Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Philosopher popularity

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Here's the list of the top 20 most significant western philosophers as found in the book Human Accomplishment. The second column contains the philosopher's position on the wikipedia popular pages listing for philosopher.

The Man	Murray	popular	links
Aristotle	1.	012 (+11)	5235
Plato	2.	015 (+13)	3919
Kant	3.	025 (+22)	637
Descartes	4.	023 (+19)	558
Hegel	5.	076 (+71)	669
Aquinas	6.	045 (+39)	116
Locke	7.	018 (+11)	47
Hume	8.	063 (+55)	106
Augustine	9.	035 (+26)	126
Spinoza	10.	088 (+78)	367
Leibniz	11.	089 (+78)	357
Socrates	12.	021 (+9)	2110
Schopenhauer	13.	102 (+89)	285
Berkeley	14.	195 (+181)	146
Nietzsche	15.	019 (+4)	732
Hobbes	16.	036 (+20)	135
Russell	17.	062 (+45)	81
Rousseau	18.	029 (+11)	283
Plotinus	19.	276 (+257)	659
Fichte	20.	373 (+353)	94

I'm not at all surprised to see Plotinus getting the short end of the stick. Shopenhauer deserves better as well.

Any thoughts on this list? -Pollinosisss (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche is severely under-estimated. Where is Kierkegaard? I'm an advocate of Hegel, but he is slightly over-estimated. Fichte seem over-estimated; I would suggest William James, Husserl, Heidegger or Wittgenstein in his place. The guy who wrote this list doesn't think very highly of 20th century continental philosophy. Rusell is over-estimated. I would make Plato numero uno, but that's just me. — goethean ॐ 17:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the book is by Charles Murray. Who cares what he thinks? — goethean ॐ 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The list was made by looking at how much space philosophers were given in authoritative reference works. The author's opinion doesn't really have anything to do with it. He doesn't look past 1950 either. I suppose I should have mentioned these things.

I guess what I was curious about is how people felt about the wikipedia popularity list, especially as compared to the scholarly consensus list. My earlier remarks on Plotinus and Shopenhauer were regarding their positions on wikipedia. I may not have been very clear. Pollinosisss (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What I am interested in seeing is "most wikilinked" which is not available in these listings :< Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There you are. Paradoctor (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathematosis (will be its own destruction?)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematosis

I wonder if anyone in the philosophy department will comment on this? I happen to think its a wonderful article, myself. The prevailing view seems to be that it should be merged with W.V.O. Quine, however only mathematicians have commented so far. I don't think the decision should be left to them alone for obvious reasons. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

African Philosophy

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to bring this article to the attention of this wikiproject and ask if the members agree with this recent edit which essentially reset this article to a bare-bones stub. I'm definitely not an expert in the subject matter, but am concerned that such a drastic removal of content can be made without any attempt at preserving the useful bits. Also posted at the African WikiProject talk page. Apologize for the cross-posting. -- œ ^™ 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There is some useful content in the old version, but most of it was inappropriate for a quality encyclopaedia entry. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Projectivism

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is in dire need of clean up and has been for some time for anyone who is familiar with the topic. 207.69.137.23 (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparative phenomenology

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone familiar with this topic look at the comparative phenomenology article? It looks like the author took it from his/her master's thesis and therefore has a conflict of interest. I'm not sure if the article is warranted as stand alone, should be merged with phenomenology, or should be deleted all together. Regards, PDCook (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Analysis

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It would be nice if some people from this project could have a say on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_28#Category:Analysis. Thanks Mion (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Deep Thinking

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

They're not philosophy as I understand the word, but "diactic" and others I've sent off to AfD are the coinages of a purported philosopher, so somebody here might conceivably be interested. (I don't know of a better place to announce this.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there is a deletion noticeboard for philosophy after all. Though until a few minutes ago it wasn't listed in the expected place. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Philosopher redirects

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's up for discussion. Do you want it? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Philosophy/Medieval and others to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher's Summaries

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just come from the Hume page. I think it would be excellent if in articles about philosophers, the beginning part included one or two key questions that the philosopher was interested in exploring, as an accessible yet intellectual introduction to topic.

At the moment in the Hume example, there are many references to other historical entities, which makes it obscure if you have little knowlege of the background. As questions provoke responses in the reader, it may open up deep and abstract subject matter, and draw people in. --79.78.235.118 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Positive action

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't positive action a philosophical term? ~ R.T.G 21:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It may very well be; I'm not sure. May I ask why you ask? Pollinosisss (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeking helpful input. I should explain, it currently redirects to Affirmative Action (note capitals) with a defintition from Stanfords Dictionary of Philosophy that it "means" (in short) equality law. Of course positive action, action without negative connotations (note no capitals) is a much used phrase in its broader sense. The usual sourcing method, plain old searching the internet, is similarly swamped by the American coin on equality law. It says on Affirmative Action that Positive Action is the term used in the UK but as is evident from the sources, the term used in the UK is "take positive action" not "take Positive Action". That can be explained but would be pointless without possibility of improving the article(no good enough sources found). It's not a big deal but these phrases are often defined crrectly even when they are coined to something else. Perhaps someone here can quote or suggest a text or an online source? It's a common phrase in these waters Britain and Ireland. I don't think there was a time limit for defining it and as the parent of the Affirmative Action approach, will hardly dispute the meaning of that phrase (maybe folk will dispute it I don't even know that). I could have just stuck the project sticker on it but that does not qualify it for attention as it is obviously not a core philosophical topic. ~ R.T.G 03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That is without mentioning the request for an expert on the article since 18 months and the "unbalanced" tag since 1 year. ~ R.T.G 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Looking for a free image of Zeno of Elea, I stumbled across this set, some of these images are probably of interest. Paradoctor (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've looked in vain for a picture of Zeno of Elea. The one picture at Wikimedia [1] is definitely an engraving of a bust of Zeno of Citium. Although LIFE identifies this Marcus Meibomius picture as "Zeno of Elea", I strongly suspect that this too, is probably Zeno of Citium. There's a certain irony in the fact that Zeno of Elea is nowadays the more famous of the two Zenos. Until the twentieth century, the opposite was probably true. Singinglemon (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the Aesthetics task force butt heads over that one. ;) Pictures should be up in a few hours. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the proof, BTW, that the Marcus Meibomius image is of Zeno of Citium. Singinglemon (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Admit it, you're into dissin' the Eleatics. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey it's not my fault that no-one before the twentieth century gave enough of a damn to draw a picture of him. :) I've got absolutely nothin' against the Eleatics. On the other hand, one of my favourite Diogenes of Sinope anecdotes [2] is that when he heard a philosopher one day declaring how there was no such thing as motion, Diogenes simply got up and started walking about. :) Singinglemon (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall reading a commentator who was pretty indignant about "what Diogenes thought he had achieved by that". ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Members of this task force may be interested in the deletion effort here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Since several Wikipedia-Books are Philosophy-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP PHILO people can oversee books like Epistemology much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have the Philosophical literature task force. I wonder how they will develop together. Phil lit includes a lot of non-book literature.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood, this is for Wikipedia-Books and not for books or other literature. Take a look at Wikipedia:Books/Epistemologyand it should be a bit clearer. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I get it. The Book-class isn't for articles about books, its for "Books" constructed by Wikipedians. I don't see any big problems or big advantages in adopting it, so we might as well... Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the book-class is a go. I found 24 books more or less related to philosophy (feel free to add additional projects, or remove them from yours as you see fit). You can browse Category:Wikipedia Books to see if I missed any, and create new books (A good way is to use the "book creator" in the print/export toolbox on the left. Click "Create a book" then find a category, and click "Add this category", order things, remove useless stuff, add missing stuff and that's pretty much that, see Help:Books for more details). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Social equality

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current article at Affirmative Action is fully about social equality with various phrases such as "positive action" redirecting there. I have suggested moving to and merging with Social equality which is part of project:Philosophy. It shouldn't require much change to either articles basis so I could do it but please go ahead and chime in at it on Talk:Affirmative_action#Social_equality or Talk:Social_equality#Affirmative_Action ~ R.T.G 08:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Attribution problem

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to get input from someone who knows more about the subject in general to take a look at this edit in the Unequal exchange article. Aside from the obvious formatting issue with the attribution, I blanked it simply because I don't know how it could be properly formatted and used. The first obvious question (to me, at least) is, who the heck is "G. Köhler"? An influential author, I hope? Anyway, anyone who has any input on this, feel free to jump in and edit.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're talking about this senior citizen. I googled, but a look at the References section would probably have worked, too. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Note was inserted by user:Jurriaan, left talkback pointing here, might take a week to reply, judging from his edit pattern. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The original article was started and written by User:Jurriaan and it was subsequently edited substantially by John Brolin, a Swedish scholar from Lund University who wrote a Phd Thesis on this topic not so long ago. Gernot Köhler is Professor at Sheridan College, Ontario, Canada [3] and he has written a number of papers on unequal exchange. User: Jurriaan 12:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC). I asked Gernot Köhler for some good illustrations of unequal exchange and more references which he provided.

Added a note on the talk page pointing here in case this comes up again. Paradoctor (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

KK thesis and KK-principle

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just noticed that these two articles (KK thesis and KK-principle) discuss what appears to be the exact same thing, and neither one actually says much about it. Although I am very interested in the subject, I have neither the epistemological background nor the wiki-editing skills needed to merge the two, or expand either. Both are unrated as to importance (although I assume it would be "Low"), as well. Thought noting it here would be appropriate. Cthuljew (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Interlanguage cooperation in Marxism

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hallo, Science and Philosophy in general, and especially Marxism is a worldwide project without language-borders, or at least it should be. To me it seems that in the field of Marxism, the de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia are the most advanced projects as far as the number of articles, the depth of presentations are concerned. But for single topics, there are also important articles in the Spanish, Portugese, French, Italian, Dutch etc. Wikipedias. Due to a lack of skill in reading and language-comprehension, I don't survey the situation of Marxism in the Russian, Chinese or Japanese Wikipedia.

Now, most articles are written by amateurs or experts on the topics, article by article, without any coordination of the entire development of the encyclopaedia. So although much individual effort is put into the single articles, there is in comparison only few activity de:Wikipedia Diskussion:WikiProjekt Marxismus, and it seems also very few activity here in Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Marxism.

Further, there is an almost complete lack of exchange between the single projects across language borders. In comparison, a well coordinated project which I could imagine would try to bring each article to the best possible level by comparing articles in the different languages and supply the contents available.

So my question is, how could we organize an exchange of contents between the English and German Wikipedia in the field of Marxism (to start with), and could we extend such an exchange to other languages? Of course this refers a large number of articles (I guess much more than 1 000 articles), an would mean a large amount of work to be done, which on the long run could not be realized by a single person, or only a small group of persons.

-- Schwalker (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one of the first steps in such an undertaking would be to identify articles that are in one wikipedia but not the other, but before that could even be done we would need to know what we ourselves have on the English wikipedia. At the present we have less than three hundred articles tagged as being related to Marxism; I very much doubt that this is a complete list of all English Marxism-related articles. Since September first, only thirteen articles have been added to the Marxism task force, and nine of those have been added by myself --someone who is completely uninterested in Marxism. In short, the interest appears to be lacking. - Pollinosisss (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Slightly less than 3000 pages on en.Wikipedia contain the string "marxism", so 300 pages is not bad. To set up an interwiki project, you might find the various embassies useful. Paradoctor (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Some lists of de.wikipedia articles in de:Kategorie:Marxismus are on de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Marxismus/Artikelliste. Seperated lists for articles on people and things are on de:Benutzer:Rosenkohl/Interwiki-Projekt Marxismus, which shows that there currently are about 1180 articles in this Kategorie:Marxismus.

Problem with en.wikipedia ist that also articles no communist parties and their members are categorized in Category:Marxism. So a CatScan on http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wiki.x.io&basecat=Marxism&basedeep=5&mode=ts&templates=&go=Scan&format=wiki&userlang=e at level 5 gives us 4599 articles, most of which are not directly related to theoretical Marxism. So I'm afraid one has to go through and select those subcategories which beong here.

Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism... the Marxism taskforce should be merged...

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Into the newly created project about the Socialist movement. --TIAYN (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. I think they both should be organized under the social and political philosophy task force. However , it is not crucial that it is. The libertarianism group seems to operate fine outside of WP:PHILO and the anarchism group seems to operate fine within WP:PHILO. Perhaps we could do a better job really focusing in on the philosophical aspects if we kept a separate "marxist (or socialist) thought" group. There are a lot of movements, groups and events which do not lend themselves to the philosophy group in general. This is also true of some anarchism topics too. Perhaps we could split them all out from WP:PHILO to form a separate Social and political philosophy wikiproject with libertarianism, anarchism, socialism, liberalism, fascism set up as task forces of it. I think the assessment data collection might be be more meaningful if we did.

WikiProject Social and political philosophy separated out from WP:PHILO with task forces:

Socialism <== merge ==> Marxism
Libertarianism
Fascism
Anarchism
Liberalism (the content of which is covered by WP:POLITICS in general)
Corporatism (the content of which is not yet organized at all)

Any thoughts? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea of breaking out "Social and political philosophy" into its own project. I wouldn't mind seeing the marxism and anarchism task forces as stand alone projects though. The anarchism task force has a ton of articles that aren't even about philosophy. Pollinosisss (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

I have given it some thought and I have four possible proposals (I support proposal IV):

I. Subsume Libertarianism, Fascism, Socialism/Marxism, and Anarchism into the Social and political philosophy task force of WP:PHILO.

II. Split out the Social and political philosophy task force from WP:PHILO into its own WikiProject and then subsume Libertarianism, Fascism, Socialism/Marxism, and Anarchism into it.

III. Just kick Anarchism and Marxism out of WP:PHILO.

IV. Designate the Social and political philosophy task force for only the most important and general topics in philosophy AND create a separate Social and political philosophy umbrella WikiProject subsuming Libertarianism, Fascism, Socialism/Marxism, and Anarchism. The assessment scheme is the only thing that changes in this proposal. Both the task force and the wikiproject can share the same namespace. The administrative issues remain unchanged. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the member of any task force here under discussion, however a bit puzzled why Socialism and Marxism are seen as closely related that you would have the same task force to care for them. An expert on one of the different non-marxist-models of socialism (e.g. Chuch'e, Baathism, Christian Socialism, ...) would not necessary be interested in Marxism and vice versa. Also I don't recognize what the group of five currents Libertarianism, Fascism, Socialism, Marxism, and Anarchism has in common that a special task force would care for them. There are a lot more currents such as liberalism, conservatism, social democracy etc., and each of the group of five above would perhaps be closer to one of these than to one of the other four in this group. Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with merging Socialism and Marxism. They are different; why ought they be merged? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR for Søren Kierkegaard

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Søren Kierkegaard 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. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article badly needs attention and expansion from philosophy types. Jaymax (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Valuescience

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Yesterday I created Magic, Inc. (organization), which promotes a philosophy called Valuescience. I am not a philosopher, so I was puzzled to find something superficially similar in Value Science. I redlinked Valuescience pending finding out whether it is a distinct approach that might someday merit an article - the sources I have indicate it has been taught at Stanford by Magic members for 30 years - and intended to look for sources to tell me whether there is any relationship before putting a hatnote on Value Science and either removing the linkage from Valuescience or adding an informational note on the relationship. However, the Magic article has been listed for deletion, so if anyone can point me to any material on Valuescience or add it to the article I would be grateful; I don't have the background to determine whether it's a notable philosophy and its not being one is listed by the nominator as one of the rationales for considering deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was kept, so there is now no urgency, but I would still appreciate it (and so would a couple of editors who weighed in at the AfD) if someone knowledgeable could clarify whether Valuescience is related to Value Science. Even though the article was removed from this project, it remains an open issue.Yngvadottir (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Greek philosophy

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have listed Category:Greek philosophy for possible deletion, renaming or whatever at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23#Category:Greek_philosophy. Input from project members would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Valuescience

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Yesterday I created Magic, Inc. (organization), which promotes a philosophy called Valuescience. I am not a philosopher, so I was puzzled to find something superficially similar in Value Science. I redlinked Valuescience pending finding out whether it is a distinct approach that might someday merit an article - the sources I have indicate it has been taught at Stanford by Magic members for 30 years - and intended to look for sources to tell me whether there is any relationship before putting a hatnote on Value Science and either removing the linkage from Valuescience or adding an informational note on the relationship. However, the Magic article has been listed for deletion, so if anyone can point me to any material on Valuescience or add it to the article I would be grateful; I don't have the background to determine whether it's a notable philosophy and its not being one is listed by the nominator as one of the rationales for considering deletion. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was kept, so there is now no urgency, but I would still appreciate it (and so would a couple of editors who weighed in at the AfD) if someone knowledgeable could clarify whether Valuescience is related to Value Science. Even though the article was removed from this project, it remains an open issue.Yngvadottir (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Greek philosophy

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have listed Category:Greek philosophy for possible deletion, renaming or whatever at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23#Category:Greek_philosophy. Input from project members would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unbelieving - dubious article

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unbelieving. A new article with some problems. I have commented on the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know whether there is a way of tracking up-to-date changes to all Philosophy related articles, and not just ones on the central themes of philosophy? Orthorhombic (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you really sure that is useful for you? Currently, we're talking about 13670 pages, minus a few hundred non-article pages. If you still think it's a good idea, say the word, I can do the list in about 15 minutes. Paradoctor (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in a particular aspect of philosophy, you could make sure the relevant "index" article is kept up to date and use it's "related changes" link. I, for example, have been keeping the Index of ancient philosophy articles page up to date. This lets me to keep an eye on changes made to the ancient philosophy articles [4]. -Pollinosisss (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I never noticed that one! :) If you want custom watchlists, read Wikipedia:Watchlist#Alternatives_to_watchlists, that should give you everything you want. Paradoctor (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Population genetics

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Do we really think that population genetics is within the scope of the Philosopy project? --Ettrig (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I recently added the entries found in The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia to the philosophy of science task force. Population genetics was one of these entries.

Here's a quote from The Philosophy of Science entry on population genetics:

In general, the problem of finding a balance between a model's being sufficiently complex to describe reality adequately and at the same time being sufficiently simple to allow mathematical analysis is not only a question of philosophical interest, but also a serious one faced in the everyday practice of theoretical biology.

-Pollinosisss (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible. Population Genetics is not within the scope of the Philosopy project - Edwin (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Philosophy/Ethics to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Ethics/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Noesis

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why does this page get so many views? I don't understand it. It's currently the most popular philosophy article. - Pollinosisss (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I too, wonder about that.?!?!Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it started last march. [5] - Pollinosisss (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy templates

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have worked last few days on philosophy related templates. I fixed some mistakes in links. Is there some list of philosophy related templates. It would be much easier to work. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I found it. Sorry.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

speech act theory

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

here I ask a question about speech act theory and Perlocutionary act. thanks. --92.225.74.63 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some input would be appreciated at the above, particularly from editors with a background in philosophy. User:NBeale is Nicholas Beale, a management consultant and Christian apologist who studied mathematics at university, and who wrote a book with John Polkinghorne about science and religion, Questions of Truth. Since 2007, Nbeale has been trying to persuade Wikipedia, onwiki and on his blog, to host his biography, though he appears not to be notable enough, or if he is, it is borderline. Several versions have been created, and there have been four AfDs, all resulting in delete. A fifth AfD is underway here.

The issue that most concerns me is that Beale is insisting he be called a "social philosopher." I have no problem with the article saying he describes himself as that, but he doesn't want that: he wants it to say he is a philosopher, with his name added to that category, alongside Isaiah Berlin and others. I object to this on the grounds that he has no qualifications in philosophy and isn't regarded as a philosopher by other philosophers.

The sources he has produced to support that he is a social philosopher are blurbs that were written on articles he wrote about the Polkinghorne book, but these are blurbs that were based on his own description of himself. In other words, the publishers would ask him how he wanted to be described, and he would say "social philosopher." (I know this because I asked them.) They are therefore not independent sources.

One editor in particular is insisting that the lead say he is a social philosopher, and there has been a bit of an edit war over it. Any input from uninvolved editors with a background in philosophy, or involved in editing about it on WP, would therefore be much appreciated. The talk page discussion is at T/.alk:Nicholas_Beale#Philosopher]]. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rule of inference

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could some people interested in logic from the philosophy department take a look at this "philosophical" material being repeatedly removed from rule of inference? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Informal Semantics for Non-monotonic logic

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear all,

On the discussion page related to non-monotonic logic somebody asked for semantics. Since I received few opinions like Dr. Joseph S. Fulda’s (at the bottom of Information page), I am offering you a psychological perspective as a basis for informal semantics. I recommend, however, reading first Model page, at least. Reading few other pages also, could offer a better insight.

I have also published a book: "My Stories" you might be interested to read.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please visit Talk:Non-monotonic logic. If there are points of contention, I could help with, please do not hesitate to invite me.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

David F. Haight

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article on philosopher David F. Haight is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight. Please contribute your opinions; as usual for deletion discussions, a reasoned explanation is far more useful than a simple "keep" or "delete" vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perception

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear all,

I’ve been trying to help folks who were trying to articulate the latest knowledge on Perception article, but my suggestions did not help much. On top of that, some little egos managed to erode even that little clarity we had.

I have decided, therefore, to simply rewrite the article on the basis of currently available knowledge in the following disciplines: cognitive and developmental psychology, medicine (especially genetics), philosophy and complex (adaptive) systems theory with emphasised references to non-monotonic logics. I am contemplating few other disciplines, but these will suffice for the beginning.

I have drafted the lead into the article and the draft can be found on the related discussion page. I am calling now for comments and contributions backed by the latest science and the latest contemporary philosophical thought. My only condition is clarity and brevity wherever possible. If you find other possible references, they will be welcomed too.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Navigation template colors

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Templates#Navigation templates is quite colorful. Is there any direction behind the color-scheme, or any reason to keep it? For site-style consistency, I'd prefer that they all use the default {{navbox}} color scheme - the template:navbox documentation says "Changing the default styles is not recommended, but is possible." I'm not sure if this has been discussed before (I think it has?), but thought I'd bring it up here. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In articles where are several different colours of templates it is bad solution to have many different colours. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Externalism - request for assistance

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Folks, I came across the above article. To a layman the content looks good, but the tone looks a little essay-like and perhaps OR-ish. Would someone who understands the subject please take a look? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced or poorly-referenced BLPs

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

There is talk at Wikipedia talk:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs about summarily deleting poorly-sourced biographies of living people, even if there is no contentious material. Those concerned about losing important articles should consider adding sources! If the deletion outruns the referencing, I would be happy to assist the project by undeleting articles.

Here's a rough cut (thanks, Intersection search!) of articles which may be on the chopping block and appear to fall within the scope of this WikiProject:

CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Geach, Lehrer, de Sousa, Wolff, Cassam, Honderich, DeRose, Johnson... my oh my. Skomorokh 05:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed DeRose and struck him from the above list—he's one of my favorite contemporary philosophers. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pentti Linkola has been fixed up. - Pollinosisss (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Philosophers/BLP as a tool to get at the sources easier. Greg Bard (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe worth pointing out that the above list contains various people who would never be regarded as philosophers: for example newspaper columnists (Orr), pop group managers (Napier-Bell). It looks like "atheist" categories have been included in the criteria for inclusion here (whereas better covered by that project)? AllyD (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Category:Philosophy contains (hereditarily) many categories that it probably should not, like Category:Political scientists (via Category:Political theorists, Category:Political philosophers, Category:Philosophers by field, Category:Philosophers). If someone wants to work on that tangled mess, be my guest. Until then, feel free to either strike, delete, or move those irrelevant names to a section at the bottom.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing Christian bias throughout "Arguments for the existence of God"

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some articles falling under Category:Arguments for the existence of God have this weird, sort of disturbing trend of giving an unreferenced "special" mention to Christianity as having some kind of relationship with the argument, or citing only Christian examples for a particular argument (eg., love, or alleged witnessing of God's presence), or giving Christian instances special prominence where the same argument is raised by many theisms. I've fixed a few but this frame has got to give way to the realistic frame of religious pluralism as it actually exists in the world. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Many Muslim and Jewish philosophers, as well as philosophers of other religions, or non-religious philosophers (deists) have also offered arguments for the existence of God. If someone can find and compile these they should be posted too, of course. Wandering Courier (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, and they have also argued the same arguments which are currently presented from only Christian philosophers. Torquemama007 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited as might apply to some articles of interest to this wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A thread related to the article Zeno's paradoxes has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Steaphen. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip P. Gaonkar at AfD

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilip P. Gaonkar (2nd nomination).

CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Infinity

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Infinity (philosophy) could use some work. It was carved out of the mess that currently lives at Infinity, and could use more/better content and references.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of Liberalism

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A peer review has been opened for the article Liberalism to improve it to a Featured Article. The editors are asking for input from experts in the subject, especially regarding the Featured Article Criteria: Is it compelling, comprehensive, well researched, and neutral?

Since this project has an interest in this kind of subject, you might wish to improve the article by commenting on the peer review, which you will find here.

Your help would be appreciated. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Terri Schiavo case

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pain vs. suffering

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pain in animals and Pain in fish (not to mention Pain, Suffering and Pain and suffering) could use some help from philosophers of mind and neurophilosophers. Talk:Pain#Pain_versus_suffering gives a brief intro' to where we're at. Anthony (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD:Reverse scientific method

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please, go make your voice heard in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nihilist paradox

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article nihilist paradox is currently in great need of attention. I would especially like to change its name, which is currently ambiguous, to something closer to "skepticism paradox", but I would first like to seek the opinions of those who know more on the subject than I, and to hopefully garner some interest in the article so that verifiable information can be added. I wasn't sure whether this more closely applied to epistemology or logic so I will be posting it on both discussion pages; I hope this is not poor etiquette and I apologize if it is.

--✶♏✶ 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Scirus Google Scholar, Google web hits were uninteresting. The Smarandache book is not a reliable source, "skepticism paradox" yields nothing encyclopedic either. I have proposed merge to nihilism. Paradoctor (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No interest for merger, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist paradox. Paradoctor (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor resources

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I just happened onto this resource, and wondered: Where is our Resources subpage? Surely there is more material useful for philosophy editing in general than this, IEP and SEP? Paradoctor (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Reference resources I think. It is listed in the nav bar under editor resources. I would be open to suggestions on reorganizing.Greg Bard 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That was probably a freak variation in refractive index between my eyes and the monitor. Thanks for the pointer. Paradoctor (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making {{phil-sources}}. I think you should include it by default in {{philosophy}}. While we're at it, links to editor resources and the project's to do list might be a good idea. Paradoctor (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Free Credo References accounts

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Credo accounts free! Hurry, before they're gone. Make sure to check whether you already have access. Paradoctor (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sign-up closed now. Paradoctor (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested change at Stephen R. L. Clark

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Talk:Stephen R. L. Clark for the details on the requested change. This is in reference to an OTRS ticket. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cooler heads sought to calm edit war

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Catholic Church RfC

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophic burden of proof

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I came across Philosophic burden of proof recently; it could use some work. References and corrections would be great, but even just wikifying it and copyediting for style and tone would be appreciated.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I missed this when first posted, but I second the request. I've posted another comment on these lines below. Phiwum (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophers lacking an importance rating

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We have just over 2000 philosopher articles of unknown importance. I'd like to go ahead and start assessing these at low importance since I'm fairly certain that all mid/high level philosophers have been identified. I do realize that a few philosophers may have fallen through the cracks though which is why I'm asking for second opinions.

I'd like to start with articles beginning with the letter 'A'

Would you rate any of these at mid importance? I'll be setting them all at low importance if I don't hear anything. -Pollinosisss (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What criteria have been used to settle on "Mid" ratings? It is surprising to see Bracha L. Ettinger there, for example, alongside Heraclitus and Hannah Arendt?! But one might argue for so categorising André Glucksmann, André Gorz, Alain de Benoist and Alain Finkielkraut in line with others there. I suppose it depends what one wants to do with these? AllyD (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The assessment page mentions that a mid level article covers "a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of philosophy" or that "many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed".

In my opinion, if a philosopher is mentioned in a reputable general encyclopedia of philosophy (Stanford/Routledge/Macmillan), the philosopher is mid level or higher. This seems to me to be one of the easiest way of confirming whether a philosopher is more than a "low". Well known philosophers should also be rated at least "mid". I would call a philosopher "well known" if someone with an interest in philosophy but no academic background in the field is likely to be familiar with the philosopher in question.

I did a quick check in Routledge's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the projected contents of Standford's online encyclopedia for the names you mentioned(Bracha L. Ettinger, Heraclitus, Hannah Arendt, André Glucksmann, André Gorz, Alain de Benoist, Alain Finkielkraut). The only two philosophers present are Heraclitus and Arendt both already rated "mid". In my mind the other names should be set to "low".

Does all this make sense? -Pollinosisss (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that gives a rationale (and highlights the Ettinger anomaly). In general it probably means that political philosophers like those above and Castoriadis, Lefort etc. will sit at Low (too political for WP philosophy, too philosophical for WP politics). AllyD (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophic burden of proof (again)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page on philosophic burden of proof claims that "ontologically positive" claims have a heavier burden of proof than their negations. I've often heard such claims in casual conversations, but I've never seen the claim defended in philosophical publications. Are there any citations for this claim of asymmetry? If so, perhaps someone could add a few references. If not, perhaps we should discuss how the article can be changed.

Thanks for your help. Phiwum (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Mental structures

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Category:Mental structures was recently proposed for merging to Category:Abstraction. The discussion (here) ended with no consensus to merge, but a number of issues were raised that remain unaddressed.

I am posting here in the hope that the members of this WikiProject could take a look at the category and perhaps discuss some of those issues, either here, at Category talk:Mental structures, or in a new CfD nomination. (I have notified WikiProject Psychology also.) Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I supported your proposal Black Falcon. The category is unnecessary, composed only of a few random articles. I have been trying to categorize concepts in a comprehensive way. This category served no purpose in that. Even if we put it under philosophy of mind, it still doesn't help at all. I propose deleting it flatly.Greg Bard 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

Book:Abstraction (problems)
Book:Context (problems)
Book:Epistemology (problems)
Book:Formal science (problems)
Book:Information Theory (problems)
Book:Interpersonal relationship (problems)
Book:Logic (problems)
Book:Love (problems)
Book:Philosophy of science (problems)
Book:Society (problems)

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Philosophy articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A while back there was a proposal from someone in WikiProject Socialist movement to merge with the Marxism task force. I think this may be a good idea. I wonder if there is support for it? Then the question is 'within WP:PHILO or without?' Perhaps we should consider the same thing for WikiProject Anarchism. However I would like to see them get the Star of Sophia first. I think we need to 'break a piece off' for these hard workers before we 'break a piece off'. Any thoughts?Greg Bard 22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to see these things.

The Anarchism people were discussing this not that long ago. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism#WikiProject Philosophy discussion -Pollinosisss (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging Philosophy taskforce Marxism into WikiProject Socialism

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is no use for a philosophy marxist project when we have the Socialist WikiProject. We should either merge the Marxist taskforce into the Socialism project as a taskforce or to merge all information from the Marxist project into the Socialist one. Can i merge the marxist project, any objections?

Another note is that the majority of the members has either left wikipedia, or been inactive in developing articles related to marxism at all. --TIAYN (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Support -- I would prefer it if the title was "Socialism" rather than "Socialist movements" because it is inclusive of the type of articles to be merged in (i.e. "Marxist thought" which is not necessarily "Marxist movement").Greg Bard 16:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Information Philosopher and Wikipedia

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems user Cmsreview (talk · contribs) is incorporating lots of material from the informationphilosopher.com website into Wikipedia. There is no licensing problems, but the interpretation of secondary sources on that website may not be completely mainstream. I'm not sure this is a problem, but I would like to make sure this has been or will be discussed somewhere. I just raised some concert about his free will articles here, but I now wonder more generally what to make of his contributions all across Wikipedia. Maybe even admin action is needed. Although I have not looked deeply into his work, I suspect this may not be completely good. Vesal (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Christ myth theory

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a dispute as to whether Christ myth theory—an article about the theory that Jesus may not have existed as an historical figure—ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well-formed formula

Latest comment: 14 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

There is some systemic bias on the part of mathematicians causing removal of philosophical material from articles in logic. At least one editor believes that philosophy is a bunch of "nonsense". Could someone take a look at well-formed formula please.Greg Bard 00:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote was nonsense to the extent related to that topic, even to philosophers. And I was intending to say that philosophy often discusses nonsense, not that philosophy (other than that added by the above editor) often is nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy is nonsense, but since we have articles about Time Cube and Paris Hilton, this is not an argument. I'm a bit surprised that two vets like you do not turn to sources to argue their point. Paradoctor (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Greg's statements, and I don't see a (reliable) source presented for them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire lede is unsourced, and the article's set of references is ~~a joke~~ grossly inadequate. Paradoctor (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well-formed formulas are a very fundamental topic in mathematical logic, and they are basically trivial. So long as no crackpot comes along (or sometimes an editor with much more interest in half-understood Wikipedia processes than in the article subject will do), large parts of mathematics articles are very unlikely to be challenged because they can be verified using any introduction into the respective field. Therefore we generally don't use footnote references for such things.

Leads do not normally get references anyway (except in contentious articles where people fight over POVs in the lead), because they are supposed to summarise the rest of the article.

That said, the article is underreferenced, even by the standards of a maths article. But that's no excuse to fill it with nonsense such as "a well-formed formula [...] is an idea, abstraction or concept which is expressed using the symbols and formation rules [...] of a particular formal language." Hans Adler 11:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: See Talk:Well-formed formula, where you can see that it's just the usual situation. Gregbard having misunderstood the philosophical side of things (he even claims that

\forall x(x=x)

, ♣♥

\blacksquare

♥♠♥

\square

, "Law of identity" and "Principe d'identité" all represent the same formula, i.e. he has not understood that a well-formed formula is just a string of symbols over an alphabet) and then claiming the evil conspiracy of mathematicians is out to remove all philosophy from the wiki. Hans Adler 12:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One philosopher's nonsense is the next philosopher's foundational issue. How about saying "{{cn}}"? Rather than disparaging good faith efforts. Put yourself in my shoes: How do I know it is not you who misunderstands WFFs? If it is so easy to source, then please do it. Paradoctor (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumably because you understand them yourself? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you underestimate my capacity for intellectual underachievement. Paradoctor (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am working on sourcing the article, but it is not easy because there are so many incompatible terminological choices floating around in this area. Right now I am working on a little survey of relevant philosophy, mathematics and computer science literature. The major problem in this area is that mathematics and computer science have moved forward to uniform terminology, but older mathematics and philosophy texts use old or idiosyncratic terminology, and modern philosophy texts usually stick to the obsolete terminology unless they are written by Wilfrid Hodges who is also a mathematician. Hans Adler 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"not easy because there are so many incompatible terminological choices": I don't see a problem with that. If the literature is inhomogenous, then we say that. It's not our job to smoothen the waves. We just point our fingers and yell: "Thar she blows!" Paradoctor (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. This is a silly article topic anyway. So far as I am concerned it could as well be deleted as it serves no real purpose that wouldn't be served better by a section in another article. Since it's all so easy for you I suggest that you fix the article. As far as I am concerned everything is fine so long as the article doesn't make any nonsensical or false claims. I am looking forward to seeing the result of your work. Hans Adler 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A challenge! :) Paradoctor (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a few sources this morning, but getting a broader selection would be nice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I located the likely cause of confusion: it's a single sentence of Hunter's book, written in idiosyncratic terminology, taken out of context. See Talk:Well-formed_formula#Hunter's_book for more details. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Carl, you are mistaken about identifying what is properly called an "occurrence" as a "token." The type-token distinction (which is considered to be "an important distinction" at SEP) is further clarified by identifying occurrences as distinct from tokens as discovered by Quine. The problem here is that we have a lot of smart mathematicians flying by the seat of their pants in the area of philosophy, for which they have no respect. If you could all please...Greg Bard 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(...I had to step away from the computer). Say listen folks, I'm afraid I have to go on record as the mature adult in the room along with Paradoctor and CBM. Hans needs to learn how to behave and pause to think before posting. CBM is very intelligent but wrong about types, tokens and occurances. Hans is just wrong about it. The issue at hand is a matter of ontology. What is a "well-formed formula" an idea or a physical object? Well if there are legitimate philosophers of mathematics who are out there with more fine tuned clarifications than Quine than let's clarify them in the article. I do not believe that we have a POV issue here. I think the matter has been settled (and the reliable Hunter source clearly and specifically supports) that formulas are concepts not physical objects. What is the difference between a line and an "imaginary line?" Because insofar as mathematics is concerned there is no difference. The imaginary line article is a geography article. Perhasp we need to make an article for just "formula" as distinct from well-formed formula, but that would not be consistent the literature I have seen. They are widely considered synonymous (just like "line" and "imaginary line".Greg Bard 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg? Mature? In any case, the discussion should be there, rather than here. Only the pointer should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The mature thing to do is join me in the role as mature adult, not disparage my claim Arthur. That's what a mature adult does in a public space with guidelines for civility. Philosophy isn't nonsense Arthur. Greg Bard 20:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some philosopher here could enlighten me. I am under the impression that what I see as " $\forall x(x=x)$ " is a token of a particular well-formed formula-type, which I can name Φ. Φ has three occurrences of the symbol-type for which "x" is a token, and none of these occurrences is itself a token, while the token " $\forall x(x=x)$ " contains three different token instances of the letter "x" in it, and is a different token than the one that I wrote earlier in this paragraph. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Carl, I will have to double check, but I think you may have it exactly. I did expand the type-token distinction article so as to cover occurences, so perhaps that will help. I want to take this opportunity to conspicuously thank you for your brilliance, and civility. The fact that you have never taken an attitude with me, or anyone else as far as I know brings into sharp relief the incompetance and incivility of your collegues. They have no excuse at all, and that is clear. It makes me wonder why you associate with them, quite frankly. They inevitably bring you and the reputation of the whole WP:MATH down whether you believe it or not. You are probably too non-combative and decent to get in there and correct their incivility. Please, Carl consider taking more action against your collegues' attitude. You are the real moral leadership in that group, so you really do have some additional burden of responsibility. That is the life goes. The mature adults have to suffer the children.

Should I refer here to Greg's tendency to find one source for a questioned definition, and insert the changed definition in all the articles which refer to that topic? Or would that be considered immature? In any case, the question Greg brought up here refers only to one article, so the discussion should be there, rather than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are people supposed to think I've done something terrible Arthur? My interpretation of things is this: There are two types of Wikipedia editors: Consensus builders and prima donnas. The consensus builders like myself Paradoctor and CBM are willing to reformulate, propose alternate wording, don't immediately presume about the motivations and credibility of contributors, etcetera. The prima donnas delete anything that doesn't fit their narrow view of things, without productive reformulations. The prima donnas believe they are too-good to work with the hoi-polloi on Wikipedia. Interestingly it is the consensus builders that are actually responsible for writing the content. The prima donnas just delete things and basically behave like Statler and Waldorf without lifting a finger to actually write something. Prima donnas are worse than trolls because people don't immediately realize what trolls they are. So Arthur, when was the last time you actually wrote a whole paragraph for wikipedia? Drop the attitude. You are not being mature, righteous or helpful. Grow up, quite frankly. I, for one, think have this discussion here in the Φ discussion area is perfectly appropriate so we can have these attitudes and uncivil behavior by yourself, and your colleagues on record. WP is an openly editable and viewable forum Arthur. Everyone can see who is mature and who is not. Just why is it that Carl is capable of working civilly and respectfully but you aren't? Greg Bard 20:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

These personal attacks on a noticeboard are probably not creating the effect you desire. Knock it off. Phiwum (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to go on record again. I stand by my statement. My identifying problems isn't itself a problem, Phiwum. Furthermore, it is not a personal attack on anyone in particular unless you presume. I for one do not presume. I don't play games either. If people want to reform themselves and join with me in communicating in a civil, respectful, productive manner, than I will be completely forgiving (as usual). These issues have a long history, and I do not have to pretend about that. Phiwum, I invite your increased scrutiny, and correspondence on these issues. However, I think your last statement was unproductive, and inappropriate. We don't have to be helpless and think "Oh there's a conflict, if only both sides would change thier ways!" We are actually able to evaluate and see that one side or the other is wrong and take a stand on it. I think you are mistakenly engaging in civility for civility's sake, which is quite innocent, but not appropriate in this case. As for "desired effect", you are actually going to have to investigate the matter more thoroughly than whatever immediate impression the rhetoric leaves. Be well. Greg Bard 21:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing philosophy topics

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've updated my page about missing philosophy topics - Skysmith (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 11/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 11/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This list is now active. There are currently 158 Unreferenced Philosophy articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Articles for deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. Jstriker (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Helped needed at Talk:Christ myth theory

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Input would be appreciated to settle a dispute at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Should the lead contain a dissenting voice?

The Christ myth theory is the argument that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. This is a small-minority view within academia. Some Wikipedians and scholars say it is a fringe view. There is therefore a disagreement as to whether the lead should contain a dissenting voice, and if so, what it should say.

Should the lead contain the following sentence? "The philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians—and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank—a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it." The source is Martin's The Case Against Christianity 1991, pp. 36–37. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hegel

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, can someone please evaluate the last few edits to Hegel, please? Thanks. — goethean ॐ 19:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks excessive to me, I have opened up a topic on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of perception

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have replaced the weak introductory section by a more thorough one. At the talk page I have left a short report and suggestions to further improve the article. A short paragraph on externalist conceptions is still needed. --Morton Shumway (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC). I further ask the article to be assessed on the importance scale. --Morton Shumway (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the interest is not overwhelming, and I have listed myself as a member of the portal by now, I found it justifiable to set the PhOP article's importance rating to "mid" on my own initiative. --Morton Shumway (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposed: Destiny of the unevangelized and Fate of the unlearned

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I proposed this on their pages. No one seems to have taken note, nothing being said for or against. Does that default to favoring the merge? I don't know. If a merge proposal falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.132 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Set a date and watch. If nobody stirs, you have consensus by default. And there's always WP:BOLD, of course. Paradoctor (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But if I did it myself, that would have to be a cut and paste. Thought that wasn't allowed. And also, am I maybe missing some distinction, or are these really amounting to the same thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.132 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 April 2010

Continued at your talk page. Paradoctor (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 149 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)