Talk:Giovanni Reale

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Ethics / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article 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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Ethics
	Contemporary philosophy

Clarifications

As seems to be the case increasingly often, I've been asked to explain why I added certain tags to an article. As is always the case in this situation, I find it difficult, because if I hadn't thought my reasoning incredibly obvious I'd have explained myself sooner. Anyway, as a general rule I add {{clarify}} to things I don't understand, especially if I'm not familiar with the topic of the article. In this case, on reading this article, I didn't understand:

"His leading thesis is that Greek philosophy has created the categories and peculiar way of thinking that caused the birth and development of the science and the technique of the West." How can a thesis lead? Categories of what? What's peculiar about it? I think I understand what "the science ... of the west" is, but what's the technique? And how did a way of thinking cause its birth and development?
"He studied each of these authors going to a certain against-current sense..." Erm, what? I can't find a single google hit for "against-current" hyphenated.
"...positivist historical-genetic trend..." See above.
"...it would pass for the metaphysics..." I think this probably should say "pass through". Could be wrong though.
"...where he held courses..." Can an individual hold a course? My impression is that "held" in this case means "taught" (again, could be wrong), in which case why not say that?
"...where the majority of his students are formed." I want to say something snarky about how is babby formed but I don't think I have the energy.

Hope that clears things up. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... Frankly, I cannot identify a definite problem in the analysis of the user above.

In summary:

His leading thesis is that Greek philosophy has created the categories and peculiar way of thinking that caused the birth and development of the science and the technique of the West.

"How can a thesis lead?" Leading thesis --> main argument

"Categories of what?" Category of... thinking? :-) What's strange or incomprehensible? Perhaps you ask me to explain the categories of Western thought? I don't think the article on Giovanni Reale is the appropriate place, right?

"What's the technique?" Western technique is closely related to Western science, being the pratical product of this. It does not seem difficult.

He studied each of these authors going to a certain against-current sense.

If the term is inappropriate, you can change it.

...positivist historical-genetic trend... See above.

...it would pass for the metaphysics... Correct: through.

...where he held courses... Correct: taught

--Apollineo! (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made a few changes per the above: "taught" for "held", "main argument" for "leading thesis", "through" instead of "for". I've also removed "where the majority of his students are formed" because I still don't know what it means and don't think it can be that relevant, replaced "going to a certain against-current sense" with "from an against-the-grain perspective", and restored a couple of {{clarify}} tags – not because the sentences they're attached to are totally incomprehensible, but because they could be clearer, and I think it's a benefit to the project to invite readers to clarify them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The discussion began well, with both parties helping to improve the disputed language. At the current impasse, Apollineo! believes that current language is sufficiently comprehensible, Arms & Hearts does not. I must side with Arms & Heart on this point--for a non-expert reader, these passages are still too difficult. The main source of the problem is language that appears to have been based on a mechanical translation from the original article in Italian WP, and there are still rough edges. As a follow-up, I will have a go at clarifying the passages--I'd rather see both the tags and need for them go away. Please feel free to correct/criticize my efforts. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. I don't know enough about the subject or the sources (or philosophy in general) to really be able to assess your changes, but they're certainly more comprehensible. If Appollineo! doesn't object I'm happy with the current version of the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are general, not Aristotelian. It reports to the whole Greek philosophy, not to Aristotle in particular. The rest is acceptable. --Apollineo! (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giovanni Reale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305011922/http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/DettaglioOnorificenze.aspx?decorato=314514 to http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/DettaglioOnorificenze.aspx?decorato=314514

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]