page on the topic. However, what is currently in that article has nothing to do with concepts like object-oriented or ontology in that sense. Which is fine. I realize ontology gets gets used (and in fact of course got started as did a lot of things) as a philosophical concept. So I was curious, there are often philosophical concepts that are relevant to computer science research. The more I looked at that article though the more I felt that as it is it is terrible. Barely understandable. What is more the references and the whole "topic" as discussed looks to me like someone's PhD thesis turned into a Wikipedia article. There are lots of inline refs but check them out carefully. They have fancy sounding names like "Journal of Ontological Mooginess" but when you go there the "journal" is just a blog trying to look like it represents something more than one or two people's opinions. Also, there are "books" mentioned but the ISBN number of at least one isn't valid and I suspect that that "book" is just a PhD thesis, at best a PhD thesis that got vanity published. I've tagged the article with a tag about the references but I think there is a serious issue as to should any of the content remain. I think it's highly confusing for people looking for information on object-oriented concepts and ontologies. I haven't proposed deletion for the article yet I was curious if anyone here had an opinion. MadScientistX11 ( talk) 14:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit out of my depth here and would appreciate if some knowledgeable editors here could have a look at this article. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Some changes of direction are being proposed at the Reason article. User:Lonjers is concerned that the article is too "human-centric". While the article can certainly do with a fresh perspective, this is a critical philosophical term and I have suggested some more talkpage discussion first before making major changes. I suggest this requires more input from the community.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note the Consciousness causes collapse article is up for deletion under the name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum mind–body problem.— Machine Elf 1735 07:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have begun a draft at Draft:End of history, as a primary topic article to replace the current disambiguation page. Any help would be welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe the answer is yes. There are so few editors interested in this topic that many articles have received no attention since their creation years ago. Any suggestions for changes of these articles is met with indifference, or worse, unexplained resistance. Constructive exchange of views with the aim of making articles more complete or more up to date is very rare. An example of what can go wrong is this nonsensical exchange over adding a source to one line in Dilemma of determinism. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The situation is dire. The philosophy has always been worse off than any other academic area. If you keep an eye on the proposals that arise affecting our department (i.e. categories and articles for deletion, etc.) the results invariably depend on the collective will of non-members of WikiProject Philosophy. This has resulted in a great deal of dumbing-down, and reductions to lowest common denominators. I would like to establish an email list with just WP:PHILO members, but I believe this sort of thing is frowned upon since we don't actually have freedom of speech in Wikipedia (which, for some incredibly stupid reason extends to the talk namespace). Perhaps we need to do some outreach to academia. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if any of the editors here-assembled are interested at all in joining a discussion of the introduction to Dilemma of determinism to correct some limitations noted in this thread on its Talk page?? Brews ohare ( talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been no response from those here to this RfC, nor to the problem of unsourced assertions in dilemma of determinism. The result is that by default there is a stalemate concerning these issues between myself and editor Snowded, which has led to an inadequate treatment of both the dilemma of determinism and the standard argument against free will. This dispute between two editors cries out for other participation, and without it, the WP policy of sourcing challenged assertions will be ignored. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Dilemma of determinism continues to propose a parochial and completely unsourced view of the 'dilemma', and the redirect from Standard argument against free will to 'dilemma' leads to no discussion of this 'standard argument' or its connection to the 'dilemma'. Proposed sources have been suppressed. A proposal to re-institute Standard argument against free will as a separate article is supported by Vesal and BlueMist, but Blackburne and Snowded continue to block any such change, claiming insufficient support, but themselves registering zero comment on the issues involved, simply muttering about enforcement of bureaucracy. The Project Philosophy participants (if indeed there are any active members) remain unconcerned and uninvolved. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments are needed on this matter this matter: Talk:Nature and nurture#Requested move -- Change title of article to back to Nature versus nurture?. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Help is needed at Simone de Beauvoir. It is the UK's Google Doodle for today. It's not in a good state, mostly unreferenced. Many of these doodle WP biogs get 2-3 million hits each. Pairs of eyes and extra refs are appreciated. Thanks Span ( talk) 00:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt ( talk) 11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has been making some very controversial changes to WikiProject Philosophy-related articles; their editing consists in unwarranted editorializing and original research (linking mainstream philosophical figures with esoteric theology). I have recently reverted one of their edits; attention is needed for the pages they edit. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 06:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A user suggested number of quotes allegedly by Voltaire, about Islam and Muhammad, none of which are supported by any reliable sources or even multiple sources other than the wikipedia page itself, of Voltaire where he added. Till now, haven't seen any reliable sources from the user.
And then other user suggests some french sources, some of them seems to be incapable for the confirmation. Although I have proposed a lot better version, which includes the information, by multiple reliable sources.
Have a look at Talk:Voltaire#On_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard, other discussion -> Talk:Voltaire#Evolving_Views_that_go_from_bigotry_to_bigotry. Bladesmulti ( talk) 11:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear philisophers: My request for independent sources went unanswered on this Afc submission. Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, or should we let it fade away? — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Attention is needed at Talk:Analogy of the Divided Line. It looks as though User:Mercer.philosophy is doing a rewrite of all Plato related pictures, templates, and articles. Comments are requested. BlueMist ( talk) 03:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt ( talk) 10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 18:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject!
Brian Leiter, a BLP article within your scope needs help in establishing a neutral criticism section. There have been concerns that the article's subject and his contemporaries may be editing the article to conform criticism to a specific POV, and that this has been going on for a few years. Anyhow, your expertise is welcome. Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 04:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
You may be interested to comment upon this RfC about moral responsibility. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marie-Jo THIEL. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
For the past few months Atticusattor has been aggressively promoting the non-mainstream views of Wheat ( 2012). At least twelve articles have been affected so far. The editor has so far refused to explain their editing activity with reference to Wikipedia policy. I just reverted one of their edits which was in blatant violation of WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:INTEGRITY, and WP:RS/AC. Details can be found on Atticusattor's talk page [5] and on the following two talk-pages: Talk:Thesis, antithesis, synthesis#Vandalism plus Incompetence and Talk:The Phenomenology of Spirit/Archive 1#Spirit Identified. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 14:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
At least three editors (including me) have been participating in the discussions above since early November. Atticusattor still refuses to engage in productive discussion with us. I am going το revert many of his edits with caution; some specific pieces of information he inserted are adequately sourced, but most of them either constitute original research or have Wheat 2012 as their sole source—the problem being that Wheat 2012 is contradicted by most (if not all) English-speaking authoritative sources on Hegel. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I was just over at Ludic fallacy and I found the article very wanting. I'm not seeing any thing that establishes notability here or on the web. It's a bit tough, because it's a pop culture book, so there are a number of places that reference it, but the idea is exclusively tied to Nicholas Nassim Taleb. From what I can tell, this idea is not an ongoing scholarly concern and does not exist independent of the corpus of Taleb's work. I'm thinking that it should be merged into another article, either The Black Swan or the article on Taleb himself. I thought I'd get a second opinion from the relevant wikiproject before officially making this proposal on the page. 0x0077BE ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
We need to consider changing the way influences are dealt with in infoboxes. Significant philosophers like Hegel accumulate 80+ people who were influenced by them (and I'm sure many more could be added), but there's little indication of the nature of the influence, and the lists quickly become unwieldy, particularly where someone is significant enough to have influenced much of what came afterwards. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Methinks there are some issues here. (although with a few simple tweaks it could be made quite a bit more robust, like assigning a weight to the influences of influences). Jaydubya93 ( talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree with SlimVirgin. Attempts to control these lists centrally does not work. In the meanwhile, Nikkimaria keeps going against consensus and continues her disservice to our readers (philosophy students). She blindly applies an obsolete usage note, and despite the fact that she makes an appeal to WP:V, most of the time challenge is not reasonable. The examples are countless. I will just mention a handful of them. She removed Descartes from Chomsky's influences (ahem... Cartesian linguistics); she removed Meillassoux from the list of philosophers influenced by Badiou (Meillassoux is a former student of Badiou who based his whole theoretical framework on his intent to oppose Badiou); she removed Casimir Lewy from the list of philosophers influenced by Wittgenstein (Lewy is Wittgenstein's doctoral student [7]); see also [8] and [9]. This sort of removals is downright unconstructive (it is of interest to note that she always reverts with the uninformative edit summary "fmt, rm unsupported"). After more than 20 days after her proposal to start enforcing Banno's usage note, the consensus remains against this usage note and in favor of long-standing project-specific practice. I am going to change the template documentation to reflect the consensus of this discussion: "Entries in influences, influenced, and notable ideas should be reliably sourced if they are challenged or likely to be challenged". -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benacerraf's identification problem - I have asked WikiProject Mathematics the same question. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I've put in a peer review request for the above article. I'm a nurse, but I don't have subject matter expertise in ethics or whistleblowing. This is a GA that I am thinking of nominating for FA at some point. I'm hoping to ensure that the treatment of the issues is robust enough for FA. I would love any comments that you have to offer. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 20:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The topic of Enaction (philosophy) is now an article. Editor Snowded has deleted a good deal more than half of this article, and so far has provided no reasons on the Talk page for his actions other than his personal unsupported opinions. We need some other eyes on this discussion to form a good article. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just submitted a peer review request for the article on Australian metaphysician and epistemologist David Malet Armstrong which I'd like to take to GA status at some point. Feedback and help would be appreciated. — Tom Morris ( talk) 05:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear philopsophers: Here's another old Afc submission. Is this a notable professor, and should the article be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear philosophers: This Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The newly written article Enaction (philosophy) is under discussion for deletion. The discussion is found here. If there are active members in the philosophy project, they should contribute to this discussion. As it stands, this article will disappear. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear philosophers: Is this old Afc submission about a notable philosopher, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 01:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC).
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Field Environmental Philosophy. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)