Talk:Semantic holism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 

Went a little longer than expected (as usual!!??)..anwyay, should be able to finidh tomorrow and also add references...--Lacatosias 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Woah, I created this article as a tiny stub, and look what's happened to it when I come back a month later! Congratulations :) Thomas Ash 09:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, Thomas. I'm relatively new and I work pretty hard on all my entries/contributions. So I very much appreciate it when someone notices. --Lacatosias 11:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Edits 2-18-06[edit]

You're taking this extremely personally, which isn't necessary. I'll try to discuss what I see as some good changes to make.

Original:

Since the use of any linguistic expression on the part of a speaker is possible only if the speaker understands the expression, and since understanding a linguistic expression means knowing what the meaning of the expression is, one of the central problems which have confronted analytic philosophers from the beginning has been precisely the question of meaning. What is it? Where does it come from? How is it communicated? And, among these questions, what is the smallest unit of meaning, the smallest fragment of language with which it possible to communicate something?

Suggested edit:

Since linguistic expression is only possible if the speaker understands the expression and comprehends its meaning, one of the central problems for analytic philosophers is the question of meaning. What is it? Where does it come from? How is it communicated? And, among these questions, what is the smallest unit of meaning, the smallest fragment of language with which it is possible to communicate something?

For starters, the original is simply missing a word, "is", in the last sentence: "with which it is possible to communicate anything."

Secondly, the first sentence is extremely wordy and could stand to be simplified, or broken into separate sentences. The word "precisely" slows down the sentence and doesn't add much, and the last clause in particular is bogged down too much, I don't think emphasizing the history of analytic philosophers adds much at this point in the article, and if you need that much information in the first sentence it should be broken up more cohesively.

No one owns an article, I've no doubt that I can't do a perfect job editing this article either, but I'd prefer it if we could work constructively to make it clearer rather than battling each other.--BigCow 10:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad we're on the same page (wikipedia humor, sorry), and sorry about the offense. One question I'm thinking of is where to put a link to explain the concept of holism in general, the definition on the Holism page saying that "the properties of a system can not be determined or explained by the sum of its components alone" helped clarify the idea for me, but you might have to rewrite the introductory definition to distinguish semantic holism from holism in general.--BigCow 10:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot to link to that the entry on holism (it should really be spelled WHOLISM btw, but never mind, it's become standarized) which explain the general pioint that the whole adds up to something more than the sum of its parts and the origins of the concept in sociology and, if I remember corectly, biology. I ddn't want to overlap with the other artciles (there are MANY wholisms: confirmation holism, justification holism, semantic holism, etc..). I've tried to emphazie that we're dealing with language thoughout the article. I'll see how the others handle this.--Lacatosias 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I thougt 'holism' was coined using the Greek term 'holos' (which means whole), and so 'holism' would indeed be the correct spelling? cf http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=holism&searchmode=none. --217.189.243.247 08:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations[edit]

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's about time!![edit]

I'm glad to see this small improvment in the GA process actually. It shuld not be limited to just references though. I was going to delist this myself, even though I wrote the whole thing!! I don't have the time or desire to do the in-line cites now though.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the GA review will go through all the criteria. Since the inclusion of in-line citation was the biggest change in the GA criteria, the project members thought it was best to drop a notice on these articles first to give them ample time to work on that area. As I mention above, it is encouraged for the article's editors to take a look at WP:WIAGA and see how the article stacks up with the criteria. I think it's most everyone's desire for an article to stay as a GA rather then be de-listed. Agne 08:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the probem is that I have several articles listed GA under old criteria. Three or four, at least. It would take a vast amont of time to just to compile the sources I used, put them in the proper format, and so on. If I can't get them done, it may be more convenient for everyone to delist and then reapply for GA status later. I'll see what I can do on the references for these old boys anyway.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

{Unreferenced section} and exaggerate bias[edit]

I have marked several sections as {Unreferenced section}, in part because in my view the whole article is exaggerately biased against semantic holism. I hope edits partly motivated by lack of sources would also make the article more balanced and fair.

Also, critics should appear in their own (sub-)sections rather than beeing introduced right from the start of every point, without letting the reader even a chance to get what semantic holism or perspectives on it may actually mean in its proponents' own views, as well as how and why they got to conceive & support it. As it is currently presented, the thesis appears as a mysteriously vague, absolute & idiotic dogma, without any reason or evidence.

Was the article better --and fairer-- before (it has apparently been ref'ed as 'good article')? denis 'spir' (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)