Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 11. |
Black Falcon (talk | contribs) →Category:Mental structures: new section |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
Thanks for your help. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] ([[User talk:Phiwum|talk]]) 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for your help. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] ([[User talk:Phiwum|talk]]) 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Category:Mental structures == |
|||
[[:Category:Mental structures]] was recently proposed for merging to [[:Category:Abstraction]]. The discussion ([[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 16|here]]) ended with ''no consensus'' to merge, but a number of issues were raised that remain unaddressed. |
|||
I am posting here in the hope that the members of this WikiProject could take a look at the category and perhaps discuss some of those issues, either here, at [[Category talk:Mental structures]], or in a new CfD nomination. <small>(I have notified [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology|WikiProject Psychology]] also.)</small> Thank you, -- '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Black Falcon|talk]])</sup> 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:07, 2 April 2010
|
Proposed Changes to Atheism Article
Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated.
Philosophic burden of proof
I came across Philosophic burden of proof recently; it could use some work. References and corrections would be great, but even just wikifying it and copyediting for style and tone would be appreciated.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I missed this when first posted, but I second the request. I've posted another comment on these lines below. Phiwum (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Infinity
Infinity (philosophy) could use some work. It was carved out of the mess that currently lives at Infinity, and could use more/better content and references.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Peer review of Liberalism
A peer review has been opened for the article Liberalism to improve it to a Featured Article. The editors are asking for input from experts in the subject, especially regarding the Featured Article Criteria: Is it compelling, comprehensive, well researched, and neutral?
Since this project has an interest in this kind of subject, you might wish to improve the article by commenting on the peer review, which you will find here.
Your help would be appreciated. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
GA reassessment of Terri Schiavo case
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Pain vs. suffering
Pain in animals and Pain in fish (not to mention Pain, Suffering and Pain and suffering) could use some help from philosophers of mind and neurophilosophers. Talk:Pain#Pain_versus_suffering gives a brief intro' to where we're at. Anthony (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD:Reverse scientific method
Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced living people articles bot
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
- Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
- There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
- If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Nihilist paradox
The article nihilist paradox is currently in great need of attention. I would especially like to change its name, which is currently ambiguous, to something closer to "skepticism paradox", but I would first like to seek the opinions of those who know more on the subject than I, and to hopefully garner some interest in the article so that verifiable information can be added. I wasn't sure whether this more closely applied to epistemology or logic so I will be posting it on both discussion pages; I hope this is not poor etiquette and I apologize if it is.
--✶♏✶ 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Scirus Google Scholar, Google web hits were uninteresting. The Smarandache book is not a reliable source, "skepticism paradox" yields nothing encyclopedic either. I have proposed merge to nihilism. Paradoctor (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No interest for merger, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist paradox. Paradoctor (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Editor resources
I just happened onto this resource, and wondered: Where is our Resources subpage? Surely there is more material useful for philosophy editing in general than this, IEP and SEP? Paradoctor (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Reference resources I think. It is listed in the nav bar under editor resources. I would be open to suggestions on reorganizing.Greg Bard 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- That was probably a freak variation in refractive index between my eyes and the monitor. Thanks for the pointer. Paradoctor (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making {{phil-sources}}. I think you should include it by default in {{philosophy}}. While we're at it, links to editor resources and the project's to do list might be a good idea. Paradoctor (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Free Credo References accounts
Wikipedia:Credo accounts free! Hurry, before they're gone. Make sure to check whether you already have access. Paradoctor (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sign-up closed now. Paradoctor (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Philosophers lacking an importance rating
We have just over 2000 philosopher articles of unknown importance. I'd like to go ahead and start assessing these at low importance since I'm fairly certain that all mid/high level philosophers have been identified. I do realize that a few philosophers may have fallen through the cracks though which is why I'm asking for second opinions.
I'd like to start with articles beginning with the letter 'A'
Would you rate any of these at mid importance? I'll be setting them all at low importance if I don't hear anything. -Pollinosisss (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- What criteria have been used to settle on "Mid" ratings? It is surprising to see Bracha L. Ettinger there, for example, alongside Heraclitus and Hannah Arendt?! But one might argue for so categorising André Glucksmann, André Gorz, Alain de Benoist and Alain Finkielkraut in line with others there. I suppose it depends what one wants to do with these? AllyD (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- The assessment page mentions that a mid level article covers "a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of philosophy" or that "many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed".
- In my opinion, if a philosopher is mentioned in a reputable general encyclopedia of philosophy (Stanford/Routledge/Macmillan), the philosopher is mid level or higher. This seems to me to be one of the easiest way of confirming whether a philosopher is more than a "low". Well known philosophers should also be rated at least "mid". I would call a philosopher "well known" if someone with an interest in philosophy but no academic background in the field is likely to be familiar with the philosopher in question.
- I did a quick check in Routledge's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the projected contents of Standford's online encyclopedia for the names you mentioned(Bracha L. Ettinger, Heraclitus, Hannah Arendt, André Glucksmann, André Gorz, Alain de Benoist, Alain Finkielkraut). The only two philosophers present are Heraclitus and Arendt both already rated "mid". In my mind the other names should be set to "low".
- Does all this make sense? -Pollinosisss (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks that gives a rationale (and highlights the Ettinger anomaly). In general it probably means that political philosophers like those above and Castoriadis, Lefort etc. will sit at Low (too political for WP philosophy, too philosophical for WP politics). AllyD (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Requested change at Stephen R. L. Clark
Please see Talk:Stephen R. L. Clark for the details on the requested change. This is in reference to an OTRS ticket. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Cooler heads sought to calm edit war
There is an ongoing edit-war/dispute between three individuals at the National-Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page. Additional input would be helpful to resolve the dispute. –xenotalk 21:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Catholic Church RfC
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Philosophic burden of proof (again)
The page on philosophic burden of proof claims that "ontologically positive" claims have a heavier burden of proof than their negations. I've often heard such claims in casual conversations, but I've never seen the claim defended in philosophical publications. Are there any citations for this claim of asymmetry? If so, perhaps someone could add a few references. If not, perhaps we should discuss how the article can be changed.
Thanks for your help. Phiwum (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Category:Mental structures
Category:Mental structures was recently proposed for merging to Category:Abstraction. The discussion (here) ended with no consensus to merge, but a number of issues were raised that remain unaddressed.
I am posting here in the hope that the members of this WikiProject could take a look at the category and perhaps discuss some of those issues, either here, at Category talk:Mental structures, or in a new CfD nomination. (I have notified WikiProject Psychology also.) Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)