Portal talk:Thinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Portal-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 Portal  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Beginning of article[edit]

It is very long..maybe it can be cut down a bit? Fethroesforia 13:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that a couple days ago and made some changes. It's a work in progress. I hope to have something more "settled" in another month or so. Thanks for your comment.Letranova (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maintainer needed[edit]

The whole portal needs a maintainer (and an overhaul), as nothing seems to have been updated since it was created in June 2006. --Quiddity 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts about this portal[edit]

  • Hi I have assumed the role of maintainer for this portal.
  • The word "mechanics" is used to describe the mind. There are still discussions going on about how the mind functions and a more open word should be considered to replace "mechanics". The word "dynamics" may be one option.
Much better would be: "Processes of the human mind include pattern matching ...". The current wording suggests that pattern matching and recognition are the only two processes. I also have a problem with the awkward wording: "process of pattern matching or rather recognition". The phrase "or rather" is awkward at best and nonsensical at worst. Maybe "processes of pattern matching and recognition", or "process of pattern matching or recognition", but get the "rather" out. Ward3001 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please consider splitting "Aids/pitfalls to thinking" into two respective sections to avoid confusion. Addendum: Consider integrating these into the section Topics related to thinking at the bottom of the page under "thinking fallacies" and consider the section "Thinking tools" instead of "thinking aids"
  • While I don't have anything against Einstein I am not convinced that his biography is needed on this page. I would like to propose that this page should be free of references to any one person / thinker / genius.

Letranova 04:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the last point. Einstein was an outstanding physicist, but this is not a physics portal. Ben Finn 12:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think whether Einstein should be included would depend on what other "selected biographies" are included. Are there others? What are the criteria for including? Is any great "thinker" OK, because if so Einstein clearly should be included? Ward3001 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed Einstein to Leonardo Da Vinci. Einstein had been up there for a very long time. Da Vinci is not only a thinker but also an interesting polymath. If someone here would like to nominate someone else for the future add it on here as a suggestion.Letranova (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Speech act[edit]

Speech act should not be included under 'Creative processes', and probably not anywhere in this portal. It's related to philosophical logic & linguistics, not thinking as such. Ben Finn 12:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me research it a bit. I'll get back to you on that one. Letranova (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


I've taken over as maintainer of the Linguistics portal, so it's cleaned up, contentful, and up to date (and thanks to queued media, will be for many months to come). Would you please add it to your related portals list? Msanford (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment about Speech Act (with which I agree) I suggested adding linguistics not because language production involves thinking, but because linguistics (the scientific study of language) does.Msanford (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1) be bold! 2) this portal needs a maintainer too (see 4 threads up), so the Speech Act questions are likely to go unanswered. (I just watchlist here to prevent vandalism. I don't maintain/develop). -- Quiddity (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


This article is bold on assertions but mean on citations and smacks very much of OR. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable --Philogo 02:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a portal, not the same as an article. You click on the links to articles for the details with citations. There really isn't anything on the portal page that is not in the related articles. Ward3001 (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case I wld say "This portal is bold on assertions but mean on citations and smacks very much of OR. Encyclopedic content, inlcuding material on portals, must be verifiable"--Philogo 14:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point. A portal links to articles that contain the sources. The portal does not require citations. It is a portal, a point at which you find properly sourced articles on the topic. Click "Read more...". Imagine if it was a list. Pages that are lists do not contain citations. Similarly, category pages do not contain citations, only links. Same concept, except a little sentence structure is added to give the reader a preview so he/she can decide whether to read more in the article. Look at other portals. You can start with Portal:Psychology. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Portal. Ward3001 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a "public" page let's try to keep the use of abbreviations down a bit. This will help with readability and accessibility to folks that are newbies in Wikipedia. The OR may be wiki lingo. Care to define here for the readers?Letranova (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research, not allowed on Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The material shown on this portal look like OR, and cannot be verified by citing other pages on Wiki. I have looked at read more which takes you to Thought and it looks like the same OR there. Indeed it is clearly flagged {{Nofootnotes|date=January 2009}}. and therefore fails to link "to articles that contain the sources". Tweedle Dum is citing Tweedle Dee.--Philogo 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, you are perfectly free to template any article (but not a portal) if it lacks sources, or add sources yourself to any article (but not a portal). But for the last time, portals do not require sources. I randomly clicked 30 portals and the number of them that cited a source is zero. If you want to change the way portals work, please discuss on Wikipedia talk:Portal, not here. Please direct your concerns to the correct page. My last comment. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
You are apparently content this portal links to articles without citations and carrying warnings. --Philogo 11:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I am content that portals do not require citations. I said nothing about being content about any article. And I also invited you to add any templates or citations in the articles that are linked by the portal. Did you read that? Did you template anything? I also suggested that you express your concerns on the appropriate page. Did you read that? Did you do that? Please move on. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer to most of your questions is yes. Are you content this portal links to articles without citations and carrying warnings.--Philogo 12:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether I am content with articles has nothing to do with this portal. Did Jimbo appoint you the wikiboss of portals? Did he tell you that you can disrupt Wikipedia portals over issues that have nothing to do with the portal? If you continue this incessant discussion on this portal talk page of irrelevant issues about how content I am with articles I will make a WP:ANI report. Consider this my only warning. Drop it and move on. This is a portal talk page, not an article talk page or my personal or your personal talk page. Stop disrupting this page. Ward3001 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking bulb[edit]

I've got idea: change picture of thinking portal to electric-bulb image. just like bright idea is visualized as light-bulb, so thinking must give bright ideas, and lightbulb is a very good image ;-) Or put a picture of light-bulb into picture of brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you're thinking with portals![edit]

It had to be said. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 18:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)