|
Template:Wikibarphilo
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Announcements
Meaning (philosophy of language) is (a) orphaned and (b) needs attention--Philogo (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all,
I’m proposing to rewrite Percept article. My proposal is at the related discussion page. Blue is looking at disambiguation from IT perspective, but we lack a good philosophical perspective. (The current text is a bit disjointed.)
If you are interested, please join the discussion with your suggestions.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all,
Thanks for rating the proposal to rewrite the Percept article. I assume that I can copy the rating to the actual article when I rewrite it. However, there are no Wikipedians yet willing to tackle the philosophical part that needs a more professional approach and I would like to see some interdisciplinary approach.
I have also decided to harden my nudge-nudge approach in Perception article, as a next step, and would like to include some philosophically minded views. Please visit the related discussion page and add your views.
I already expressed some concerns with the current Consciousness article. We will have to address many recent scientific findings to clarify the concept. And this would require cooperation between philosophically and psychologically minded Wikipedians.
I also expressed concerns with the mess Information article is in at the related discussion page. I have invited mathematically minded Wikipedians and I invite you. All we need is a tentative agreement and further refinements will make Wikipedia shine. (I read, in New Scientist I believe, that Wikipedians are quite conservative, orthodox or just repeating what they learned in school. Personally, I think that we should fight this image.)
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to alert you that isospin (talk · contribs) has been making numerous edits to basic philosophy articles that to my eye contain a bunch of misinformation and bad grammar. I've reverted the changes to philosophy of mind, but since my domain is really neuroscience, I'm not going to try to deal with the mess this editor created at monism and other articles. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Fundamental right is tagged as being of high importance within your project on its talk page. Despite this fact, Hauskalainen (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (also current wqa) and Buridan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have made several attempts to redirect it to other tangentially related topics. Both seem to think it better to make the article go away than to actively encourage anyone to fix it (see their comments and mine at Talk:Fundamental right#Remove reference to the European Union. Merge article with other long standing articles on the topic and Talk:Universal Declaration of Human Rights#Merger with Fundamental Rights). I have neither the time nor the expertise to deal with this article more directly than I already have right now, quite aside from the fact that two users can easily out-revert one, especially when the two are each on track to set personal monthly editcount records. Thus, I bring this to your attention in the hope that, if you truly find the article to be that important, some one or more of you who know more about it than I do can make the changes necessary to achieve WP:CON on this issue. I have posted this same notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, and made note of it at Talk:Fundamental right. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 21:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Just popping in to let the people here that Amoralism is in dire need of help. Most of the article was just OR essays, and I gutted most of it. With your help, I would like to reconstruct it as a proper article. Really, it is probably the single worst article I have seen on this website that isn't pure vandalism. Zazaban (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, how about if we create different sections for the various kinds of amoralism? I propose the following categories: moral relativism, moral anti-realism, moral fictionalism, emotivism, hedonism. People could each volunteer to write a section. Are there more views that should be added? Husserl08 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This probably relates to theology rather than philosophy, but as the article on Kosuke Koyama is listed as coming under your remit, I thought I would raise the question here. You can see that this article is also under the remit of the WikiProject group for Christianity, who have rated it as low importance on the importance rating scale. It also states that the WikiProject group for philosophy have yet to rate the article for importance, but I wonder whether you would also be happy to rate the article as low importance. I certainly think that there should be an article on Koyama in Wikipedia, but I would hardly say that this article would deserve the centrality of, say, Plato, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Rene Descartes or David Hume. Could some one please look at this article? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Shanata (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone put together Theory of Others as a parody (or something) of the article on the Other. Could a more experienced editor help get it removed?--Ducio1234--Ducio1234 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that it does not meet wikipedia's notability criteria. I marked with the verify and notability tags, and will leave a note on the articles talk page and the creators talk page. If we don't hear anything from them, or see improvements in the citations, in the next 7 days, I'll try recommending it for deletion. I see that your WP:SPEEDY didn't go through, so we'll go through the full AfD process. Shanata (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help. I'll keep an eye on the article.--Ducio1234 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've recommended the article for deletion, please visit the AfD to comment. Shanata (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:32, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
- I signed WP:Philosophy for this program. Be looking for a links to it on the navigation templates soon. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very pleased with this program. Check out these Article alerts. You should check this once in a while. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings folks, I am having a hard time with the Wikipedia regulars in CFD. Could I get an amen at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Philosophical_schools_and_traditions please? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears from the discussion that you made controversial changes with scant prior discussion over a short period of time. Surely the amount of discussion and the time allowed for it should be in due proportion to the strength of the controvesy. I would suggest revert changes to the prior staus quo and leave a month for discussion, your intitiating same by setting out dispassionately the pros and cons expressed hitherto. That would be in keeping with the following that makes a lot of sense to me:
- remember to nominate the category for discussion before making substantial deletions from or edits to the category. It's virtually impossible to "discuss" a category and how it has been used when it has been completed changed just prior to nomination.
--Philogo (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Say you know Philogo this repudiation of my actions is undeserved and nonconstructive. I solicited input in this forum for half a month. You can portray it as if there was no input, that it's controversial and I'm just off on my own all day. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm over here trying to get things organized. I think the important thing to note here, is that there are a few people in CFD and there is an even smaller number here. If we want to make any progress on categories we have to conduct a great political movement for over a month? There are several other entries on this page after this topic. It's reasonable to believe that silence is consent. Now we will need to go through the process of organizing the support we need ahead of time in order to do this simple thing that is proposed. It should have been speedy deleted, and this production is mindless bureaucracy. I don't mind bureaucracies or oligarchies so much at all -- just mindless ones.
Please do state your opinion below one way or the other explicitly. When there are five votes either way we will act on the result at CFD. Let's see how long it takes. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not ashmed to agree with the view above quoted
- remember to nominate the category for discussion before making substantial deletions from or edits to the category. It's virtually impossible to "discuss" a category and how it has been used when it has been completed changed just prior to nomination.
When you leave aside the rhetoric in what you say, not much is left. Your rhetoric is is either insulting to individuals (as above) or to "clubs" being the term you apply to more than one person who disagrees with you or queries you (e.g. "Maths Club" and recently "Philosophy club". I cannot really see the thrust of your changes in categories, the pattern - so it seems ad hoc. Why not set out a programme of change and if a group of editors, say six, agree, then you can proceed with confidence and support rather than in the face of objections. The controversies that you arouse and the criticisms you receive are the price you pay for going it alone; you must choose and then lie in the bed you have made for yourselfPhilogo (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Branches of philosophy
I am proposing to tighten up the Branches of philosophy category by limiting it only to Logic, Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Social and Political philosophy, and Aesthetics. All the other "philosophies of" I am proposing to put into a Philosophy by field category. This change would affect the section of the same name in the Philosophy article and the Portal as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I recommend going even farther by including aesthetics and political philosophy under ethics. This limits the categories to the traditional four. Aesthetics might seem like a strange choice for a category of ethics, but ethics broadly construed is concerned with value and what is good, and philosophical issues of aesthetics (going back to Plato) often concern its relationship to morality. I also propose that philosophy of language be categorized under logic.Husserl08 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Philogo (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophical traditions
I have a very similar proposal to the preceding, to tighten up the Philosophical schools and traditions category by creating a Category:Philosophical traditions, limiting it to Analytic, Continental, Marxism, and Eastern, putting others in Category:Philosophical theories and/or Category:Philosophical movements. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Philogo (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This is a strange set of top level categories. I suppose "Marxism" during its 1917-89 period of apparent success might qualify as a tradition, albeit one largely of the spectacle of tenured academics doing ten gyrations around base and superstructure before breakfast. But what of the first two? Note that the Continental philosophy article itself says "It is difficult to identify non-trivial claims that would be common to all the preceding philosophical movements. The term "continental philosophy", like "analytic philosophy", lacks clear definition". Not a very solid basis on which to tighten definition? And that is as one would expect from any category which throws together Heidegger and Adorno. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Muhammad Iqbal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain to me how the various project importances are given?
I see that the mostly unknown group Abahlali baseMjondolo has been given a 'medium' importance rating, (in Human rights, Philosophy, Africa and Urban studies and planning).
Does anybody know how such ratings are given? What do they mean? How does such an obscure and fairly unknown group get an 'medium' importance rating? What are the requirements for low and/or high? FFMG (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The importance scale is briefly explained here. You might get a more thorough exposition by surfing the links from WP:ASSESS. Regards, Skomorokh 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ratings should really be given by people with experience in a project -- in particular not by unregistered editors. Note though, FFMG, that your edit summaries misuse the word vandalism, which should only be used for edits that deliberately intend to deface an article. Looie496 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abahlali baseMjondolo no longer appears to be listed as a Philosophy article. Shanata (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While it doesn't look like a philosophy article, it belongs in the project as it is within the scope of the WP:ATF. Skomorokh 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that vandalism was maybe a bit strong, the first edit by that IP had no edit summary, so I reverted it on that ground, (as I could not see how the article rating had suddenly changed across all projects), then the same IP made the same changes with a small edit summary but no discussion on the talk page.
- Putting aside this particular article, I feel that project importance should be discussed first. FFMG (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it, the wikiproject assessment system basically operates on the principle that assessments are too obscure to be interesting to pov-pushers and other rogue editors, so that only "experts" associated with wikiprojects will care enough to set them. If that obscurity ever seriously breaks down, the system is likely to fail. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Greetings folks, I attached the whole task force system to the assessment scheme originally. Any member of the project can make an assessment. Any changes appear in the "logs" which are one general log for all of philosophy and logs also broken up into task force areas. People should be encouraged to watchlist the logs for the areas they care about. Anytime an article has a parameter change by more than two, it appears in bold. This has been a mental guide for me to try to designate the ratings with the idea that I should be off no more than one.
- The importance ratings I have assigned are based on whether or not I could reasonably believe that an article's topic would be covered in some class within a baccalaureate program in philosophy. There are a LOT of unassessed articles, and I have been moving them up slowly usually straight to MID. This is for two reasons: A) We have Top, High, Mid, Low, and None to work with, so that is a pretty broad range and B) I am thinking that LOW should be saved for very questionable ones that get moved out of unassessed somehow.
- The whole scheme is at a phase still where the articles should all trending up in both ratings and importance. This is because we are formulating the baseline of the assessment itself to some degree since we still have so many unassessed.
- In general the stubs are easy to identity. For myself, I have never assigned anything higher than a B, and then only once. This is as high as can be given without a formal process. There is a rubric published on the assessment page which probably needs to be re-written at least a little too. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently a couple of new philosophy related articles have been created by User:Thlgnosis. The notability of the subjects has been disputed, as well as possible WP:COI and WP:BLP problems. I'm asking for people with knowledge of philosophy and other closely related subjects to assess the notability of the articles' subjects. Articles in question are: Lars-Henrik Schmidt , Social Analytics and Research Centre GNOSIS. Please provide your insights on the talk pages of those articles and perhaps also on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Thlgnosis. Thank you! 193.244.33.47 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Vice is being proposed for deletion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Vice Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all,
I have proposed new text for intro on consciousness article on the related discussion pages. I think that I managed to articulate it in line with the latest findings in psychology and neurology, but would like others to review it and comment.
Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- replied on that talk page: Talk:Consciousness --Philogo (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has moved Glossary of philosophical theories to Glossary of philosophical isms. There appears to have been scant prior discussion, and it is difficult to assess the wisdom of the move since Glossary of philosophical theories is now empty and redirects to Glossary of philosophical isms. I propose reversion of the move to the prior status quo pending discussion project members and others interested. Does anybody know how to revert a move? --Philogo (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support your proposal. You need to use WP:RM or {{db-move}}. Skomorokh 13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not experienced in that kind of thing. Would you (or some other kind ed) do it? --Philogo (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that any future changes to Logic categegories are discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic--Philogo (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the following, which appear in Glossary of philosophical isms are philosophical terms or subjects and hence a fortiori not the article's declared content, i.e. " topics relating to philosophy that end in -ism " (unless we stretch the word "relating" so that the list could include almost anything).
A lot of them would be better placed in articles relating to theology, economics, lit crit etc. If we do not prune we might as well rename the article "list of words that end in -ism, handy for scrabble players perhaps?
Capitalism
Careerism
Communism
Anthropomorphism
Collectivism
Consumerism
Creationism
Cubism
Defeatism
Egalitarianism
Environmentalism
Equalitarianism
Ethnocentrism
Expressionism
Externism
Extropianism
Fascism
Fideism
Freudianism
Gnosticism
Humanism
Islamism
Jainism
Jansenism
Jonesism
Judaism
Legalism
--Philogo (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "ism" is not a good organizing principle for a page like this. I also agree with some but not others on your list. I think each of them is in fact a theory in some field. I proposed renaming it to glossary of philosophical theories. We can also direct your concern Philogo to this organization by considering the content of each of the "theories" categories in each of the major fields, (Category:Ethical theories, Category:Metaphysical theories, etcetera). Perhaps if we organized the glossary around only the four major core areas Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Logic we could address your concern. Perhaps also it is a time for a glossary for each area. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be better to have a list of philosophical theories, better that is than philosphicals "isms". If the article is entitled Philosophical Theories, however the fact that an entry refers to "a theory in some field" would not be grounds for inclusion under the heading Philosophical Theories. We might just as well have a list of extinct animals that include dogs on it on the grounds that a dog is an animal of some sort. Makes no sense at all. (BTW do you Really think that consumerism is a "a theory in some field"?) Meanwhile my proposal is that the list of items above should not be in the current article under the current title.--Philogo (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ones like "consumerism" technically still can be described as theories. However they are not theories in any field as much as theories in individual people's minds. I agree that it is not good for the glossary. However it may fit somewhere in the theories category tree.
In a related story...I have nominated Philosophical theories to be moved to "non-empirical theories" (Discussion)
Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philago, they are philosophical terms that are isms, well, at least most of them are. I'm in the process of adding references to the glossary to establish that the terms you have listed above fall within the field of philosophy. The Transhumanist 02:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sory I do not agree that most of the following are philosophical terms that are isms.
Capitalism Careerism Communism Anthropomorphism Collectivism Consumerism Creationism Cubism Defeatism Egalitarianism Environmentalism Equalitarianism Ethnocentrism Expressionism Externism Extropianism Fascism Fideism Freudianism Gnosticism Humanism Islamism Jainism Jansenism Jonesism Judaism Legalism
- To convince us, please cite any reputable philosophy text book, academic journal or fair equivalent that discuss the following as philosphical theories or use them as philosophical terms(if that is what an "ism" is supposed to be) for the following examples: Careerism, Consumerism, Legalism. It may be that philosophical texts refer to the "isms" on the list but that cdoes not make them a pholosophical theory. Philosphers disuss mathematics, trees, wordsm &c but that does not make them phosophical theories. Similalary even of philophers have mentioned or discuused Capitalism, Expressionism, Cubism that does not make them philosophical terms or theories. --Philogo (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gregbard, "organizing principle" has nothing to do with an article's includability within Wikipedia. The primary criteria for inclusion are notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The article meets each of these. As examples of the notability of the class of things known as "philosophical isms", I've supplied references on the glossary's talk page. The Transhumanist 02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have an Ayn Rand supporter (the same one who attempted intrude her definition of Philosophy into Philosophy) insisting that a paragraph on Rands "solution" to the above problem being inserted in the article. Two editors have reversed but but the matter is now on the talk page (to avoid an edit war). Issues raised are those of Weight and Notability and we are being told that "Ayn Rand is a highly notable philosopher, and propogating her onto Philosophy pages make emminent sense". Involvement by other editors would be appreciated, but I realise its asking a lot. --Snowded (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider Ayn Rand to be a "highly notable philosopher" and have seen no evidence to the contrary. In any case I did not consider the deleted paragraph to have made any useful or interesting contribution to the subject, the is-ought problem. For these two reasons I delted the paragraph in question but this was initially reverted on the grounds of vandalism. The editor who revereted does not appear to have much knowledge of the topic in hand, nor of philosphy in general so I do not accept his reversion as one of expertise--Philogo (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but I know this editor of old, he will continue to revert on a 2:1 vote. He is tenacious in inserting claims about Ayn Rand in different philosophy articles. We need other editors engaged at least briefly please to sort this out. --Snowded (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets us hope others will watch Is-ought problem--Philogo (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe post a notification on the talk page of Philosophy? Not sure how many people monitor here. --Snowded (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working lately on Porphyry (philosopher) and would appreciate any feedback. Does anyone care about second-rate Neoplatonists anymore? :-) Jwhosler (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, and I have recorded and will be recording my progress and goals on the talk page. Jwhosler (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do eudaimonia and eudaimonism mean the same thing?
These articles seem to indicate that they do.
The Transhumanist 00:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article on an important subject that tends to cause a number of debates. As one source states "there is no consensus among scholars or citizens as to exactly what a republic is" and untangling the various sometimes contradictory definitions is always complicated. I've been doing some work on it today, and another user has been commenting on those changes, but extra eyes would be very welcome. - SimonP (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noted that this article has been rated as Low-importance. In light of the importance of vagueness in philosophy I'd say that this article should be rated at least Mid-importance. Paradoctor (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did change it. In general, almost all of the fallacies and paradoxes are in the "mid" range. You don't have to be bashful about those ratings. Any member of the project can change them. Please do. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I had assumed there was a formal process attached to the project, but couldn't find the proper place. Silly me. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you should sign up on the participants roster. Welcome. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the article on Objectivity is in serious need of some attention. For instance, Hegel and Marx aren't even mentioned in the current version of the article. I've started to draft a short section on feminist criticism of "assumed objectivity" (as in MacKinnon and Hasslanger). In general, however, epistemology isn't really my area. Anyone else interested in working on this article?Fixer1234 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bumping" this request. I've started to clean up this article by removing material about "general applications" of objectivity and about the idea of "neutrality". These issues are covered by separate articles, and needn't be covered at length in an article about the philosophical concept of Objectivity. Would some folks with a good grounding in epistemology take a look at this article? While we're at it, perhaps we could improve Subjectivity as well? Fixer1234 (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, Objectification could use a look as it doesn't really cover the original (Hegelian) sense of the term.Fixer1234 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please take a look at the last couple of days at Talk:Aristotle. There's been a suggestion to take some of the material out and start a new article, partially motivated it seems by a desire to include Ayn Rand in it. I think this needs a few more opinions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take a notice of this article to English-speaking wikipedians. In the Polish Wikipedia we're thinking, that it's a hoax (Tamagnone was born in 1937, started writing books around 2000, there are virtually no serious data on him in Googlebooks or Googlescholar, cross-wiki spamming and using of sockpuppets, even the very content of the article is a bit strange, espescially for an unknown philosopher). In French Wikipedia my friend Ziel began the process of suppression of this article. In the Italian Wikipedia it wasn't removed, but many doubts remained (please see the discussion of the Italian article). In Poland Italian philosophy isn't very good known, so we probably can't verificate it. Maybe you have any ideas? (Personally I think that this article is a hoax made by one of the "recensents" of Tamagnone linked whitch the Italian pulishing house Clinamen, which publishes Tamagnone's and Bazzani's books). Laforgue (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently updated my page of missing topics related to philosophy and wonder if some of you could have a good luck at it. Some of the topics may qualify mainly as redirects - Skysmith (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That list is stellar. I think you (or someone) should copy some of to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Philosophy. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Omnipotence paradox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the name for the error that confuses the name of an object with the object itself? For example, the argument runs like this: (one name for manure from bulls) is a 'bad word' (impolite). "Therefore," the manure itself is a bad thing (ineffective as a fertilizer? impolite to mention at the garden center?).
In case my example isn't exactly parallel: The particular problem I'm dealing with is at Talk:Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, where an editor is having trouble separating the fact that an expert wrote a fairly detailed description of a (completely unfounded) idea from the idea itself ("woman trapped in a man's body", by the way). The expert rejects the idea -- the whole point of the named source is to point out the many flaws in the idea -- but an editor keeps describing the idea itself in the article as "his" idea simply because the expert described it. Surely there's a name for this error? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The map is not the territory, Skomorokh 06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- isn't that merely equivocation?--Buridan (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion regarding how much material regarding certain matters of the subject's private life should be included in the article above. A request for comment on the subject can be found at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.#Request for Comments. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have an article Propositional logic and a category Category:Sentential logic. I have started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Logic#Propositional logic or sentential logic? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few of this project's templates were recently colored a bright orange. I object to this, and am wondering if anyone else does, or if I'm just being grumpy. Specifically:
I find it a lot harder to read (poor contrast), and distracting when reading anything else. (Greg already commented at my talkpage, suggesting that in the future each task force should have its own color scheme). I'd prefer we returned to a default scheme (grey or blue), or use something a lot less dramatic/garish/subjective than the strong orange. Thoughts from anyone else? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with restoring the white/gray colourscheme for the main project at least. The orange is rather jarring and does not aid navigation. Perhaps there could be a slight alteration for the taskforces, but I'm not sure if there's much benefit in such branding. Skomorokh 18:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I like the color, I only wonder whether it's orange or yellow. ;) Question: Isn't there a guideline stating something about accessibility for color blind readers? Paradoctor (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am open minded to any color. If we come to a consensus about a three color scheme I will make the changes. (I am not overly enamored with the orange either.) I just would like a consistent and unique look. Currently the scheme is A) ffac2f B) ffcc7f C) ffddaa. Obviously B and C are lighter versions of A. We should address our debate to a main color, and then decide if the other two are light enough, etcetera.
- ---
- ---
- ---
- Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick, non-representative look at opinions in the wild: [1] [2] [3] [4]. A very slightly off-white? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have toned down the tone on the scheme. However, I am still open to redoing it if there is a movement on a particular scheme. I am intrigued by the thesis that the "color of philosophy is brown" as posited in one of those links.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should just stick with the preview blue theme color and temporary keep the groups on history section as non-transparent. Mainly because the Schools section is still require a lot of categorization. To me, it look way more confusing when the sections are alternating without a purpose. Also I think we should really considering the Wikify Navigation in accordance to Template:History of Western philosophy before doing things to rash. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently made some proposals to move, merge or rename categories.
Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- i have no issue with the second, but the 1st and 3rd are entirely different sets of things. History of ideas is not the history of philosophy and if the history of ideas is written like a history of philosophy then it needs marked as needs improvement. abstract objects are not concepts, though some concepts may be abstract objects, and the inverse. the sets do not overlap though. --Buridan (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
