Talk:Ruth Barcan Marcus
Appearance
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Sexism
Hmmm......I often wonder whether sexism has something to do with the fact that Marcus extraordinary work is so throughougly minimized and she is largely undiscussed in the the halls of academic analytic philosophy. We all know that Kripke and other males did the REAL thinking after all. No??? (0; --Lacatosias 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're on about (or were on about four years ago), you can't read any (decent) text on modal logic without mention of the Barcan formula. Careful with that axe, Eugene. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- lacatosias, a few points;
- 1. You presume gender is an issue for everyone within the halls of academe. It is not.
- 2. You presume Marcus' work was not marginal. I do not know. I found her while studying Computer Science.
- 3. You presume her (lack of) noteriety to be somehow bound to her gender. Highly improbable either way.
- 4. You have introduced bigotry into an academic article. Oh for shame!. You have victimized Marcus by way of your bigotry.
- 5. We are Men and Women, you know, People. Referring to people as 'males and females' is callous (rude) and pedantic.
- 6. NPOV.
- 7. 'extraordinary work', 'thoroughly minimized', 'largely undiscussed' ; all of this is rhetorical.
Categories:
- Start-Class biography articles
- Automatically assessed biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class University of Oxford articles
- Unknown-importance University of Oxford articles
- Start-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
- Automatically assessed University of Oxford articles
- WikiProject University of Oxford articles
- Start-Class Chicago articles
- Unknown-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class philosopher articles
- Mid-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- Start-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- Start-Class ethics articles
- Mid-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- Start-Class philosophy of language articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of language articles
- Philosophy of language task force articles
- Start-Class Analytic philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Analytic philosophy articles
- Analytic philosophy task force articles
- Start-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
- Contemporary philosophy task force articles
- Start-Class Linguistics articles
- Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles
- Articles edited by connected contributors