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)

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.

Harm reduction article discussion about content inclusion

There is a discussion at Talk:Harm_reduction#I_have_removed_links_to_specific_service_providers,_agencies,_clinics regarding the inclusion of a harm reduction services provider by name in the article. Graywalls (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked at this and did offer an opinion. But I only even clicked through on the assumption that it would be somehow related to philosophy, which it was not.

In the future, would you mind reserving this board for issues related to this WikiProject?

Thanks, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I announced it here, because I noticed the article was listed as of interest to WP:Philosophy. If editors in this project do not find it is appropriate, maybe it ought to be taken out? Graywalls (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will leave your question to any other editors who know more about this side of Wikipedia.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Schopenhauer's criticism of Immanuel Kant's schemata

This has had an original research tag for a while. Does anyone feel there are valid merge targets (perhaps back to Critique of the Kantian philosophy ) or whether this spin-off is valid and needed? My knowledge is not sufficient to make any bold actions. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Aside from being about 85% direct quotes, I don't think that one 1909 source establishes notability for inclusion in Wikipedia as its own article. If there's anything of value that could be moved to the article you mention (its own many problems notwithstanding), that would be appropriate. But I don't know whether this should be considered a merge or just the salvage of a paragraph worth of stuff from an article that probably will not survive nomination for deletion.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Patrick, I've listed it at AFD, hopefully someone will either rescue it, or it'll be cast into mount doom.JohnmgKing (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Daily Nous

This stub article just came through AfC and was done up by Justin Weinberg himself. Posting here in the hopes that some non-connected contributors have something to add, or are interested in watchlisting the article to make sure it stays WP:NPOV. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Power (social and political), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

discussion of academic notability criteria

Editors might be interested in a discussion I started at Wikipedia talk: Notability (academics) #proposal for modification of guidelines.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible hoax on Lucretius (Level 4 vital article)

Your help may be needed on Talk:Lucretius, regarding part of the article that may be falsified information. Renerpho (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Legalism (Chinese philosophy) overhaul

Hello, a lot of work has recently been done to fill out and source the linked article, and it deserves some more eyes on it for copyedit and polish. Remsense聊 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on inclusion criteria at Template talk:Social and political philosophy#Obscurity

Hi all, just wanted to flag up a discussion I've started at the section above regarding inclusion criteria for Template:Social and political philosophy—some extra pairs of eyes would be welcome to avoid just arguing the toss. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Fairness

Wikipedia has no article on Fairness, just a disambiguation page. I have a draft underway, but it needs some philosophy. BD2412 T 03:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This could be important...

Hi all, a bit of a strange situation here. Last year, an editor named Darylprasad was banned for their work on philosophy articles. Somewhat uniquely, they didn't engage in vandalism or spreading hoaxes, they wrote articles which were extremely detailed and well-cited, but to an inappropriately extreme extent. The principle articles they worked on (with diffs of before the edits were removed) were Proclus, Plotinus and Neoplatonism. I really think that there is a lot of content which is still usable, if trimmed and consolidated immensely. Each three of these articles is currently C-class, and it would be a shame if so many possible improvements were lost to time.

I'm wondering what philosophy-inclined editors think of this, courtesy pings to Phlsph7, PatrickJWelsh and Cinadon36. At the thread that banned this user there were accusations of OR. This is perhaps observable in the philosophy sections (although I've really not looked into this at all), but in the Biography section of Proclus, for instance, the citations are all to scholarly sources, and if adjusted/tweaked could become could possibly improve the current biography quite a bit. Aza24 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The Star of Sophia

A two-part proposal:

First, I would like to nominate @Phlsph7 to be awarded the Star of Sophia.

This is merited most of all, I believe, by the tremendous amount of time and work they have put into bringing the main Philosophy article up to FA status. Not so many months ago, the article was in sorry shape indeed (e.g., [1]). They have also raised Logic to FA status and contributed to many other philosophy articles besides[2]. Furthermore, in all of my interactions with them, they have demonstrated the kind of collaborative spirit that exemplifies Wikipedia at its best.

Second, I propose that, after this, we officially close out the Star of Sophia, which would simply be to make de jure what appears to have been de facto the case since at least 2015. This is too small of a community for us to be regularly voting on the quality of one another's edit histories.

Thanks for your consideration!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have that article on my watchlist and so hadn't noticed Phlsph7's work there, but I have seen enough of Phlsph7's good work elsewhere to support the nomination. It appears that according to the rules I'm not allowed to vote because I'm not on the project participants list, but I have edited many articles within the scope of the project.

@PatrickJWelsh: Why phase out the Star of Sophia when you have just reactivated it and have implicitly endorsed its value by nominating someone for it? I hadn't heard of the Star of Sophia before, and now that I know about it, the award seems to be a good way to show off what good editing looks like and to inspire other editors. Perhaps the award faded away because people stopped talking about it here; the last time it was mentioned on this talk page was in September 2011. If someone asked for nominations here on this talk page every six months, it would regularly remind editors about the reward, and since it only takes three votes to bestow the award, the fact that this is a small community may be no obstacle. (That claim can be tested by whether three people vote now for the obviously worthy Phlsph7.) Perhaps during one six-month period there would be no nominations, but I don't see a problem with that: if there are no nominations, just wait another six months and ask again.

Would anyone like to take responsibility for posting a biannual (or otherwise periodic) Star of Sophia nomination request message here, starting, say, six months from now, in June 2024? Biogeographist (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Biogeographist,

If others want to revive the award, I have no object to seeing how that goes. I'm all for Wikilove! My only concern was that it would be really crumby for someone to be nominated and basically just receive the cold-shoulder from the rest of the group. You're right, though, that three is a low bar. As long as we nominate responsibly, it's not likely to be an issue.

Another benefit that had not occurred to me until reading your post, is that this could help bring attention to good work that was otherwise not even on some of our radar. Which is always encouraging to see.

Also, we might want to expand voting eligibility to folks like you who are active in the project, but just haven't bothered to add your name to that list, which to the best of my knowledge does nothing more than add a category to the bottom of your user page. Just off-hand, though, I don't have a proposal for what kind of language to add in order to best capture this.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Getting L1 and L2 vital articles through FA is tough because of their scope, and valuable because of their visibility (144k page views for Philosophy in the last 30 days and 63k for Logic). It's a star well earned. --RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur. It is a well deserved recognition for all the work that Phlsph7 has been doing in the entire Pholosopy area. He also thought of, wrote, and published the huge new entry History of Philosophy His contributions are just amazing. Well deserved, Kudos!! warshy ^(¥¥) 22:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)