![]() | 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 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 24 |
If any of you has some time to review what FreeKnowledgeCreator has been up-to in topics concerning Philosophy, in particular Philosophers, it would be a big help. Beginning-with a problem in the Timothy Leary article especially, interactions with other editors have been curt and sharp as-if other editors are supposed to be following guidelines specific to philosophy that as far as I can tell do not exist. Any Guidance concerning this would be helpful-thanks. TeeVeeed ( talk) 13:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a related discussion on the talk page at Philosopher that would benefit from additional participation by Philosophy Project members. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Since this is a listed project, there is an ongoing RfC to determine the validity of flags in Genocide-related articles. It's at Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles. Please comment there. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Currently Defeasibility is a redirect to Falsifiability. Unless I misunderstand, though, the two terms mean something rather different in logic, don't they? Help with the redirect is appreciated. (See also Defeasible (disambiguation), which points to Defeasible reasoning and (since my recent edit) Defeasible logic. If necessary, help there would also be appreciated.) Cnilep ( talk) 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Years ago I happened to read on a web page that in one of his dialogues Plato states that on an Egyptian pyramid there was an inscription which described the way how man can reach the condition of a god by simply breathing. Could anybody here help me find the citation? Thank you very much for the attention.05:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Timothy Leary here. Skyerise ( talk) 18:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This is posted here as the Category:Medical controversies page falls under the Wikiproject Philosophy purview.
The issues follow from discussions at CFS: Talk /info/en/?search=Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Problems_of_controversy
There does not seem to be any guidance on what in WP terms constitutes a medical controversy and there is a danger that the Category: Medical Controveries could act as a self referential axiom, whereby a page listed at Category:Medical controversies is automatically defined as medical controversy without necessarily meeting, or continuing to meet an encyclopaedic definition of a Medical controversies.
Suggested principles of what would be required to meet an encyclopaedic definition of a medical controversy.
What a medical controversy is not:
Location of a medical controversy:
Attachment of controversy to illness/disease:
There are multiple points by which controversy can attach to an illness. Poor research, fraudulent research, political speech, media commentary, poor or dangerous treament, fraudulent treatment and fraudulent practitioners, celebrity comment, clebrity patient etc. From an encyclopaedic perspective these sources of controversy should not of themselves support classification of a subject as a medical controversy. Of course if a piece of research or a treatment has impacted on clinical practice, then that research or treatment may of itself be a medical controversy - Hyperemesis gravidarum is a non controversial medical condition, but its treament with thalidomide remains profoundly controversial because of the harm caused. It is notable that this is no longer a continuing medical controversy as a treatment because no resonable clinician would any longer prescribe thalidomide it for morning sickness, but it remains a controversy because of the the continuing effect on the lives of those who were harmed.
Sources defining a medical controversy:
In science controversy isn’t about mere difference of perspective – different groups of researchers are in energetic argument with other groups all the time, for there to be medical/scientific controversy there needs to be more than the usual fighting of corners, instead there needs to be an exceptional divide in scientific perspective. In medicine such an exceptional divide should be indentifiable in MEDRS, with the material clearly specifying the basis and location of the controversy.
The Specific case of CFS:
Medical controversies tend to resolve as research progresses, while in comparison political, media, and social controversies do not, although these latter types may fade from general interest. CFS is certainly a difficult illness about which to construct an encyclopaedia article, it has more than one name attached to it, diagnosis is by symptomology only, there is no current certain treatment and its pathophysiology is not established. Nevertheless over the last 25 years there has been progress in formulating now well established processes of diagnosis, there is general clinical acceptance that management options are limited and offer little benefit for most patients, and there has begun to be progessive investment in researching the biological bases of the condition. Various media controversies have attached to CFS and the false association of the XMRV retrovirus and ongoing open data issues related to a study called PACE are research controversies that have attached to CFS, however neither has impacted on the established positions on diagnosis, pathology or management. To the extent that CFS has itself been considered controversial, this has been related to a debate about the differing significance of imputed psychiatric versus physiologic characteristics, this debate continues between differing specialisms but it is notable that the practioners of just one specialism continue to talk (without providing evidence) in terms of the condition being controversial and that this specialism (psychiatry/psychology or indeed primarily a single English dominated school of thinking – BPS) has in recent years lost ground in the research focus and funding. Neither of two major reports published by respectively the US NIH and IOM http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2322800 and http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19012/beyond-myalgic-encephalomyelitischronic-fatigue-syndrome-redefining-an-illness in the last 18 months referes to CFS as controversial.
Comments on the general issues of medical controversies and on the specific case of CFS would be welcome. Particularly on the appropriateness of removing the CFS article from the medical controversies category, and/or the creation of a medical controversies(Historical) category. -- In Vitro Infidelium ( talk) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway to move the article Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (with a single comma) to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Please share your opinion on the matter at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Ever since my timid contribution to negated existence was bluntly dismissed by User:Blue_Mist_1 (see User_talk:Blue_Mist_1#nonexistence, diff), I have been struggling to put something together that somehow provides a bigger view of the topic. The sciences have come a long way since Parmenides put forward his view of the world, after all, and I am convinced that so far we have a blind spot here that should be addressed by WP. May I kindly ask the community to contribute to User:Kku/Nonexistence? You may notice that I think there is more to it than what can be said from the philosophical side. You are free to improve (or critizise) those parts as well if you feel inclined. Thanks for many interesting contributions in advance. -- Kku 10:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Usurpation is under discussion, see DRAFT TALK:Usurpation -- 70.51.200.96 ( talk) 06:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
There are these two categories: (1) Category:Branches of philosophy (maybe soon called Category:Subfields of philosophy) and (2) Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy. The way I get it, (1) is for the main fields of philosophy, (2) for the crossover/fusion between philosophy and another discipline. I have no experience with philosophy and for me it seems "off", that Category:Political philosophy and Category:Social philosophy, who are fusions between social/political science and philosophy are not in (2) but in (1). Is is because of history/tradition? Would suggest me to start a discussion at Wikipedia:CFD to restructure them into (2)? – CN1 ( talk) 23:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
So apparently we have a series on Certainty. I'm mystified as to why this particular aspect has to have its own series, not to mention everything else has to defined in terms of certainty. Some of the related concepts have nothing in common. Solipsism and fatalism? Is this worth cleaning up, or should it just be deleted? BabyJonas ( talk) 00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I have started a peer review of life here. Feel free to drop some suggestions on how to improve the article. MartinZ02 ( talk) 16:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Due to the inherent inter- and multi-disciplinary nature of the Globalization topic, there is a lot of intersection with categories of related WikiProjects of WP:GLBZ. Currently, comments would be welcome on a proposed re-name of Category:Sociocultural globalization (a major aspect of and 2nd tier level of the Globalization category) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_28#Category:Sociocultural_globalization. Thank you in advance. Regards, Meclee ( talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Philosopher used to have sections that referenced black and women philosophers which have been removed. However the argument to reinstate them is only between myself and one other editor. Accusations of "victim mentality" among other things have been thrown around. If other people could come in to give their suggestions, that would be very good so that this isn't just a dumb one-on-one argument.-- Ollyoxenfree ( talk) 17:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
You are all invited to the discussion. Lbertolotti ( talk) 19:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently an rfc at Talk:Michel_Foucault#RfC:Should_Foucalt_be_tagged_with_LGBT_and_Gay_categories.3F over whether the following categories should be applied to the article: Category:Gay writers, Category:LGBT historians, and Category:LGBT writers from France. I invite interested editors to comment whatever their views. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The current article is a stub. I ran the extensive German article through Google translate and put it in my userspace. Anyone is welcome to help clean it up. Thanks! — goethean 16:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Plato is rightfully listed as among our top 1,000 Vital articles. I was disappointed to see that Plato was rated a class C article there, although I think it might currently be Class-B. The reason: lack of in-line citations. I agree; that's a problem. Same with other Philosophy articles I have encountered.
I'm willing to do a little work to find citations. However, finding good RS on-line is not fun. I've Google searched for Philosophy material on-line many times since I took Philosophy classes, and it is always a chore. Most of it is long rambling articles written by people who may or may not be experts. If they are it is often way to technical for the lay reader, or just the opposite: way too superficial. My initial search turns up self-published works at Universities.
Any suggestions on where to go for good WP:RS for Plato and for other Philosophers and Philosophy subject matters? I could go to my bookshelf, but then it makes it harder for others to verify, if my book is not available on-line. Same problem with going to the library. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on a requested move to change numerous article titles which contain Dr. King's name. Randy Kryn 11:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
There is an edit conflict over whether the sentence "Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos" is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Outside opinions are needed. Please stop by at Talk:Reductio ad absurdum#Removal of example from introduction. Thanks -- Chetvorno TALK 21:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I know this seems like a trivial issue, but more and more, aggressive editors are PUSHing their opinions by removing good examples from philosophy and logic articles simply because they don't like the POV the example expresses. That is what is happening here. If this keeps up we won't be able to use common sayings like this in articles. Please take a look. Thanks -- Chetvorno TALK 21:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion about {{ Theology}} over at Template talk:Theology § Too large - discussion resumed in 2016. Feel free to join in. Thanks! YBG ( talk) 08:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a page move discussion at Talk:Euclid_of_Megara#Requested_move_8_August_2016. Pam D 08:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Should someone with an undergraduate degree in philosophy be listed as a philosopher? BabyJonas ( talk) 01:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
In some cases, the claim to be a philosopher is one strong signal that the person is not. It's also the case that there are academics, with doctorates in philosophy, who, in terms of their contribution to the field, could hardly be considered philosophers. In fact the question 'What is a philosopher?' is, itself, a philosophical question, not one that can be answered with a simple set of easily established criteria. Fustbariclation ( talk) 02:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone; I've proposed a possible drive/subproject for creating articles about women in philosophy over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Kevin Gorman and women in philosophy, partly in memory of Kevin Gorman, and partly to continue his good work. If you think you might be interested in being involved, please do go and comment on the thread in question. Josh Milburn ( talk) 01:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested: I have set up an editing drive about women in philosophy. Several members of the Women in Red project have expressed interest in joining in, and, of course, all members of WikiProject Philosophy would be more than welcome. Josh Milburn ( talk) 23:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, only a very casual editor at Wikipedia, so apologies if this is not the right way to go about things.
I just want to point out that Lettrism concerns an obscure, but significant, 20th century art movement, and I have trouble understanding why it's under the Philosophy portal. It's an art movement, and belongs to that category. From the talk page (where I've grumpily made comments) it seems like many commentators aren't familiar with the movement at all. I think it would receive more knowledgable treatment under a portal concerning art movements. It has a strong relationship to Dadaism and even stronger relationship (in fact, an inspirational precursor) on the Situationist International, which in turn influenced Fluxus and Punk. Can it somehow be reclassified under whatever art portal is more appropriate, so the article gets editors who are more familiar with the movement? I'm not an expert, nor particularly adept at Wikipedia, but I definitely know that this article deserves a more thorough treatment. The Lettrists were historically important in the history of 20th century art. Feel free to let me know on the talk page, but be aware that I am a very occasional (and extremely minor) participant at Wikipedia. Thank you. StrangeAttractor ( talk) 05:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Do any of these three articles talk about the same concept and need to be merged?
Based on the definitions in their leads, they all sound somewhat different, but it's hard to tell if that's because each article is a little too narrowly focused or if they're actually separate topics. Thoughts? —PermStrump (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This requested move discussion for Desiderius Erasmus is also relevant for other philosophers' articles. – Editør ( talk) 09:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Team,
Coming here as I am not sure about the talk page of the article. The last edit was in 2010. The topic of the article is frequently used by journalists to defend against intolerance. It is also a subject of many research papers. I have also found many books that use the topic while discussing intolerance. However, I don't see too many notable philosophical discussions or debates around the topic. So my question is where does the topic belong to? Philosphy / Journalism / Literature? I am not sure how such topics are handled so please help -- Wikishagnik ( talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is sometimes mentioned during talk-page discussions. Following one such discussion, a recent edit removed the following:
References
The text is perhaps a little ambitious, and a "failed verification" tag was
added recently by
Jayaguru-Shishya. However, the text was adjusted on
12 November 2011 so it has been in the article a long time and I'm hoping that someone familiar with the topic will check what should occur. The
talk page has a May 2010 quote ("questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue
") that appears to be from "Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic", and that was the original reference.
Johnuniq (
talk)
23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The topic of Veneration is under discussion, see talk:Veneration -- 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 05:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.
If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.
Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 ( talk) 23:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish#Crime_and_Punishment_.3F, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
If we're going to include existential philosophy, there's a few other movements partially or fully within continental philosophy that are of approximately equivalent importance, e.g. Psychoanalysis, Hermeneutics, Structuralism, Feminism, and Critical Theory that should probably be included. We could alternatively just leave out existential philosophy as it would be under the heading of continental philosophy like the above.-- Ollyoxenfree ( talk) 00:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion currently active at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016 features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Paine u/ c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 20 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Quite some time ago there was a discussion about the redirect Third Realm, which redirected to Nazi Germany based on its usage as a calque of Drittes Reich (almost always rendered in English as "Third Reich", not "Third Realm"). There seemed to be a general understanding that the situation was suboptimal, but there was more than one possible fix, and it seems we never got around to picking one.
So I've gone ahead and made it a two-article dab page, to abstract object and Third Reich (the latter being a redirect to Nazi Germany but it's not completely implausible that it might not always redirect there). I'm not sure this is the best possible solution, but at least it's better than the way it was. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
G'day, a peer review has been requested for the Legalism (Chinese philosophy) article. Interested parties are invited to take part at the review page, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Legalism (Chinese philosophy)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
My list of missing topics about philosophy is updated - Skysmith ( talk) 15:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
During the week-end I started reading a book on ethics and decided to look up some key terms on Wikipedia for comparison's sake when I discovered that there is no Wikipedia page for "Evil" nor is there one for "Good" as key terms in ethics and philosophy. When I looked closer, I found that another editor last June here [2], had apparently decided to delete both of those pages in his or her preference for a single merged page called "Good and evil". The "merger" was apparently done after a tiny Talk page announcement which no-one seems to have taken seriously, but that editor decided that a no-response to his Talk page proposal could be interpreted by him or her as non-opposition and therefor endorsement to do the merger, which was done last June with no-one noticing it. This merger makes no sense from the standpoint of the study of ethics and philosophy. Philosophy pages should not be merged together because they represent polar opposites of meaning. The two pages should be returned to their original state from last June and the current "Good and evil" page can just be left there as its own limited discussion of this polarity in philosophy. The single topic pages deserve to remain as single topic pages for "Good" and "Evil" separately and without merger. I do not think that the editor that did this had any ill intentions, only that the background of that editor appears to be in economics and mathematics and not in philosophy or ethics. I have notified their page anyway for fair notice practices at Wikipedia. Can somewhat restore the single purpose pages to their state last June before they were apparently inappropriately merged. ManKnowsInfinity ( talk) 17:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Pascal's wager#New paraphrase for lead for a discussion about a simplified summary proposed for the lead. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at
Talk:Inherently funny word#Proposed merger
about merging the contents of that page into
Humor
(or
Comedy
) and
Humor research
. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
02:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Especially the section on Aristotle could use some help from somebody who knows more about what they are talking about. Cake ( talk) 16:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, About a week ago i decided to create a navbox for philosophy of science, you can see it in my sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:KPU0/sandbox
i need help to finish it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Experimentalism is a major movement in philosophy of science, yet as far as I can tell every sentence in the article on it is false, and the one citation is both unreliable and does not support the statement it is supposed to support. Anyone have the requisite background to do some doctoring?-- Ollyoxenfree ( talk) 04:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to draw attention to this new article. I'm not sure what to do with it, because (1) the topic is valid -- Britannica has an article with this title; (2) the content seems not bad; (3) the sourcing is completely unacceptable. Looie496 ( talk) 16:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I looked into this some more, specifically Googling the term 'mathematicism'. It appears the terms has different meanings to different experts:
Sorry if I repeated any of your research. It seems the term can be justified in the WP:RS, but the exactly meaning obviously varies depending on the WP:RS. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 21:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Category:Criticism of monotheism has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone who understands Philosophy please remove the excessive puffery at this article? Thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI. I changed Logicians from this to this. I hope everyone agrees this was a needed change. I do not know much about the formatting and requirements of disambugation pages, so if I did something wrong, please let me know... -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Down at the bottom - see comments by me. Requesting someone with good experience with philosophy journals to weigh in. K. Bog 23:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk-page concerning whether the current first sentence (including its footnote) is correct, encyclopedic, and appropriately supported by citation. More voices would be welcome. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit war here about a writer who may be a crackpot; someone with subject expertise please take a look? — swpb T 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
(outdent) Mike Hockney, The God Game, Hyperreality Books (actually Lulu Press, an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform, according to Google Books), 2013. chapter 1 (The Illuminati): "This is one of a series of books outlining the cosmology, philosophy, politics and religion of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a senior member, working under the pseudonym of "Mike Hockney"."
Dchmelik's edits (insertion of citations to Hockney's work): [8] and [9]. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 12:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Marcocapelle has been removing Category:Critical thinking from a range of articles that are virtually a catalog of tools often considered essential parts of the critical thinking toolkit, Occam's razor and Analysis being two recent examples. I've complained before about the state of the Critical thinking article and Marcocapelle is correct that these articles did not mention "critical thinking" by name.
I'm afraid I don't put much stock in the category system because the criteria for inclusion seem somewhat murky to me except when the categories are used for driving worklists. Would the correct action be to add a mention of the role these topics have in the general art of rationality or critical thinking and then re-add the category? And thank Marcocapelle for pointing out the omission? — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@ MjolnirPants: can you take a look at this discussion and the Critical Thinking article? I'm not all that impressed with that article, and I am curious if you have a similar take. Looking at the article will help address the questions regarding the categories that should apply to critical thinking. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey all! I recently stumbled upon Condition (philosophy) while looking through articles tagged as needing sections. The article feels like a personal essay, but this certainly isn't a topic I'm familiar with. If the article looks fixable, some cleanup would be much appreciated. If not, perhaps we could propose it for deletion. Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks! Happy editing! Ajpolino ( talk) 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyone on this project care to check this one out? It all seems very odd, but perhaps a Kierkegaard expert will understand it. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Massive edits by IP turned the article, especially the lead, to be about Synergetics. Could use anther pair of eyes. El_C 08:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a dispute about a philosoophy journal at WP:AN, and what kinds of sources are permitted, in case anyone here is interested. See here. SarahSV (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The article on Public Philosophy has been revised at some point and now contains errors. Firstly, it confuses the definition of "public philosophy" under which it is philosophy that is undertaken in a public venue with the position that the public should be only be educated by philosophers and not interacted with. Secondly, it confuses the definition of "public philosophy" under which it means philosophy that addresses issues of public importance with the view that the public must be interacted with. So, for instance, the project undertaken by Essays in Philosophy special issue on public philosophy (Vol 15, issue 1, 2014) is completely misrepresented. The fact that the issue was organized under the first definition, under which "public philosophy" is philosophy in a public venue, is taken as indicating that the authors are committing themselves to the view that public philosophy should "merely" aim to educate the public. Yet not one of the authors in the issue commit themselves to this position. Indeed, a philosopher can only interact with the public in a public venue.
Hello! I am starting a rewrite of the evidentialism article, and since I don't think that I have the level of commitment to finish it, I invite people to rewrite it here. Thanks! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 02:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to coment, ask questions and draft Free will changes at talk:free will in the light of new empirical evidence.
Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic ( talk) 04:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I am currently involved in a disagreement at the Fashionable Nonsense article, which concerns whether or how criticism of the book should be reflected in the lead. I would welcome comments from other editors, whatever their view of the issue, because discussion on the talk page is currently stalled. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
We have an article Type–token distinction, and another Type–token relations. I suspect that we want to merge these. -- 179.210.72.9 ( talk) 06:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a new article, Individual Philosophy, which seems to be mostly original research. Is this a topic that deserves its own article, or should it be redirected to Philosophy, other?
Thanks!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
Infobox journal}} now features
ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate
Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g.
J. Phys. A →
Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like
WP:JCW and
WP:JCW/TAR.
The category is populated by the |abbreviation=
parameter of {{
Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing
ISO 4 redirects:
|abbreviation=
IS CORRECT FIRST|abbreviation=
should contain dotted,
title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys.
, not J Phys
or J. phys.
). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.Thanks. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm writing a draft article about Afro-pessimism, a philosophical approach in the Black Radical tradition: User:Hexatekin/sandbox/Afro-pessimism. I'm wondering what (if) people use as infoboxes for philosophical concepts? I know we have the Template:Philosophy sidebar.. but it also lacks categories for Black Studies. In my academic training, it's understood that African-American studies isn't a very useful concept when we are talking about ideas and movements related to Black Studies which stretch outside of the geographical space of North America. For instance, Pan-Africanism. The same goes, alternately, for Africana studies, which is a useful concept, but also not used by all groups studying blackness and racialization of people of African descent that are part of the diaspora, and have their own perspectives not necessarily tied to the base of Africa in a geographically specific way. I suggest that we worth towards understanding Black Studies as a unique philosophical line of critique and area, and one that is included in the Template:Philosophy sidebar. Hexatekin ( talk) 17:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC 2: Specific proposal to revise the third bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES.
The goal is to adjust MOS:JOBTITLES in a way that provides an easy "rule" for capitalization that is a compromise between the conflicting philosophy and linguistics approaches to the proper name concept. Please keep in mind that the discussion is about finding a way to end years of editorial dispute, not perpetuate it by forcefully advancing one's (or one's profession's) preferred ideal. I.e., no WP:TRUTH or WP:GREATWRONGS should be injected. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Should the categories Ashkenazi Jews, German people of Jewish descent, Jewish atheists, Jewish philosophers, Jewish socialists, Jewish sociologists be added to this article? Talk:Karl_Marx#RfC RolandR ( talk) 11:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() ![]() Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 07:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing some discussion of "preferentism" vs. "non-preferentism", e.g. here ( https://books.google.com/books?id=hJhaBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA650&lpg=PA650&dq=preferentism&source=bl&ots=otF2X_RQT7&sig=sLMoNLI6AVcnAlzTa9_X0K1iG3k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkztup7pDXAhXGDZAKHeU-BvQ4ChDoAQg0MAM#v=onepage&q=preferentism&f=false ) (The Routledge Companion to Ethics, edited by John Skorupski). Wikipedia apparently doesn't have any mention of this topic at all.
Does anybody care to create a stub article on Preferentism? (Or a section about it in an existing article if appropriate?)
Thanks -- 189.122.198.138 ( talk) 13:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Gender of rearing is up for deletion. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Could one of you experts please, please have a look at the article
Discourse on the method?
It's in an abysmal state! Seems the authors made heavy use of their misconceptions and conjectures. A lot of issues already listed on the
Talk page, proposals how to improve it too. But since all this is obstinately challenged as original research (which to my mind in this circumstances is quite impertinent), it seems that is a task for seasoned Wikipedians to do. (I can't. Otherwise I would spent the rest of my life in libraries to harvest all the refs to feed them. And which btw. no one needs who actually has read the book in the first place.) --
89.15.239.96 (
talk)
08:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind assessing Maoist Theory of National Struggle? It's a newly created article moved directly to the mainspace by a student participating in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/HIGR_210_Socialism_in_China_(2017_Fall). Just for reference, the article has already been userfied once before, but maybe this time around it is OK for the mainspace. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Philosophy
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The article Infinity (philosophy) has been undergoing significant expansion by one enthusiastic editor recently. Much of the added material has some English problems, which is easy enough to fix, but it's grown beyond my ability and expertise to really evaluate. A lot of it seems pretty off-topic, but there might be some worth keeping, so if anyone wants to take a look, it could probably use some eyes. Thanks. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 02:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Any philosophical insight that would be useful for the improvement of Draft:Comparison would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
When researching polychora, I came across the idea that spirits are four-dimensional beings. However, I do not see this anywhere on Wikipedia. LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)