This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

31 JULY 2013 SARTAJ HUNDAL

1. There can be no computation without the axiomatic method.
2. We do not know why the axiomatic method is here in the first place. (need references, history of axioms...)

       # Is an axiom merely mental content?

# How do we judge content that we cannot see? # If there exists invisible phenomena, then a theistic view of the Universe is permitted

1. The Internet (intergalactic network) has provided a battleground of ideology, where mental content is represented

as pure energy streams of 1's and 0's. Images of Jungian archetypes and alchemy come into the domain of our phenomenology.

1. Since the Internet is an observable phenomena, but work is produced by mere mental content, then extra-normal activity may be permitted within the constraints of classical and quantum domains, a la Stuart Kauffman.
2. Referring to Maxwell's information demon, if the total entropy of the Universe is an exponential, and an exponential is merely a number (Euler's joke to Diderot), then numbers (ie. symbols) are spun in and out of existence without constraints.
3. Under the grand unified theory (GUT), merging classical and quantum domains and taking a differential over the result would imply that the demon from (4) exists in every dimension, where the dimension d > 0, but not equal to 0 (ie. such a demon can never be in the empty set).
4. Open question: is the demon actually God?

Vektor-k (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The only possible logically empiric response to your open question is that the answer is unknowable. I.e., agnosticism. warshy^¥¥ 17:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An RfC regarding a figure involving ontology and ontological commitment is found here. Please comment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see the summary of the present lamentable state of affairs on this subject here Comments needed. Brews ohare (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please Note: Another editor has proposed that Category:Moral philosophers be merged into Category:Ethicists. Your participation in the CFD discussion would be greatly welcomed. Cgingold (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there's a note at WT:PHYSICS about a discussion at template talk:Science concerning Template:Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi all - as of late, I've been working a lot on bios of women philosophers. We were missing a lot of people who were not only notable, but foundational in their fields. Alison Jaggar for instance had no Wikipedia article at all until I wrote it this week. I would like to eventually transform my own efforts in to something like Keilana's Wikiproject Women Scientists, except for philosophers. I haven't set up all the infrastructure yet for an actual wikiproject, but for now I've put up a page in my own user space - here - that has a partial list of notable women philosophers who currently don't have articles. If anyone has the time and inclination, some help filling some of them out would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to add new names to the list, too! Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll write Samantha Brennan and Rachel Barney. Give me at least a few days though. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

image:Plato, Confucius, Avicenna.png is up for deletion, it seems to be used on a lot of philo articles -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A dispute has arisen on the Ayn Rand article talk page. Please come help out here: [1]. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Inconceivable!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to check out the question in dispute. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have updated Missing topics about Philosophy - Skysmith (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This version of Pluralism (philosophy) has been subjected to a number of inadvisable changes by MachineElf. These changes have been carefully examined on its Talk page, but MachineElf refuses to comment. The issues of substance involve the definitions in the introductory section. We need some additional input on this page. Brews ohare (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hang on Brews, he reverted your changes didn't he? ----Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This article Pluralism (philosophy) contains incorrect definitions and a lack of sources. I provided sourced corrections and a Talk page explanation. MachineElf reverted them without comment. That is not how matters can be improved. Brews ohare (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So he didn't initiate changes, he reverted yours. You don't like that and prefer your changes. This happens on wikipedia all the time Brews its what WP:BRD is all about. Your opening comment here is misleading in that it implies the changes were initiated by another editor when in fact you are the one who wants to make them. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Not the case at all. Your statement of my position is entirely your own. I have no problem with discussion, but MachineElf won't do it. It would be folly indeed to suggest that changes to WP articles can be reverted at will, without any need for discussion, as MachineElf has done. That is particularly so in this case, where unsourced material has been replaced with correct and sourced material. The fruitful action is to respond on the Talk page to the explanations I have provided for introducing the sourced material Brews ohare (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Present status of Pluralism (philosophy)

As it now stands, this article has important defects, including overly narrow and unsourced definitions and misstatement of subject. Changes are held hostage by MachineElf and Snowded, who refuse all discussion. There is nothing that can be done to improve this article (or indeed many philosophy articles on WP) without broader interest from this group. Brews ohare (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Philosophical Papers assigns editors to keep bibliographies for certain subjects it calls 'categories'. An example is Ontological Pluralism maintained by Nurbay Irmak and another is Ontological commitment, a category in Philosophical Papers maintained by Henry Laycock. I entered these links under 'External links' as a service to readers interested in pursuing these topics, and Snowded has removed them [2] [3] on the basis that "we don't use searches as external sources". I think an editor-maintained list of papers is not equivalent to a Google search, and I also think these lists are useful to readers. We need some decision on this matter. Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to live with the view of other editors here. It is not normal to use a search of a d web site as an external reference - or at least I have not come across it before. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Using search results as external links is explicitly discouraged in the external links guidelines. See WP:ELNO #9. On the other hand, if it is a human-curated directory and not just a search, then that is acceptable (assuming the content has value, doesn't violate any other restrictions, etc.). See WP:ELMAYBE #4. So really it is down to the character of the site. From a quick look, the examples Brews links above seem more like a directory. --RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The PhilPapers categories are a valuable resource for relevant literature on specific topics as they are well-maintained and hand-picked by experts in the respective area. They are a prime example of what makes sense to go in the External links section, even if they might look a bit random to the untrained eye. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to search the site and get keyword matches that are not a category, so some caution is required. If the header of the page says "Search results for 'foo'", then that isn't a category and probably runs afoul of WP:ELNO #9. If the tile just says "Foo" (or for authors, "Works by Foo"), then those should be good. --RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd assume that if a topic has an assigned editor, that is indication also. Ontological Pluralism & Ontological commitment both have editors and both show up if the search box at PhilPapers is used using the 'category finder' mode of operation. Brews ohare (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see the argument that if there is an assigned editor then we have a degree of stability. But regardless of the value of the site it does seem to fall foul of WP:EL which clearly excludes such links other than "for a link to an official page of the article's subject". A phrase which is given in bold in that policy. I suggested to Brews that he bring it here, but I am not sure we don't need a policy change to match the words of 㓟. I asked here----Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is within the prerogative of the philosophy group to decide whether PhilPapers should be included in External Links. This decision concerns only philosophy sources, affects only philosophy pages, and is best decided here. It falls under WP:ELYES: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." If there is to be a debate here over whether this action is compatible with policy, let's first decide what we want to do, and then decide whether a change in WP:EL is needed to accommodate it. In my opinion, category links to PhilPapers immediately produce an editor-maintained and selected list of entries useful to a reader that satisfies WP:ELYES. Brews ohare (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Weren't such external links being included in the category pages... until somewhat recently?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

MachineElf: Indeed they were and still are present on many article pages. However, Snowded has now decided that a more careful consideration is needed as part of his policy of keeping brews_ohare in line. Brews ohare (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No harm in asking Brews and these are universal standards across the whole of wikipedia. It won't hurt anyone to get it right ----Snowded ^TALK 15:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In my understanding, Snowded's argument implies that only a link to an official page of the article's subject is allowed. However, that phrase in bold print in WP:EL is more specifically part of WP:ELNO and is given as a case of exemption from general avoidance: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to …". Also, I am sure that no policy change is needed to match my words. Still, I can't see why there should be a prerogative of WP:PHILO to decide this. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was referring to similar PhilPapers external links that (used to be?) included on category pages (as opposed to individual article pages). There was quite a bit of discussion surrounding that but I don't remember exactly where; GregBard would probably know more...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not the prerogative of any WikiProject to decide pretty much anything except what it puts on its own project pages (including, e.g., which articles are within its scope). Whether to include these links is first of all up to the editors at each individual article, and secondly up to the community as a whole. WP:ELN is a reasonable place to seek help with these kinds of links in individual articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

After reading the remarks here so far, I don't see any reason why the proposed external links should not be allowed. WP:EL (or more specifically WP:ELNO) states,

"Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,^[1] one should generally avoid providing external links to:"

It then lists 19 places to avoid. None of those 19 cases applies to the proposed links. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that's right. Snowded's concern about them being "search" pages (something that is on the "avoid" list) was understandable, because they do resemble a list of search results. But since the pages are editor-maintained lists, that doesn't apply. --RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No one has taken it up on policy so I think per the discussion above it can be allowed. But before we get mass edits over multiple pages I suggest the criteria for inclusion should be that (i) there is a named academic of note curating the section in person and (ii) its not done where there is already adequate further reading material ----Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Your item (i) is not in dispute. Your item (ii) is a judgment call and, I am quite sure, you and I will never agree upon what is 'adequate' reading material and what the criteria for 'adequate' are. Brews ohare (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems like it's time to add the two external links to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bob, does that imply you agree the criteria? Brews, if we don't then we get other editors involved and respect their judgement ----Snowded ^TALK 05:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The need for involvement of a responsible editor for the PhilPaper's category is obvious to all and accepted by everybody. The need for Snowded's judgment as to whether other links already listed are 'adequate', making a PhilPaper's link superfluous, is rubbish. Brews ohare (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am suggesting criteria for the exercise of involved editors judgement Brews, it's the way policy works. It gives a framework for discussion. Nothing there suggests I think it should be my judgement in isolation. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 1 September 2013

There is no need for a special use of 'judgment' in each case to decide whether a curated PhilPapers link should be supplied. That decision is readily made here once and for all. Leaving inclusion open to special pleading about what is 'adequate' in each individual case is just opening the door to arguments, as you have already demonstrated here.

If there is to be vacillation about this matter, the notion of what is an 'adequate' representation will require discussion. I'd argue that it is impossible to say that the contents of a curated list of sources is 'adequately' replaced by other links, if only because of the role of the curator and the nature of these PhilPapers lists as constantly (and authoritatively) changing and updating. Brews ohare (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You can never compromise on anything can you? How many RfCs, how many lengthy talk page expositions? How many personal attacks and lack of good faith? Ok this is a minor issue and I am not going to waste any more time on it. If no one else responds consider point (ii) dropped as it can be contended anyway in the context of any page. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: Thank you for that decision. It is a chilling thought that you will have no qualms about disputing the addition of PhilPapers links as 'external links' despite all this discussion (made necessary by yourself). Have you ever wondered what the cost-benefit analysis of such a link is? Surely if the link could benefit some readers, the cost of including it is near zero. Is it possible that your real concern is that the recognition of certain topics as curated PhilPaper categories gives some credence to certain philosophy topics, and certain books and articles, that you think should never see the light of day on WP? Brews ohare (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that the discussion between Snowded and Brews ohare on this matter is dysfunctional. The two subject external links should have been added to the article by now but haven't. I don't have any more time for this and I regret having spent any time at all on it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bob K31416: So go ahead and put them back. Then you can have your very own dysfunctional conversation with Snowded! Brews ohare (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Will someone please ask MachineElf to stop interfering with the editing process in this article. I've asked for comments, hoping for people with appropriate expertise. Instead, MachineElf has decided to throw his weight around without demonstrating any knowledge of the subject. Editors should be allowed to develop material without an unnecessarily negative environment. ~ BlueMist (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Platonic realism#This article is factually incorrect. No one has interfered with the editing process in this article. As there's been no dispute, removing your {disputed} tag after more than three weeks is hardly throwing my weight around. Once again, please focus on content, not the contributors.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

MachineElf, Is your purpose anything other than to conserve the article just as is, even against professionally sourced arguments? ~ BlueMist (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:AGF and you haven't even so much as made an attempt to edit the article... Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate the opinion of people more knowledgeable about this kind of things on the appropriateness of this category name. See also this discussion on th talk page of the editor who created this category. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Abstractionism currently is an unsourced philosophy stub, but I propose turning it into a redirect to abstract art. Please discuss at Talk:Abstractionism if there are objections. Huon (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Core issues in ethics, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be centered around the idea of a "core" issue, and not categorizing issues in general. However, they apprear to be ready to delete the whole thing, when a simple rename would suffice. This is a well developed category, and it can serve to organize many articles. Please do chime in. Greg Bard (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted this on the article's talk page, but I thought I'd post it here too as the article has a WikiProject Philosophy banner.

For a classical topic like courage, I think sections 5 (As a strength in psychology) and 6 (Bravery), based on the 2004 book Character Strengths and Virtues by Peterson & Seligman make up a large portion of this article (the book is cited 10 times). This gives undue prominence to these authors' point of view, theory, and categorization scheme. Per WP:UNDUE, I think these sections need to be removed/rewritten; they are fairly promotional of these authors' work, book, and institute (Virtues in Action, VIA).

Also to be noted is the fact that these parts have been added by a single-purpose account, I love courage. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy academics, Category:Philosophy writers and Category:American philosophy academics, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, WikiProject Philosophy,
I do a lot of work with categorization and I was working on some philosophers' articles which led me to look at the way philosophers are categorized. It looks like the talk page on the philosophy category page hasn't been used since 2006 so I'm bringing my question here.

Could someone who has a broad knowledge of the philosophy discipline and history look over these two categories and make sure that the contents are correct?

Category:Philosophers by tradition
Category:Philosophers by field

When discussing contemporary philosophers, it's not clear to me that there is a distinct difference between "tradition" and "field" since they both seem like academic specializations. But I'm not going to recategorize any of them, I thought I'd just bring it to your attention and maybe you can correct anything that is miscategorized. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A "field" is a study of a particular subject matter (i.e. ethics as opposed to logic), and the "traditions" category contains the various historical schools of thought (i.e. major philosophical theories and methodologies) from which these areas are studied. So they are fundamentally as different as categorizing a person by birthplace and occupation. However, the philosophical theories category, the schools of thought category and the philosophical schools and traditions category need to be tightened up. I had proposed a long time ago to merge the "schools of thought" but it was kept unfortunately. Greg Bard (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, Greg Bard. I understand the distinction but, I agree, the area needs "tightening up". I've been working on Category:Women philosophers over the past week, because I wanted to start organizing a subcategory (according to guidelines of WP:EGRS). It doesn't seem like this WikiProject is very active these days so I appreciate your response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I created this category for individuals who are already categorized under "Philosopher" categories but who write for the general public, a wider audience than academia. It's based on Category:Public historians which includes historians who are not part of the higher education system and the general concept of a public intellectual. So, for example, the category contains Ayn Rand and Martha Nussbaum who both wrote/write for a public audience and are already classified as philosophers on Wikipedia.

That was my idea behind it and I had only assigned a few philosophers to the category as I am currently working on Category:Women philosophers. But within a few hours, the category was already nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 27#Category:Public philosophers.

Now, it might be a valid new category for Philosophy or the folks at this WikiProject might think it is not useful. I'll leave that up to consensus. But I definitely think this question should be decided through conversation with WikiProject Philosophy and not just from those well-meaning Editors who frequent CfD...so please, if you have a moment, make your opinion (pro or con) known. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is the type of thing that the "philosophy writers" category is for, which you nominated for deletion.Greg Bard (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Members of this project may be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delectare. Cnilep (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Template:Anthropic Bias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear philosophers: This old Afc draft is soon to be deleted. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? Right now the word "Non-place" is a redirect. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A request for comment is posted to consider making Standard argument against free will a stand-alone article instead of a redirect to Dilemma of determinism. The proposed new article is found here and comments are invited here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've put together a script on Wikimedia Tool Labs and a new template which helps in linking to the Perseus Project texts of Plato: Template:citeplato.

I've tried to make it so that it is easy to use with current practices: You should just have to cite with Stephanus pagination mainly as you normally do, but just wrap it with the template, with a couple dividers. All the documentation with usage examples is at Template:citeplato.

So for example, writing ((citeplato|Republic|400c)) produces Republic 400c. Ranges of pages work fine too. And so do common alternative names and shortforms for titles. You can specify Greek by adding a "|greek" or even just a "|g" parameter at the end. You can't link just a book right now, you need to specify a Stephanus page (maybe I'll fix that).

Here's a diff of me converting a few cites on Atlantis to show how it can work with current practices: [4]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there's a proposed wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/modern Japanese thinkers that overlaps your wikiproject. You may want to voice your opinion at the proposal. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, but I remember a couple years ago I found the Wikipedia article on Denotation. Frankly, it's terrible--especially for an article so important. I check it every once in a while to see if it's been improved but it hasn't been touched since I found it. I'm just posting here in the hope that maybe it'll get fixed up if more people know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:701:15B:B7B0:9C1F:F8CE (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't force any editor to edit any particular thing. It depends on volunteers -- people like you! Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Right. And even small efforts can help, for example leaving a note on that article's talk page with comments about what concerns you, or even just copy editing the article or adding a few better sources. Such things can help you or others pick the job up more easily in the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing articles on various object-oriented topics in computer science. (BTW, I make my living in IT but I have a deep knowledge of philosophy, in areas that overlap computer science such as philosophy of mind but also in areas that are outside computer science such as ethics). I came across the following article: Object-oriented ontology Ontology is a very hot area of applied research in computer science these days because of the Semantic Web and languages like OWL (which is object oriented) so I was excited to see that someone started a page on the topic. However, what is currently in that article has nothing to do with concepts like object-oriented or ontology in that sense. Which is fine. I realize ontology gets gets used (and in fact of course got started as did a lot of things) as a philosophical concept. So I was curious, there are often philosophical concepts that are relevant to computer science research. The more I looked at that article though the more I felt that as it is it is terrible. Barely understandable. What is more the references and the whole "topic" as discussed looks to me like someone's PhD thesis turned into a Wikipedia article. There are lots of inline refs but check them out carefully. They have fancy sounding names like "Journal of Ontological Mooginess" but when you go there the "journal" is just a blog trying to look like it represents something more than one or two people's opinions. Also, there are "books" mentioned but the ISBN number of at least one isn't valid and I suspect that that "book" is just a PhD thesis, at best a PhD thesis that got vanity published. I've tagged the article with a tag about the references but I think there is a serious issue as to should any of the content remain. I think it's highly confusing for people looking for information on object-oriented concepts and ontologies. I haven't proposed deletion for the article yet I was curious if anyone here had an opinion. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit out of my depth here and would appreciate if some knowledgeable editors here could have a look at this article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some changes of direction are being proposed at the Reason article. User:Lonjers is concerned that the article is too "human-centric". While the article can certainly do with a fresh perspective, this is a critical philosophical term and I have suggested some more talkpage discussion first before making major changes. I suggest this requires more input from the community.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to note my concern (I have mentioned that of Lonjers) I am worried about whether trying to define reason in a non-human-centric way forces us to equate it to logic, more or less, and removes the distinction between reason and other ways of coming to logical conclusions such as animals, computers, and sometimes people do. I think both my concern and Lonjers concern are on the other hand parts of the history of ideas itself, and somehow needing to be reported. Even just collecting some sources with definitions to consider might be helpful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note the Consciousness causes collapse article is up for deletion under the name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum mind–body problem.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have begun a draft at Draft:End of history, as a primary topic article to replace the current disambiguation page. Any help would be welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the answer is yes. There are so few editors interested in this topic that many articles have received no attention since their creation years ago. Any suggestions for changes of these articles is met with indifference, or worse, unexplained resistance. Constructive exchange of views with the aim of making articles more complete or more up to date is very rare. An example of what can go wrong is this nonsensical exchange over adding a source to one line in Dilemma of determinism. Brews ohare (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You think it is nonsensical, but that is your opinion. I think its is yet another example of you adding your own commentary to a section that is already properly referenced. You might want to consider that a fair amount of the material relates to subjects that are reasonably well established, Dillema of Determinism is one. Its a known subject well defined. Making it into a general and somewhat eclectic discussion of determinism (which is what you are trying to do) is both unnecessary and a mistake. Also you do not seem to get the point that most editors on these pages are simply ignoring you, and those who engage after a period of time tell you they are disengaging because of the need to constantly repeat the same points. I can easily list several editors in that category. Physician heal thyself ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs)

The nonsensical exchange speaks for itself. Brews ohare (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all academic topics are moribund on Wikipedia. But the reason your edits meet with resistance is that you are constantly trying to promote non-mainstream views. Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Looie: The argument that my edits are 'promotions of non-mainstream views' is seldom advanced as an objection. With few exceptions my contributions are firmly sourced. The silly example cited at the outset is certainly not of this kind; it's crazy. Brews ohare (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring your particular issue, yes, philosophy is pretty moribund. I think part of the reason might be the structure of the featured content process. It's set up to give us lots of great articles on battleships. But general academic topics are much harder to get to a state where they can become GA or FA. So we get dozens and dozens of cookie cutter articles about hurricanes or US roads go through DYK then GA then FA. But doing the same for philosophy (or mathematics or equivalent theoretical subjects) will require an enormous amount more work. The reward structure is messed up. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom: The reward structure is not only messed up - it is interfered with. The main reward (stripped of WP incentives like featured article status) is that one is contributing useful content, and that reward is nixed by editors that make it clear they do not have that in mind. Brews ohare (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The situation is dire. The philosophy has always been worse off than any other academic area. If you keep an eye on the proposals that arise affecting our department (i.e. categories and articles for deletion, etc.) the results invariably depend on the collective will of non-members of WikiProject Philosophy. This has resulted in a great deal of dumbing-down, and reductions to lowest common denominators. I would like to establish an email list with just WP:PHILO members, but I believe this sort of thing is frowned upon since we don't actually have freedom of speech in Wikipedia (which, for some incredibly stupid reason extends to the talk namespace). Perhaps we need to do some outreach to academia. Greg Bard (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Gregbard. Unfortunately, the problem is much wider than just Wikipedia. Academic, mainstream philosophy is suffering from endemic, inbred dogmatism. Traditional, duplicate ideas are reinforced by ease of publication, whereas non-standard (even for people like Kant and Wittgenstein) ideas are strongly suppressed by political pressure. I am not aware of this condition in any of the sciences, or in any other arts. Consequently, academic support will not be forthcoming. By allowing people like Brews ohare a bit of slack, we, here at Wikipedia can actually make a difference in the world, and perhaps speed philosophy out of its dark age. In principle, we are not as tightly restricted to traditional dogma as the published, or other, professional online encyclopedias. BlueMist (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there are two reasons: the Stanford Encyclopedia is (usually) so good, that there seems to be no good reason to recreate the wheel in so many cases. Another reason is what people are already referring to: There are some editors who just don't get what academic philosophy is, and think that anything that random people get published in the popular press is just as legitimate. I.e., many influential editors do not think there is a field of ethics like there is a field of biology. They think ethics, metaphysics, etc. are just forms of free-for-all opinionizing. The result is that the unanimous or near-unanimous judgement of everyone writing in the field is regarded as "not neutral" by itself in some cases, and the fringe views of those not even in the field are regarded as significant minority views. I don't despair though; I just try to fix stuff up and contribute new stuff when I have some time. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I use the SEP a great deal for sourcing. One difference between the SEP and Wikipedia is that the SEP is not bound by NPOV. For their readership, a good, obviously biased article is more valuable than a shallow, well balanced one. Then, someone else can always contribute a complementary piece.

EDIT: Having said that, I better add an illustration. The following SEP article is fascinating, instructive, has extensive bibliography, and is eccentric compared to standard commentary. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-parmenides/

And here's a review of the book from which it is drawn. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23258-plato-s-forms-in-transition-a-reading-of-the-parmenides/ ~ BlueMist(talk) 02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if any of the editors here-assembled are interested at all in joining a discussion of the introduction to Dilemma of determinism to correct some limitations noted in this thread on its Talk page?? Brews ohare (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been no response from those here to this RfC, nor to the problem of unsourced assertions in dilemma of determinism. The result is that by default there is a stalemate concerning these issues between myself and editor Snowded, which has led to an inadequate treatment of both the dilemma of determinism and the standard argument against free will. This dispute between two editors cries out for other participation, and without it, the WP policy of sourcing challenged assertions will be ignored. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The article Dilemma of determinism continues to propose a parochial and completely unsourced view of the 'dilemma', and the redirect from Standard argument against free will to 'dilemma' leads to no discussion of this 'standard argument' or its connection to the 'dilemma'. Proposed sources have been suppressed. A proposal to re-institute Standard argument against free will as a separate article is supported by Vesal and BlueMist, but Blackburne and Snowded continue to block any such change, claiming insufficient support, but themselves registering zero comment on the issues involved, simply muttering about enforcement of bureaucracy. The Project Philosophy participants (if indeed there are any active members) remain unconcerned and uninvolved. Brews ohare (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Brews try and get your facts straight. On Dillema Pfhorrest but a huge effort into trying to explain why your proposed expansion of the article was wrong but you didn't want to listen to him. Trying to portray it as a personal conflict is misleading to say the least. Secondly there is some sympathy to creating the Standard Argument article again, but that does not imply support for your version of that article (which is what was blocked). In that rewording you simply tried to find another vehicle for material that had already been rejected. As long as you ignore the facts, and other editors who try to help you, you are likely to be ignored. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pfhorrest departed to attend to real life and never got so far as adding any source to support his introduction to Dilemma of determinism. As you say the support of BlueMist and Vesal is for a return to an article on the 'standard argument' instead of a redirect to 'dilemma', as the 'standard argument' is the more basic approach. I don't intend to claim they support the particular version of 'standard argument' authored by myself, although that draft is well-sourced and far more complete than anything attempted so far on this topic. This draft has not been critiqued as to content, nevermind rejected.

What is perfectly clear is that sourcing and content issues with 'dilemma' require attention from those involved in Project Philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Brews, if you had shown any indication that you had listened to the extended comments from Pfhorrest in your draft then it might have provided a starting point. As it is, all you did was expand and extend the original contested additions. Sorry, you are simply not listening and its difficult to pay your work attention in consequence no matter how well intentioned. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Snowded: When I point out that the Intro to Dilemma of determinism is without sources, and provide two sources, but you pay no attention, who exactly is not listening? When the most famous source on this subject of all time, William James, is held to be off topic, and removed from the Intro (along with several other sources), who is not listening? And when there is a complete discussion of this topic and a large number of sources presented,12 and no attention is paid, who is not listening? Snowded, please ask yourself why it is that you insist on a campaign to emasculate WP and roadblock simple things like adding a source.

What is perfectly clear is that sourcing and content issues with 'dilemma' require attention from those involved in Project Philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments are needed on this matter this matter: Talk:Nature and nurture#Requested move -- Change title of article to back to Nature versus nurture?. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been active in the talk page discussion on the article, asking other editors to cite sources. I would be especially glad to hear from people who approach the issue from the discipline of philosophy. My late father was a student of philosophy, and his philosophy reference books from more than half a century ago are still in my home office where I do my Wikipedia editing. What do current sources say about whether philosophers prefer to speak of nature and nurture, which I think is the better title for the article from the point of view of other disciplines, or to speak of nature versus nurture? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a case where it doesn't really matter which version is used as the title, as long as a redirect exists from the other version. Readers won't give a damn either way. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is very richly supplied with redirects from a variety of phrases, some of which I have seen in specialized dictionaries on some of the related academic disciplines. I find it interesting that as a matter of phrase history there is one phrase that has consistently been the dominant phrase in English, per Google Books Ngram Viewer, which may have some relationship to the WP:COMMONNAME policy here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Help is needed at Simone de Beauvoir. It is the UK's Google Doodle for today. It's not in a good state, mostly unreferenced. Many of these doodle WP biogs get 2-3 million hits each. Pairs of eyes and extra refs are appreciated. Thanks Span (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has been making some very controversial changes to WikiProject Philosophy-related articles; their editing consists in unwarranted editorializing and original research (linking mainstream philosophical figures with esoteric theology). I have recently reverted one of their edits; attention is needed for the pages they edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The anon. editor restored their changes with the edit summary: "Peter B. Lewis, Arthur Schopenhauer, R Books Ltd, London, UK, 2013) etc. is not "original research" stop trying to politicize Schopenhauer please". I have not read this book, but I know that Reaktion Books is not a publisher of reliable philosophy-related books. Moreover, the claims inserted by the anon. editor (e.g. "One should not whitewash the unmistakable neo-Platonic/neo-Aristotelian defense of human inequality Schopenhauer thrust against the more radically egalitarian revolutions of his age") are far from the mainstream. I think that an appeal to WP:UNDUE to WP:RS/AC would be sufficient as a justification for reverting them again. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A user suggested number of quotes allegedly by Voltaire, about Islam and Muhammad, none of which are supported by any reliable sources or even multiple sources other than the wikipedia page itself, of Voltaire where he added. Till now, haven't seen any reliable sources from the user.

And then other user suggests some french sources, some of them seems to be incapable for the confirmation. Although I have proposed a lot better version, which includes the information, by multiple reliable sources.

Have a look at Talk:Voltaire#On_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard, other discussion -> Talk:Voltaire#Evolving_Views_that_go_from_bigotry_to_bigotry. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear philisophers: My request for independent sources went unanswered on this Afc submission. Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, or should we let it fade away? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Attention is needed at Talk:Analogy of the Divided Line. It looks as though User:Mercer.philosophy is doing a rewrite of all Plato related pictures, templates, and articles. Comments are requested. BlueMist (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

One can just look at their controversial moves. None of them agrees with the terminology used in most contemporary sources. This editor rarely provides any secondary sources to support their claims. Moreover, Mercer.philosophy is obviously a sockpuppet of User:Nathan.besteman. I am going to open an SPI against them. ---Omnipaedista (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be the work of a Socrates cultist, who wants to rewrite history and philosophy through Wikipedia. BlueMist (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC).

1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject!

Brian Leiter, a BLP article within your scope needs help in establishing a neutral criticism section. There have been concerns that the article's subject and his contemporaries may be editing the article to conform criticism to a specific POV, and that this has been going on for a few years. Anyhow, your expertise is welcome. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested to comment upon this RfC about moral responsibility. Brews ohare (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marie-Jo THIEL. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

For the past few months Atticusattor has been aggressively promoting the non-mainstream views of Wheat (2012). At least twelve articles have been affected so far. The editor has so far refused to explain their editing activity with reference to Wikipedia policy. I just reverted one of their edits which was in blatant violation of WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:INTEGRITY, and WP:RS/AC. Details can be found on Atticusattor's talk page [5] and on the following two talk-pages: Talk:Thesis, antithesis, synthesis#Vandalism plus Incompetence and Talk:The Phenomenology of Spirit/Archive 1#Spirit Identified. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

At least three editors (including me) have been participating in the discussions above since early November. Atticusattor still refuses to engage in productive discussion with us. I am going το revert many of his edits with caution; some specific pieces of information he inserted are adequately sourced, but most of them either constitute original research or have Wheat 2012 as their sole source—the problem being that Wheat 2012 is contradicted by most (if not all) English-speaking authoritative sources on Hegel. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the undoing of much or all of Atticusator's work on articles related to Hegel (and Marx, although I believe that he attempts were less successful there). I found his edits to be contrary to NPOV and attempted to reason with him early on but was not successful. — goethean 01:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I completed the removal. His work was so rife with POV that it was not salvageable. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

He's still at it.[6] — goethean 17:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to request that project members review Atticusattor's latest edits at Dialectical materialism and Phenomenology of Spirit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not typically a Wikipedia editor, I am a Philosophy Professor. Hegel is the perfect example of an author who can be interpreted in so many ways, each with their own valid and stimulating defenses. Seeing somebody so boldly state one interpretation as solid fact is not just misleading to the general population, but it is also disheartening. It takes the dialectic out of Hegel's work and replaces it with simple lecture.

I was just over at Ludic fallacy and I found the article very wanting. I'm not seeing any thing that establishes notability here or on the web. It's a bit tough, because it's a pop culture book, so there are a number of places that reference it, but the idea is exclusively tied to Nicholas Nassim Taleb. From what I can tell, this idea is not an ongoing scholarly concern and does not exist independent of the corpus of Taleb's work. I'm thinking that it should be merged into another article, either The Black Swan or the article on Taleb himself. I thought I'd get a second opinion from the relevant wikiproject before officially making this proposal on the page. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's sourced better than most fallacy articles, a bit too long...Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well for one thing it's not a fallacy per se, he just calls it that. The article is about a concept in a single book. Where the sources are relevant, they're referring only to that book. The question is whether the concept in the book is notable by itself. Certainly if kept it needs to be entirely rewritten. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be rewritten, but the article should probably stay. (It could be rolled into the book's article, but I don't think that's needed.) The examples are terrible, though: in the first example, as written, the fallacious result is actually correct and the supposedly correct result is a non sequitur. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the examples are insane. From a personal perspective, it's not clear at all that this is anything but a crazy strawman, and the examples show that. The definition is very vague - it seems to me that the closest thing to a clear definition is "using the wrong model" - i.e. your model is not analogous to reality in a critical dimension, in which case it's the same as a false analogy.

That said, it's not for me to decide to delete this because my reasoning shows it's the same thing - I'm just looking to see if philosophy/logic can give me an idea about the degree to which this is a concept that's been adopted among mainstream philosophers. Based on the fact that Taleb's own examples are fallacious in themselves (the examples in the article were taken from his book) and the fact that even being generous in interpreting what he means by "ludic fallacy", it's not really a distinct fallacy, I highly suspect that this concept has not been taken up and used independently, and as such is not likely to be notable on its own merits. Can those in favor of keeping the article suggest anything that would indicate that anyone but Taleb and people explicitly referencing Taleb and the Black Swan are taking this concept up? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree. (Sorry, I've been away from Wikipedia.) - CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to consider changing the way influences are dealt with in infoboxes. Significant philosophers like Hegel accumulate 80+ people who were influenced by them (and I'm sure many more could be added), but there's little indication of the nature of the influence, and the lists quickly become unwieldy, particularly where someone is significant enough to have influenced much of what came afterwards. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It actually works the other way round. You first make a proposal and after consensus has been reached, you start enforcing the new policy. In any case, there are useful comments to be found here and here; see also my recent comments here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure anything can be done to adequately address Nikkimaria's concern. I think we are fated to live with that situation and perhaps we should be grateful that the issue arises in an infobox, rather than in a text. Removing the parameter from the infobox is not an option. There is at least one project that uses this parameter to map influences of philosophers graphically (and you should check it out). Also, just to be forthright about things in general, I have discovered on Wikipedia, that the best way to guarantee for sure that the change you want will never be accomplished... is to make a proposal to do it. The rule is be bold, revert, then discuss. WP:BRD Greg Bard (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that those entries are shown collapsed, they seem more or less harmless to me. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The 'Influenced' infobox basically serves the purpose of listing a philosopher's positive influence on scholars. This kind of information is most of the time, factually accurate and verifiable and citations already exist for most claims that are likely to be challenged. The existence of the project referred to by Gregbard (a website that extracts metadata from Wikipedia pages) is a very good reason why this parameter should not be deprecated. Moreover, it is vital for that project to include influences that came via the study of works or books, not just via physical contact between two philosophers; anyone knowledgeable in the history of philosophy knows that the most important influences of a thinker are not via physical contact. As I wrote on the talk page of Giordano Bruno there are currently 1,568 articles that employ Infobox philosopher. I have worked on improving most of them (removing deprecated infobox parameters and filling in the place of birth and death, school/tradition, and influences/influenced parameters). My main source has always been the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (the most reputable reference work available in the literature); occasionally, I also used peer-reviewed research papers. While, I did include citations to the research papers, unfortunately, I did not do the legwork to provide any citations to the Encyclopedia. But I do intend to provide citations for every single entry and am still working on it.

Somewhat offotopic but the graphing project is downright depressing; the relationships demonstrated bouncing from absurd to travesty. Some look like fashion statements, like Hegel eclipsing the freshman ne'er-do-well Aristotle or Noam Chomsky edging past that nobody Thomas Aquinas. Some are obviously fashion statements, like placing Karl Marx bigger than Adam Smith. Others border on unethical, like Otto Weininger dwarfing simpleton Karl Popper. And quite a few are absurd on their face, like how the little dots contributed from nobodies FA Hayek, Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Thomas Paine, GE Moore, AJ Ayer, A. Whitehead, George Berkeley and Daniel Dennett could all fit inside Murray Rothbard's death star on the graph.

Methinks there are some issues here. (although with a few simple tweaks it could be made quite a bit more robust, like assigning a weight to the influences of influences). Jaydubya93 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If no-one objects I am going to undo Nikkimaria's unilateral mass removals (removals of already sourced and easily verifiable material as I wrote here). I also propose we change the documentation of the Template:Infobox philosopher since it does not reflect what has been common practice among the active members of Wikiproject Philosophy since the inception of the infobox in 2005: the documentation says that "It is a requirement that any entry in the influences/influenced parameter be explained and sourced in the article text." In practice, this not what we do. A list is a list. A list of notable ideas or a list of influences should be sourced if it is dubious per WP:V, but need not be in the form of prose. The purpose of that list is to offer a quick glance or easy navigation between different articles. It would be nice to have this piece of information in prose form as well (and eventually we will have it), but this should not be an absolute requirement. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should - a list is not meaningful if you cannot identify why entries are on the list, and standards like WP:DUE and WP:RS still apply to these parameters. I'm not suggesting that the parameters be deprecated, but these agreed-upon standards (which are supported by previous discussions regarding the template) need to be consistently applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The influences/influenced section of infoboxes is important in philosophy. It immediately tells philosophers and philosophy students (the groups that probably count for the bulk of the readership of these articles) a lot about the subject of the article. There's no need for it to be invariably laboured in the body too. Nikkimaria, if you've been removing these parameters, please stop and revert yourself. WP:V is policy and says that sources are needed for material challenged or likely to be challenged, and it's a built-in assumption of the policy that the challenge will be reasonable (not coming from someone who is removing material en masse). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at some of Nikkimaria's edits, and she does seem to be right about some of them, and perhaps all. Nikkimaria, I apologize for posting the above without looking closely first; I was reacting to the en masse aspect. Perhaps we all need to be vigilant about making sure these parameters don't get out of control, because then the parameter does become useless in terms of providing an overview of someone's place in the history of philosophy. If someone has influenced just about everyone, it isn't helpful to start listing names.

I know that when I see people adding names, I often don't revert if it's not an article I'm otherwise involved in, but perhaps we all ought to be more willing to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a good example. I added all of those names (minus one or two); and I accept the burden to provide reliable sources for every one of them. I still think though that sloppily removing any name in those lists that does not appear in the article body is not helpful in any way. Challenge was not reasonable in at least half of the recently edited articles I looked at. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

To draw an analogy: when we list an academic's notable doctoral students we usually include all those who are notable enough to have an article of their own, which is sufficient filtering in most cases (e.g., see Andrey Kolmogorov; cf. list of doctoral students). In the case of a philosopher, I usually include in the 'influenced' list scholars who are both notable enough to have an article of their own and whose work was significantly influenced by that philosopher as per reliable sources. Those two criteria usually suffice to keep a list reasonably small (e.g., see for example Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg). The cases where a list can become unwieldy are about a dozen out of the 1,568 articles employing the template. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is how Marx was dealt with; Nikkimaria removed the previous list and left List of Marxists in 'Influenced'. This is a terrible solution. Deleuze, Bourdieu, and Kropotkin were influenced by Marx but they are not Marxists. Moreover, we cannot have a separate list pages for philosophers' followers; e.g., 'List of philosophers and scholars influenced by Deleuze/Bourdieu/Kropotkin' so that we can link the respective infobox parameters to them. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Banno inserted the annotation: "Entries in Influences, Influenced and notable idea should be explained in the main text. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." on 16 July 2006. This addition to the documentation was neither the result of a prior discussion nor does it reflect common practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It does reflect common practices and standards wiki-wide. Looking at the implementation, though, makes it clear that "a dozen" is a significant underestimation of potential unwieldiness, an that in many cases your proposed criteria are not being followed; perhaps that would be one way of improving current practice? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair enough to ask for sources, but I see no reason to insist that it also be expanded in the text. Material can be in leads and infoboxes without needing to be repeated; indeed that is one of the points of an infobox, namely to highlight key "facts at a glance" that might require no unpacking and might be of interest to a reader. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Facts that require no unpacking are one thing; however, there is a very big difference between such facts and what we are discussing here. That an element has a particular atomic weight, a boat a certain length, etc, are simple facts and can be presented in the infobox without further explanation; however, with influences there is always the question of how the influence occurred or manifested, according to whom the influence exists, and other details that do require unpacking if the information is to be meaningful and encyclopedic. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In philosophy, not really. If we're told that Robert Garner was influenced by John Rawls, and that John Rawls was influenced by Kant, those are very meaningful connections to philosophers and philosophy students (the main readership of these articles). They convey ideas that would otherwise take hundreds of words to explain.

Often those connections will end up being explained in the article (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly), and sometimes not at all. Everything depends on the local decisions of the writers, how long the article is, which direction it takes, and so on. Attempts to control this kind of thing centrally don't really work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with SlimVirgin. Attempts to control these lists centrally does not work. In the meanwhile, Nikkimaria keeps going against consensus and continues her disservice to our readers (philosophy students). She blindly applies an obsolete usage note, and despite the fact that she makes an appeal to WP:V, most of the time challenge is not reasonable. The examples are countless. I will just mention a handful of them. She removed Descartes from Chomsky's influences (ahem... Cartesian linguistics); she removed Meillassoux from the list of philosophers influenced by Badiou (Meillassoux is a former student of Badiou who based his whole theoretical framework on his intent to oppose Badiou); she removed Casimir Lewy from the list of philosophers influenced by Wittgenstein (Lewy is Wittgenstein's doctoral student [7]); see also [8] and [9]. This sort of removals is downright unconstructive (it is of interest to note that she always reverts with the uninformative edit summary "fmt, rm unsupported"). After more than 20 days after her proposal to start enforcing Banno's usage note, the consensus remains against this usage note and in favor of long-standing project-specific practice. I am going to change the template documentation to reflect the consensus of this discussion: "Entries in influences, influenced, and notable ideas should be reliably sourced if they are challenged or likely to be challenged". --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to take the time to appropriately source and explain those entries in the article, go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

See Cartesian linguistics, Quentin Meillassoux, and Casimir Lewy for explantions. Sources can be found there. In the meanwhile could you explain this edit? Your actions are against consensus. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In some cases you deleted already verified information; examples include: Emma Goldmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#cite_note-25), Edward Said (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci#cite_note-34) and David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Ashley-Cooper,_3rd_Earl_of_Shaftesbury#cite_note-8) to name a few. Please do not camouflage this as a trivial WP:BURDEN issue.

The explanations you are asking most of the time can be found in the article of a philosopher's descendants. Are you actually suggesting that they should be found in the article of the philosopher-ancestor? This would constitute content forking and would be in violation of WP:UNDUE. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It would in no way be either content forking or undue: if someone has had a significant influence, whether it's "X's ideas impacted all subsequent Y philosophers" or "A taught B", that should be explained and sourced at the article about that "ancestor". A bluelink to another article does not constitute a citation; material must be supported in each article in which it appears. As for the "consensus" you suggest, 1-2 people is not sufficient to change a long-standing requirement supported by both discussion at the template, and by larger conversations and guidelines wiki-wide. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Nikkimaria has a point but I am not sure how to go about doing this --Guerillero | My Talk 18:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no requirement that sourced material can't be added to an article unless it's discussed in full. Adding influences with a source to an infobox is often very helpful. Whether to expand on it in the article will depend on whether anyone wants to, whether there's much to say about it, and so on, all local decisions. Someone may see that influence and its source and decide to write something about it, which is less likely to happen if it's deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Benacerraf's identification problem - I have asked WikiProject Mathematics the same question. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've put in a peer review request for the above article. I'm a nurse, but I don't have subject matter expertise in ethics or whistleblowing. This is a GA that I am thinking of nominating for FA at some point. I'm hoping to ensure that the treatment of the issues is robust enough for FA. I would love any comments that you have to offer. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 20:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The topic of Enaction (philosophy) is now an article. Editor Snowded has deleted a good deal more than half of this article, and so far has provided no reasons on the Talk page for his actions other than his personal unsupported opinions. We need some other eyes on this discussion to form a good article. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave clear reasons Brews and was supported by another editor who you invited to contribute so please try and keep to the facts. The whole cycle is starting with you again here as we had with Free Will and other articles. Editors engage, reject your proposals, you engage in extensive discussion on the talk page, no changes result. Then you take the rejected material and try it on another one, or create one. On Free Will Pfhorest tried to salvage some of your material and you rejected it. You find it impossible to work with other editors. More eyes would indeed be welcome, not just here but on the overall pattern of your behaviour which is almost identical to that which got you permanently banned from Physics articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Readers can help with this article, and your 'version' of events is irrelevant. Brews ohare (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just submitted a peer review request for the article on Australian metaphysician and epistemologist David Malet Armstrong which I'd like to take to GA status at some point. Feedback and help would be appreciated. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear philopsophers: Here's another old Afc submission. Is this a notable professor, and should the article be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear philosophers: This Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look notable to me. Seems to be largely limited to [10] which looks like self-publication. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to check this out. I will let it go. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm sure Beth Houston is a perfectly fine scholar and philosopher. But that doesn't mean her particular theories are "notable" in the Wikipedia sense; indeed, they are probably well-worthy of inclusion on Deism or other articles. I've always felt that Wikipedia should change the name of requirements like "notable". Really, it's just a term of art, and being non-notable says nothing bad, but in common parlance being "non-notable" sounds derogatory. E.g., if you're reading a review of Houston's book that starts with "Houston's work is not notable" then you're probably reading a very negative review. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. really what's meant is "insufficiently documented" or "not widely cited" or something like that. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if anyone wants to add transfer some information and sources to another article, this title could always be made into a redirect to that article. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The newly written article Enaction (philosophy) is under discussion for deletion. The discussion is found here. If there are active members in the philosophy project, they should contribute to this discussion. As it stands, this article will disappear. Brews ohare (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear philosophers: Is this old Afc submission about a notable philosopher, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Field Environmental Philosophy. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion on merging Category:American women philosophers, Category:Asian American philosophers and Category:African-American philosophers into Category:American philosophers which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 17#Category:American (x) philosophers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)