|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Really do not know how to do this, well...
Dr. Peter Muckley
Th article still needs a proper lead, and sections.1Z 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Date of birth
== Who wrote this? == Answer. Dr. Peter Albert Muckley wrote this.
Seriously, was it Margolis himself? There is no citation of sources to speak of, it spends way too much time gushing over Mr. Margolis, and makes way more evaluative comments on the work of other philosophers in the text than it should without clearly attributing them to Margolis. At the very least it needs cleaning up, but it more likely needs to be written by someone who's not suggesting it's sinister that Joseph Margolis isn't canon.
I'm adding a neutrality dispute, an original research dispute, and a source citation request. --M.C. ArZeCh 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems to follow a similar style as recent edits in the John Dewey, Pragmatism, and William James articles, come to think of it.--M.C. ArZeCh 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
On Sources and other Curios
I think the heart of the complaint is that I am an amateur when it comes to Wikipedia formatting. I did ask for help on this score, but got little. My main source for guidelines was the Heidegger article in Wikipedia.
Sources and references are super-abundant. They are all the Margolis books in the bibliography. If they should be included in the text differently, simply let me know.
The word "gush" is rather wildly used. I simply believe Margolis is the best pragmatist philosopher around and wanted to encourage others to read him and decide for themselves. As to my style: Harold Bloom and Umberto Eco considered it good enough to publish; Temple at Philadelphia thought it good enough for a University Fellowship; it was OK for the Sorbonne; and I learnt it at Trinity College, Oxford, not Washington State or whatever...
This article was wriiten by me. Dr. Peter A. Muckley. Any sources necessary are given. If more are needed please specify which ones. I am the author of Iceberg Slim: The Life as Art. If you care to check on that. My work in progress is Expect Opposition, an autobiography about what it is like growing up in a rich man's world. That, just by way of accounting for my general style.
On the conspiracy front, I would simply say that I have tried to get Margolis published in Spain or in Spanish for over 15 years, in vain. Why is it that Rorty, Danto and the rest are published in Spanish most readily and Margolis not? The conspiracy is one of dunces, of course.
An article of this nature does not seem to need sources much, does it? The sources are Margolis' works which are referred to in the bibliography and also appear on the extrenal links page. It was written generally following other wikipedia articles which I took as guidelines. What is really the beef here? I was a student of Margolis' but he certainly is not responsible for this article.
What is "neutrality" anyway? Thinking like other Americans, like other psychologists?
Peter A. Muckley 22 June 2007
Re formatting: you are supposed to read the "help" pages and work it out, not get people to do it for you. All editors are amateurs, no=one gets paid. 1Z 07:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: gush: the point is about style/wording, not verifiability. The article is peppered with value-judgements like "careful", "useful" , "successful". 1Z 07:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Still, someone who knows could help out. some of us are useless at that sort of thing. there are many people who still do not know how to use email. they should not be scoffed at, but rather helped with patience and care.
Why is there so much nit-picking and small mindedness involved in a scheme which is voluntary and is trying to diffuse ideas?
As to words, almost all are value-ladened, it is part of the human condition.
Dr. Peter A. Muckley 22 June.
Failing to report the controversial nature of controversial ideas is not education or information, it is propaganda.1Z 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial here. It seems that the 20th and 21st centuries have by-passed the people involved here. all writing bears the stamp of its historical production. read a 10th century report on anything and its style will carry the values of the entire institution of a 10th century world outlook. the pretence of OBJECTIVITY is so 21st century.
Style will out. The oBJECTIVE is a mark of power. You all seem very young and naive commentators. And, a bunch of bullies. Did Derrida write in vain?
Do what you will. you are the power brokers here, it seems. What the controversial is here, I should be interested to know. Surely the Margolis was a paratrooper is not propaganda but information, for instance.
And why pick on this particular article? There are others, much more opinionated. Incidentally, propaganda only works by disguising itself as objectivity and truth, if this article wears its bias on its sleeve, it is honest feeling and (biased) opinion --if you will-- it cannot BE propaganda. It is so obvious...
Peter Muckley weary of bickering.
Wikipedia has the rules it has. Name-dropping postmodernists is not going to change that.
"Naive". Not everyone has to believe Derrida and co. They are controversial. WP has conventions about POV, etc, which are not supposed to be any deep statement about the nature of truth, just rules of the game.
"Paratrooper". No one offered that as an example of POV. "Careful", "useful" , "successful" have been so offered -- the issue has been explained to you.
"Power brokers". It works by consensus. Read the help.
"Honest bias" is still not allowed. 1Z 12:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Setting the Record Straight
The most important thing is that Professor Margolis has NOTHING to do with the contents of this article on him.
Second, in March, I innocently asked of Wikipedia why there was no article on Margolis. I had no idea how the thing worked. The reply was that no-one had written on him. It was suggested I write on him if I cared to. I wrote on him and sent to Wikipedia.
Since then I have had nothing but whining. I am an Anarcho-Syndicalist, for Sacco and Vanzetti's sake. Of course, in the States, they shoot and electrocute anarchists, don't they? Margolis IS NOT an anarchist, as far as I know.
Scrap the thing if you want.
Well, goodbye, nice knowing you nice people.
Dr. Peter A. Muckley
23 June 2007
The main problem here is that you a pretty much saying that Margolis did all that any other philosophers have ever done, except better. This is one of the most opinion-laded philosopher articles I've ever seen in Wikipedia.
This complain has nothing to do with you being an anarcho-syndicalist. It is annoying to see you playing dumb when it comes to neutrality - telling non-neutrality is a human condition and all... Go check the other articles, those about the philosphers you are so keen on referring to and tell if you really cannot understand what is at issue here.
Wikipedia is not about you telling others how much you appriciate Margolis - no one is interested about that.
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"Margolis then shows that the continuous struggle philosophically to entrench changlessness either in human thought or human nature or physical nature has, in large part, been a futile struggle by some against acknowledging the lack of any fixed-kind nature of the human being. It is futile in that we have no natures but are histories. Many are far from content to see themselves as but creatures at the mercy of their own man-made history."
-- If I understand it wright, Margolis creates a paradox, for if humans have always been histories, then that is human nature, human fixed nature: to be history...
--- Derrida's "il n'y a pas de hors-texte" is also a fixation pretending not to be one...
"The structure of reality and the structure of thought are symbiotized. That is, there is no way of knowing how much of the apparent intelligibility of the world is a contribution of the mind and how much the world itself contributes to that seeming intelligibility"
-- This argument holds an echo of Claude Lévi-Strauss structuralist thought, this relation between world and mind.