Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Did you know nomination

{{Did you know nominations/The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay658 (talk • contribs) 2 June 2021, 23:58 (UTC)

Rfc on Falsifiability

Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability#RfC:_Adding_a_challenging,_counterintuitive_but_instructive_and_well_sourced_example_in_the_lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic Mayers (talk • contribs) 20 November 2021, 18:48 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments for Renaissance

Hello, I have opened comments for Renaissance on the talk page that identifies problems with the article. If these receives no comments by monday then I will open a GAR for it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Philosopher

Somebody redirected to philosophy. I undid, but it obviously needs help. Surely more to put as to roles, rewards, even plight of being a philosopher. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who redirected - it's not clear to me that there's content that can be sourced reliably enough to merit a separate page, i think most of the profession pages end up just becoming content forks; a philosopher is someone who does philosophy, ergo all information on what a philosopher does is derivable from what philosophy is. I don't think the rewards and plights of a philosopher sound like something that would be encyclopedic content per WP:NOT, and the "roles" of a philosopher aren't really separable from the roles of philosophy. - car chasm (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Some good occupational articles do exist. I view the philosopher as distinct from philosophy as clergy is to religion. There is a social role. There are stereotypes and archetypes and reasons why one ends up down this path. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My own experience with philosophers is that they aren't much like clergy at all in their relation to their discipline, so I'm skeptical of the aptness of such an analogy. If you know of reliable unbiased sources for this comparison between clergy and religion, perhaps consider adding them to the article? However, if you admit to no knowledge of such sources to support your views, and they simply represent your own opinions, I believe that the article should be redirected again. Also, i think much like rewards or plights, archetypes and stereotypes are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia even if they are covered in reliable sources. Have you considered that perhaps wikipedia is not the place for these sort of non-neutral contributions? Perhaps a public outreach program at a university might be more appropriate for such a hagiographical type of article on the merits of the profession. - car chasm (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that, in its current form, there is not much that would justify a separate treatment. But it seems to me that, in principle, a separate article could be justified. For example, there are articles like scientist, physicist, and chemist besides the articles on science, physics, and chemistry. They discuss topics like history, education, career, specialization, and demography. One problem with this analogy is that these roles are much more clearly defined than the role of a philosopher. This problem applies also to the analogy with religion and clergy. Maybe this problem could be avoided by changing the title to "Academic philosopher" or "Professional philosopher", since these roles are better delineated. As car chasm suggests, it would be helpful to base this decision on reliable sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Can't imagine things would be hard to find. How about this one in The Atlantic? What Do Philosophers Do? Outside of academia, that is. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper editorials are generally not considered reliable sources, a scholarly source of information would be much better. See WP:RSEDITORIAL for more details. - car chasm (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Deconstruction#Requested move 3 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Deconstruction#Requested move 3 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles about disagreement

I noticed that there's currently a two-sentence article at disagreement. There's also an article for disagreements (epistemology) and for conflict (process). Are all three of these separate concepts? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think disagreements (epistemology) and conflict (process) should be different concepts, one for the epistemological concept and one for the social concept. Disagreement could be either one, so I think that should probably be a dab page that links out to the other two pages and any other distinct ones that exist. - car chasm (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed weird html from this page

There was a bunch of html in this page that was being transcluded from the "header" page, which was why the reply button that usually works on talk pages wasn't working.

I didn't think anything added there was particularly useful, so I've un-transcluded it and pasted its content into this page with all the html commented out. If anyone wants to bring any of those links backs I don't have any objections per se, but please test and make sure that you don't glitch the editor if you bring any of that content back. - car chasm (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

WP:Manual of Style/Philosophy

WP:Manual of Style/Philosophy was marked as a guideline on 23 November 2013 by User:Gregbard, with the edit summary: "this has achieved acceptance". I can't find any evidence of "a high level of consensus from the entire community" that this page should be made an official guideline. Can anyone point me to a relevant discussion? Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added a "disputed" tag to the guideline since there's been no response here. If the promotion of this page to a guideline was never discussed, then it should be demoted and taken through the proper process. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It might be better to designate it as an essay if there was no proper discussion with a consensus. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Nagel current wife

Thomas Nagel himself has posted to his article’s talk page explaining that he recently remarried and wants his article to reflect that. Is there any source online that can be used? Thriley (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ex Falso (tag editor)#Requested move 7 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ex Falso (tag editor)#Requested move 7 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ahimsa in Jainism

Ahimsa in Jainism has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Audit of User:Jaredscribe's philosophy article contributions

Inviting an audit of my contributions in Philosophy related articles, insofar as I admit to a POV that is mostly aligned with the Aristotelian tradition, which I found to be under-represented on wikipedia. If you find anything dubious, please tag and inform me and all of us so that I and we can correct them.

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Jaredscribe/0

Some editors have alleged that the neo-Aristotelian POV I have declared on my user page suggests that I may be POV-pushing, and alleged possible misuse of primary sources.

I remember making use of Aristotle himself in translation for some contributions to summarize Nicomachean Ethics and Politics (Aristotle). Some of these can probably be improved, but so can the whole article - both of which are still very incomplete and need all the help they can get.

I also wrote the lede sentences for Aristotelianism, based on a composite of what I'd gleaned from introductions by 20th century translators, editors, exponents such as Jonathan Barnes, Richard McKeon and Mortimer J. Adler. Please improve it if you can.

The article had gone for 20 years without a lede summary, and mine was (I thought) better than nothing. Since wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED, I thought it would be ok to collaboratively improve it - and it still needs alot of that.

The lede paragraph should probably improve to include some kind of mention of potentiality and actuality, immanent realism of universals within particular individuals, and hylomorphism in specific ontology, and belief in an "unmoved" prime mover. I couldn't figure out how best to say it at the time.

I'd hope to return to these articles and improve them with more WP:RS of a WP:Secondary nature, but haven't had time yet. :(

I love this wikipedia project very much and hope I don't get expelled for this, but the ANI discussion is leaning that way now - mainly because I've written diatribes against positivist scientism, which had its heyday and is nowadays a fringe opinion in philosophy of science, but still a mainstream opinion in society and therefore among wikipedia editors.

Sorry for letting you all down. Jaredscribe (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)