User talk:Amerindianarts

objectivity

hi, i just checked the objectivity page discussion and history. I am not qualified to have a serious opinion on objectivity but i think no-one would fail to remark that you have done some really good additions to the article and that its a pity that instead of being congratulated you had to cope with criticism. By the way what do you think of the introduction to the article ["Objectivity may be considered as a synonym of neutral point of view..."]best--Greece666 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My objections to "Objectivity may be considered as a synonym of neutral point of view" are well documented on the talk page and in the history of the article, which I deleted because of the the originality of the research, and which is also not allowed at Wiki. I believe the article in its current state is malarky. Thanks. Amerindianarts 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also might add that a "neutral point of view" in reporting, journalism, and editing according to Wiki policy is fine, but has little to do with the term "objectivity" in philosophy. In writing an article on objectivity in philosophy for Wiki the author should follow the guidelines for Wiki and the neutral point of view demanded for journalism. But such notions have little to do with objectivity as a concept of philosophy. You can check the various Encyclopedias and Dictionaries of philosophy and you won't find much on the concept, and there is a reason for this. The term is basically indefinable according to philosophic standards. For this reason it would be extremely difficult to write the article according to NPOV and without any original research, and the content of the article would also erroneous if referencing NPOV.Amerindianarts 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Casuistry

Dear friend, many thanks for your clear and quick reply.

• I agree with you that the article as it is now makes little sense.
• since wikipedia is not the right place to post original research, i think the article is close to a dead-end.
• i would also like to add that i found the section on plato highly misleading. i doubt that plato had the objectivity/subjectivity distinction in mind when he talked about episteme and doxa.
• by the way, an effort is taking place to ameliorate the article on casuistry- as it is now it is quite confusing. maybe you would like to help a bit.

best--Greece666 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll take a look but don't know if I can help. You are also absolutely correct on the Plato section.Amerindianarts 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

RFM

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]