The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The overwhelming majority of text in this article is unsourced. Worse, the overwhelming majority of text in this article is unverifiably vague, or simply false (e.g.: analytic philosophy is not identical to anglophone philosophy, and continental philosophy by that name is primarily practiced in anglophone philosophy departments). Numerous discussions on the talk page have made it clear that this page is essentially a piece of original research by User:Lucas. 271828182 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The book that is cited by the article is not only subtitled "Comparing Analytic and Continental Philosophy", it also has a chapter on the subject of "On the Analytic-Continental Divide in philosophy" that runs to 42 pages. Then there are:
  • page 11 of ISBN 3937202366 — where Simons argues that Austrian philosophy is "geographically continental" but "in content and tenor analytic"
  • the two chapters of ISBN 0415162513 — chapter 5 where Sacks examines the two traditions' approaches to a single subject and chapter 3 where Ross argues that the analytic/continential dichotomy is incorrect
  • ISBN 0631221255 — where Solomon discusses the twain on page 1
  • ISBN 0415242096 — which discusses and critiques "Rorty's attempt to restore the peace" on pages 14 to 17
  • ISBN 0748624716 — where Glendinning argues, like Ross, that the analytic/continential dichotomy is incorrect
• And those are just for starters. There are plenty of sources on this subject to be used, both that describe the idea of the split and that argue against it. Any problems with this article are a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Keep. Uncle G 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While there are sources on the general topic of analytic and continental styles of philosophy, that has little to do with the issue at hand, which is the article in question. The article makes no reference to the sources Uncle G mentions (aside from one book), and the overwhelming majority of the claims in the article would be quite difficult to trace to such sources, owing to their vagueness or falsity. Crucially, the entire article is premised on a strongly POV assumption that the titular divide exists as a sharp distinction, capable of yielding the (unsourced) blanket generalizations made in practically every line of the article. An article needing cleanup "generally requires only editing skills" -- but this article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch, quite likely including the title. And as the history of this article shows, such a global revision would likely provoke a series of reverts and edit wars that would tax the patience or sanity of all but the saintliest of Wikipedians. Given these fundamental problems of verifiability and POV original research, this article is beyond mere cleanup. 271828182 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assertion that an article needs rewriting, a cleanup action for which we have a cleanup tag (((cleanup-rewrite))), does not support a conclusion that fixing the problems with the article is not a matter of cleanup. Uncle G 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. on 271828182's comment aboveTo say it is beyond cleanup and should be deleted means you must deny the premise of the book which is called, as noted by Uncle G above: "Comparing Analytic and Continental Philosophy". You should also go to the pages Continental Philosophy and Analytic Philsophy and suggest they be deleted too since you deny such a divide exists. Given the divide and that neither of the two mentioned above pages can satisfy the requirment of an unbiased article we need a page to details the historical course of this schism (as Rorty calls it) and also provide some clarity to the huge amount of confusion that results in philosophy because of this split. --Lucas 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds more like a content dispute than an unsourced article. However, since I have absolutely no expertise on its subject, I'm not qualified to comment on its content. However, I agree that this is a keep based on UncleG's rationale above. -- The Anome 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not in an encyclopedic tone but probably does contain some useful information, so keep. It could also possibly do with a renaming. --HisSpaceResearch 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's no such thing as a renaming, unfortunately; there is only delete&merge vs. keep. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish
    • Wrong on both points. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and the help pages. Uncle G 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake. Thanks. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The conflation of 'the philosophy that anglophones do' and analytic philosophy is bigoted and inaccurate. No cleaning up can possibly fix such a fundamental error in the article title. If the material were shifted to a page on the division between continental metaphysics and analytic philosophy, then I wouldn't object to that; but the current heading is unacceptable. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • No cleaning up can possibly fix such a fundamental error in the article title. — Rubbish! Of course it can. You, as an editor with an account, have a move button. No more than that is required. Uncle G 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My sympathy rests with deletion and moving of content, because of the sheer erroneousness of the title. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThere is nothing wrong with Anglophone/Analytic philosophy and it is not bigoted but de facto. Suggest the name also is kept, it balances any accusation of bias, since nor is the word Continental, used by the continental Philosophers, who tend to use Anglophone to refer to U.S./British philosophy that is called by themselves Analytic. No one said Analytic was identical with Anglophone but they are often used nowadays interchangeably. There are sources there too, in all thirteen pblished philosophers. Nor is there "evidence on the talk page" that this is original or unsourced. One comment on the talk pages suggest it is the best article they have read in philosophy. --Lucas 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First: there are three references, not thirteen. I'm not sure exactly where the latter number came from. Second: in any case, if Analytic philosophy is not meant to be paired with the Anglophone ethnicity in any rigid way, then this should not be suggested by the forward slash. Hence the requirement for moving the article. Third: there is a contingent historical connection between Anglophone countries and analytic philosophy that no-one will deny. However, if it is true that the two are used "interchangably" by some group of people -- an assertion which remains to be proven -- then it is out of carelessness, not prudence. Grad school programs at Northwestern University, Boston University, McGill University, SUNY Stony Brook, among many other so-called "Anglo" universities, presently emphasize an interdisciplinary education which is versed in both in continental and analytic forms. Moreover, I'm sure that the Polish logicians would be rather surprised to hear about the latent anglo-analytic suggestion (for one). { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The thirteen I referred to were the number of top line philosophers who wrotes essays in the book called "A House Divided". But it even took them 50 years before coming to that book, since as Rorty suggests it was in the 50s that the "take over" of English language philosophy schools occurred by the Analytic philosophers. Yet even these 13 are not the only ones who refer to this divide, it is also remarked upon by many others.
  • The issue of using the term Anglophone is a little complicated but mainly under an accusation of Anglophone bias the words used by Continentals for themselves is not Continental, they are labelled as such by Analytics. However, Analytics call themselves Analytic. So we have to add a word that Continentals use for Analytics, that word is Anglophone (or do you know a better one). Lucas 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be sure, nobody doubts that there is a continental/analytic distinction in the history of philosophy. The item under question is not that, but whether or not use of "Anglo" as a synonymy for "Analytic" is a bigoted conflation.
    • The ugly story of slight and revenge is not at all grounding for Wikipedia's endorsement of it. It is curious that anyone could think that such a thing would be appropriate.
    • My alternative word is "analytic", because there is no reason which rests in facts to conflate analytic philosophy and those of anglophone heritage. "Continental (metaphysics)" may have been a more or less crappy phrase, but at least it was geographical, not ethnic. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is of course a fundamental error at the beginning of the article. The rest of the article is not terribly well written. Moreover it is mostly unsourced and appears to be a personal essay. By the way, who is use 271828182? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)

• • Comment This and other comments are time wasting. Many various editors have contributed to this article. If the voices here spend even a tenth of the time they spend complaining and actually on improving the article itself it would be a fuller representation, though inevitably on an English language website they will always be a tendency toward an Analytic style.
  • delete hopelessly pov, simplistic & innacurate. terms 'b. analytic' & 'cont. phil.' are inherently slippery, & often only terms of abuse. granted they are are commonly used but (& the polish logicians are a good example here) these terms don't actually correspond to either schools, methodologies or even geographical distribution. would be better to have descriptions of how these terms are commonly (mis)used, in the relevant articles. the rest can be covered in more specific articles on the relevant issues/debates. this article also hopelessly oversimplifies most of the so called 'continental philosophy' it briefly teeters into. (also sentences like "At times parsimoniously reifying concepts that are, in fact, more complexly related." aside from possibly being meaningless, are not appropriate in a general purpose encyclopedia). cld be stubbed, but unlikely to ever produce a useful article, also problems with art. name.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "hopelessly pov, simplistic & innacurate" can be solved by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, using the many sources that exist on the subject. "also problems with art. name" can, similarly, be solved by ordinary editors (that have accounts) using the normal editing tools that they possess. Uncle G 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • While what you say is true, it remains the case that there is a latent association in the article title that passes itself off as a necessary association. However we deal with this, be it through mere redirect or outright move, it is disrespectful to analytics in the world outside Anglophonia, and disrespectful to Continentals within it. I think that that rationale should be made totally clear, here. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Some of the text is fine. But no article should exist with this title (opposing "Anglophone" with "Continental"). Delete page, move worthy content elsewhere (even to Analytic and Continental), and work on bringing it up to standards. CHE 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • CommentThe issue of geography is made abundantly clear in the article. The reason for the article is that neither of the pages on Analytic or the one on Continental are capable of giving an unbiased overview of the split. Though both of these article do say they are defined mainly as being in distinction from the other. The issue of parsimony is not meaningless, nor is reifying. The section you refer to on pejorative uses gets across some of the heat of the division. The urgency with which a few editors seem to want to delete the article completely even thought they never edited it, also tells of this blind-spot in wiki philosophy. Anglophone seems to be the keyword here, Analytics do not like it, it seems, but why do you not like being "Anglophone", is it self-disgust or what? As to insulting those on the Continent who do Analytic in French, for example, I would say it is not insulting but a reality most of them have to read the major Analytic philosophers and they are mainly in English. Again we try to give a general sense of this divide without the one-to-one accuracy of terms that certain, mainly Analytic people, believe exists.

"The reason for the article is that neither of the pages on Analytic or the one on Continental are capable of giving an unbiased overview of the split." You are assuming that only analytic philosophers (with animosity toward so-called continental) edit the analytic article, and only 'continental' philosophers (with animosity toward analytic) edit the Continental philosophy article and never the twain shall meet. Why not assume good faith that those editing these articles do not have such an agenda. Zeusnoos 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As to insulting those on the Continent who do Analytic in French, for example, I would say it is not insulting but a reality most of them have to read the major Analytic philosophers and they are mainly in English." I do not understand how this sentence is intended to provide grounds for your conclusion. If "most of them have to read the major Analytic philosophers", then that provides grounds for the opposite conclusions. And analytic texts, like all texts, are translated into other tongues. Those that originate in English, may be translated into French. But this is so elementary that I must have misunderstood you. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The anonymous commentator above misunderstands me. My suggestion was that moving the material to an Analytic+Continental page would be an improvement, because Analytic and Anglophone philosophy are importantly different. CHE 16:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • As another endorsement I quote one comment from the talk page:

This text makes me somewhat cross-eyed as while I do not find it to conform to the usual standards of what makes a good article, it is despite this amongst the most enlightening I have read on Wikipedia. So if the question of "cleaning it up" should ever arise, I vote to forgive its blatant formal errors for the benefit of holism. :continental school: Staretsen 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • That endorsement does not deal with the title, which is the true grounding for deletion. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The title just like the body of the article can be changed after discussion on the talk page. The overall commendation is still relevant since if the decision is to change the name then the body of the article is still endorsed by the above editor and should not be deleted. You already argued this issue of Anglophone on the talk page where your argument didnt seem to stack up. --Lucas 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A redirect gives it an ounce more credibility than it deserves, and that's too much. And for the record, I have yet to make a single comment on the talk page for this article. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The title is obviously inappropriate. Indeed, the citation to Rorty which Lucas keeps mentioning is one I provided to demonstrate that analytic philosophy is something Anglophone philosophy departments started doing at some point in their history. Previously, they did something ELSE (mainly neo-Hegelianism), and they did it anglophonically. Furthermore, analytic philosophy has its most important roots in German-language philosophy - Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap.

I have argued for deletion in the Talk section. I have also attempted to make changes - which really means deleting the many errors and leaving little substance (e.g. the "Schism" section), but the main author simply reverts. Even the "endorsement" mentions that there are "blatant formal errors"! There is nothing here which could not be covered in a couple of accurate sentences in the Continental and Analytic main articles. KD

• Comment: One amusing feature of this discussion is that as a prominent non-analytic anglophone philosopher, Rorty himself is an excellent counter-example to the title's conflation. CHE 04:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This particular article is mainly an original-research essay and should not exist, and furthermore nothing should exist at the title "Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy". A better written, better sourced, and more cautious article on the schism between analytic and continental philosophy might be worth writing, though. --Delirium 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:There is nothing original about this article, again it is a major issue of contemporary philosophy, the article has many references, multiple editors work on it. Anyhow, this is not a delete but a re-write request. Nor does CHE seem to understand that Rorty crosses the divide he does not refute it, but sees it very clearly. --Lucas 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as OR essay. I know little about the issue, but I recognise that with blanket statements like "Continental and Analytic philosophers tend to ignore one another", this is one poor article. The topic is clearly notable, though. Sandstein 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well they do "tend to ignore one another"! Wake up and read the reference material or any entrenched Analytic or Continental philosopher, you will not seem them mention philosophers other than those in their own side of the schism, anyhow the statement is backed up by a reference. Searle remarked the attidude of Analytic to postmodernism is that "most of this stuff just passes them by, they wonder, why waste my time attackingit".
• I really do not know from where this move to delete the article rather than rename it, the article has been the work of over 40 editors over only a few months, there are 7 references to books and journals by leading philosophers which is even better than the intro to the main wiki philosophy page! Not only this but the page has to resist trained minions who can only see Analytic or Continental philosophy but never both.
• By the way, the page was called just "Analytic and Continental Philosophy", we could rename it to this if required. The reason Anglophone was added to the name I explained above, such reasons no one seems to refute, since balance is the key to this article. However, I added an extra caveat in the article on the much disliked word, "Anglophone." --Lucas 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Come on, I have given any number of reasons to "refute" the new title on the Talk Page. (1) "Anglophone" just means English-speaking, which Wittgenstein, Frege, Carnap and the rest of the Vienna Circle, and countless lesser analytic philosophers were not (I mean, of course, they didn't write English as their first language). (2) As the Rorty quote makes clear, Anglophone philosophy departments existed for a century or so without teaching analytic philosophy. (3) As has been pointed out endlessly on the Talk page, and here, both these kinds of philosophy are done by Anglophone and non-Anglophone philosophers. The title has to change. As for re-writing, the main part of the article is a series of comparative sections (X vs Y). All of these are just wrong - they need to come out. The schism section has only a couple of arguably relevant entries. The rest needs to be deleted. Then just try to read what's left ("At times parsimoniously reifying concepts that are, in fact, more complexly related.") An entirely new article could be written, but I'd recommend a few, consistent sentences in the existing articles for Analytic and Continental (with balanced comments on the philosophers who have tried to understand both traditions: Dummett, Ryle, etc). As for "trained minions who can only see Analytic or Continental philosophy but never both", my undergraduate philosophy degree is from an Anglophone, analytic Philosophy Department, where I specialised in Wittgenstein; my postgraduate was based on Heidegger and Nietzsche. So I do both - which is not as freakish as this article implies. Note also that a bunch of references were added only after the article was threatened with deletion: it's not clear that the content of the article was based on that material - indeed, given the errors in the article it seems unlikely. KD
• Yes you have given reasons but they do not refute this use of the word. (1) Anglophone connotes more than one thing (2) Rorty makes clear the Anglophone was "taken over" in the 50s and remains taken over by Analytic philosophy. When a country is conquered the flag is changed. (3) I remind you each time that the artcile makes it clear that Analytic also takes place in Italy etc. and that when they read they must read alot of English, you can't do Analytic without Anglophone otherwise you can't read all the latest Analytic stuff in the journals which is overwhelmingly Anglophone (4) The comparitive sections are backed up by references, they are well known differences between these two camps as illucidated in the 10 or so references given at the bottom of the article. By the way you obviously never read the referenced material? (5) It is based closely and with quotes on these references, most of which were already there if not so explicitly. (6) The article does not make out that doing both Analytic and Continental is freakish, Rorty seems to do ok and we quote him there. Ask youself why your degree was Analytic? and further why did you switch entirely to Continental for your postgrad? Did you learn anything, what was the difference? And if there is none why didnt you do Heidegger at degree level? Again if you spent a tenth of the time on the article instead of on the talk page and here trying to delete it, you might have contributed something to wiki. --Lucas 21:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also both the page for Analytic and Continental refer to this article to give a full and unbiased explanation of this contentious issue which I'm sure you'll appreaciate cannot be in a neutral way on either of those two pages. --Lucas 21:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 say keep,

7 say delete.

Note, a number of the nay-sayers, suggest retaining the article but under another name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucaas (talk • contribs)

User:Lucaas, please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy. There is no "five-day cutoff" for AfD discussion. Your attempt to moderate this AfD discussion according to non-standard rules would be inappropriate even if you weren't the article's creator and chief editor. And note that AfD is not a vote. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. So the consensus here is either (1) delete, (2) keep, under the technical defense that the article could be entirely rewritten from the title on, or (3) Lucaas' (the page's original researcher creator) contention that it's fine. I wonder if those advocating option (2) would be so eager to vote thus if they had to endure said "editing" with Lucaas. 271828182 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. The consensus here does not exist, there are a number of people who say keep a number who say delete. According to wiki policy this means the article should stay. This page here is for deciding on keeping it or deleting it. To the page itself or the talk page if you want to edit it. As I said above there have been over 40 editors who have edited this page, and I am but one of them and usually we cooperate well. I have noticed contributions from 2718...(why not get real name!) have been mainly in controversy over the word "Anglophone", I'm sure in your dictionary at home you have blotted the word out. In any case I'd prefer if you now made some positive contributions to the article. --Lucas 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Addhoc 20:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Though there are some supporting citations for a few of its claims, the bulk of this article is idiosyncratic, original interpretation and synthesis, stated as though it were incontrovertible factual information, in Wikipedia's voice – exactly what the original research guideline is meant to guard against. There are serious NPOV issues with some of these claims as well, but this is a secondary concern. I agree that it would be possible to write a neutral, well-sourced, synthetic encyclopedia article on the analytic-continental split, but this is not that article. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are lots of supporting claims many more than other articles. The references list has about 10 references. And these are to unknown authors but to well known philosophers. So though someone might like to claim original authorship of such a fine article this has all been said by the referenced philosophers.

As to idiosyncratic, well this is not a delete claim this means you should go and edit it. Anyhow I believe these comments occurred after the 5 day deadline. --Lucas 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Note, mistake there are infact 11 references. --Lucas 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that the same article now exists in two places: Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy, with the AfD tag, and Analytic and Continental Philosophy, without the AfD tag but with a more complete edit history. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry about that. I was the one who did it. I didn't mean to rid the thing of an edit history. I take full responsibility. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to worry about claiming responsibility; the only issue is whether this AfD ought to apply to both articles (I think so, and my delete certainly goes for both, since the content is identical and the second one was created apparently by accident during the AfD discussion). A separate AfD discussion for each duplicate seems unnecessary. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please, and further develop the article on the same subject with the simpler title, Analytic and Continental Philosophy. It's an extremely interesting compare-and-contrast study, even if it categorizes the philosophical divide with very broad swipes. This divide is well recognized in the history of philosophy, and in due course with due diligence, holds the possibility of being an excellent and informative article. ... Kenosis 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a move request not a delete. Again Anglophone is no less an incorrect term than Continental, there are plenty of philsophers doing Continental who do not live there.--Lucas 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - dubious premise for an article, and most if not all of the current content consists either of drastic overgeneralizations or plain falsehoods -- Palthrow 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment - this is a dubious complaint, and unlike the article is unreferenced. --Lucas 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Lucas wrote: "Again if you spent a tenth of the time on the article instead of on the talk page and here trying to delete it, you might have contributed something to wiki." For the record, I corrected the Schism section, and Lucas reverted to the previous version. I know when I am wasting my time. The References - as I said above, these were dropped into the article as an afterthought when it was threatened with deletion. It would be interesting to check them (for the most part, page references are missing). The reference to Heidegger (#6) obviously does not support the (false) claim made in the article ("Continental philosophy on the other hand tends to use the term Logic more loosely...etc). Ref #8 is easily checked too, as its online, and it does not support the text in the article ("each accused of being either, too historical or completely ahistorical"). I wonder if the other references are much better.KD

• • Coment: The references are there none the less, it is part of the work of the article build up the quality, and references are part of it. You have obviously not read the reference to Heidegger, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. Again there are over 10 references and if you cared to check them you would find them to be correct. Page numbers are also given on a number of them others refer to the entire text. I reverted the change you made on the History of the Schism because you were not contributing, all you wanted to do was remove a whole lot of it without further illuminating the topic. I also gave reasons for leaving it there, that are apparent in the article itself, it is also referenced. --Lucas 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Overall Coment Prior to Closure: The article is undoubtedly controversial, inevitably so, because the issue rises between both of the main academic philosophies. Since this is an English speaking website, Analytic trained people have prepondered and wish to delete it. Why? because it shows up perhaps a whole other way of doing philosophy that is at least equal to it. The same would probably happen on the Continental website. With multiple references and 40 contributors, to delete it would be a waste and it would be giving in to prejudice. --Lucas 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It mystifies me that much of the pro-"deletes" have been on the basis of content and referencing. Neither are grounds for deletion.

However, the bigoted title is very much grounds for deletion. Perhaps you disagree, and maintain the position that the forward-slash is not indicative of synonymy, etc. (As you know, I think this is an entirely untenable position.) But feigning innocence and confusion over this point on your part, making a variety of attributions of bad will, prejudice, etc. is disengenuous at best. I own a book by Lyotard. I am inspired by the existentialists. But these facts, far from endearing me to your position, actually motivate me further to clear up the error. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of adding Anglophone to the title was to even up the balance, since, someone had complained that it is unfair to call Continentals, "Continental" as they do not call themselves that. Anglophone evens it up a little. So the bigotry I must tell you is on your side (regardless of what books you read) and I feign no innocence: I mentioned clearly above that I see the bigoted view coming mainly from a very English-centred philosophy. However, the same I agreed might happen on a Continental website. --Lucas 12:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • THis is the kind of thing which makes progress impossible: "You have obviously not read the reference to Heidegger, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that." I have a doctorate in Heidegger's philosophy, I know Being and Time like the back of my hand; he does not say there or anywhere that COntinental philosophers understand logic more loosely in terms of Logos. Both the references I checked were wrong; given that the others were dumped long after the article appeared, skepticism is inevitable. If page numbers were provided by whoever (!) inserted them, they would be easier to check. I removed the entries under Key Moments in the Schism which didn't mention analytic philosopher or philosophers at all. I corrected the entries on Carnap and Searle/Derrida, but Lucas reverted to the previous factually incorrect entries. I would like to see the article deleted, and I am not an analytic philosopher. It is as much of an embarrassment to both schools. An article about difference between analytic and Continental philosophy could be written: the current article has a fatally misleading title, and is something like 90% wrong - either factually inaccurate or meaningless. Those calling for re-writes nevertheless have to realise, from this page and the talk page, that Lucas will block and undo any editing which changes the article fundamentally. KD P.S. Now we've voted, can it be deleted please?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.