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.

If any of you has some time to review what FreeKnowledgeCreator has been up-to in topics concerning Philosophy, in particular Philosophers, it would be a big help. Beginning-with a problem in the Timothy Leary article especially, interactions with other editors have been curt and sharp as-if other editors are supposed to be following guidelines specific to philosophy that as far as I can tell do not exist. Any Guidance concerning this would be helpful-thanks. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not clear to me what you are trying to accomplish with these vague complaints. What exactly do you expect editors to do? I had a disagreement with some other editors at the Timothy Leary article, yes - what of it? Disagreements are common on Wikipedia, and so far as I know, I have a right to disagree with people. Instead of making some kind of ill-defined complaint about me, you could instead have left a neutral note that there was a dispute at that article and asked editors interested in philosophy topics to comment on it, whatever their views (the dispute concerns whether Leary should be labelled a philosopher). As for "interactions with other editors have been curt and sharp", I have been considerably less rude and aggressive than certain other editors in the course of that disagreement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well-personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea that editors are just supposed to settle discussions like who is and who is not a philosopher. Leary for instance, the article passed what is normally considered using reliable references yet your arguments hinted at policy standards that were never produced. Also- I don't think that it really is debatable whether or not someone is/was a philosopher, like Huxley where I think you changed his article as well? Either someone is/was or not. But as far as WP is concerned, I thought that the rule is that if reliable sources say it, it is acceptable.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You might wish to review the discussion at WP:NPOVN, TeeVeeed. Several editors noted that the case for labeling Leary a philosopher was open to question. Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Evidently there are sources that call Leary a philosopher, but whether that amounts to a significant view remains in dispute. One user, Fyddlestix, commented, "there are a few legit sources out there that do describe Leary as a philosopher...The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes him as 'a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens.' So the IP isn't completely off-base, although I'm skeptical that there are enough sources like this out there to justify using the 'philosopher' label." That seems a reasonable observation. There might be a case for calling Leary a philosopher if more high-quality sources were provided, which has not happened so far. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This question comes up repeatedly at articles edited by enthusiasts, some well-informed and well-intentioned, and others with limited perspective on the issue. It's a longstanding issue at Ayn Rand and a highly motivated editor kept at it for about a year at Stefan Molyneux, going so far as to edit the Philosopher article to support his POV, before he was finally TBANned. Among the common contributing factors in these articles are citations to what appear to be RS but which are written by members of a closed group of acolytes of the purported philosopher. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That is unfortunately true, and I think the situation you are describing may well apply at the Timothy Leary article. The "philosopher" claim is currently cited to this document, "An annotated bibliography of Timothy Leary", written partly by Michael Horowitz, described in his article as a "former close associate" of Leary. I think there may be grounds for questioning whether it qualifies as a reliable source. The publisher, Archon, is not known to me. It certainly does not seem to be a mainstream press, and its books cannot have the same level of reliability as something published by a mainstream academic press. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You raise an excellent point--there are 50 shades of philosopher. Would a more nuanced description in the article help achieve consensus? Perhaps one could say:

• Leary considered himself a philosopher
• Associates of Leary considered him a philosopher
• Leary wrote about philosophy, I'm thinking of works like the eight-circuit model of consciousness
• Leary was not formally trained as a philosopher
• As a counterculture figure, Leary was outside the mainstream of philosophy (my guess, I have no source for this)

--Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Blue Mist 1 altered the "philosopher" description to "self-described philosopher" here, which was reverted, on the basis of one user's personal understanding of the meaning of "philosopher." Skyerise restored "self-described" here, and that was also reverted, by the same user who reverted Blue Mist 1. The article is thus suffering from very unseemly behavior aimed at presenting Leary as a "philosopher" without qualification. Conceivably, some qualifier other than "self-described" might stand a better chance of acceptance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a related discussion on the talk page at Philosopher that would benefit from additional participation by Philosophy Project members. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the general view that we need clear standards on who is considered a philosopher. A litmus tests on this issue is (or ought to be) Noam Chomsky, whose formal training and occupation centers on linguistics, and yet many sources (some highly credible), consider him a philosopher, despite having no academic qualifications to that effect. One thing that might sway people is that Chomsky is actually published in philosophy journals likeSynthese and Mind, which ought to count as philosophical contributions at the highest level of professional philosophy (even if you don't have a doctoral degree from a philosophy program).

So what does this say for Leary? It gives us a helpful set of questions to ask: (1) Is his doctoral degree in philosophy? (2) Does he have any publications in philosophy? (3) Are any of his views (like the aforementioned Eight-circuit model) been noted or otherwise discussed by professional philosophers or in philosophy journals? (4) Has he ever been employed by a philosophy department? (5) Are there any credible sources that depict him as a philosopher? These questions seem to be a good starting point in answering the question. BabyJonas (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a listed project, there is an ongoing RfC to determine the validity of flags in Genocide-related articles. It's at Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles. Please comment there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. Should this RFC reflect that? BabyJonas (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Debt, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Currently Defeasibility is a redirect to Falsifiability. Unless I misunderstand, though, the two terms mean something rather different in logic, don't they? Help with the redirect is appreciated. (See also Defeasible (disambiguation), which points to Defeasible reasoning and (since my recent edit) Defeasible logic. If necessary, help there would also be appreciated.) Cnilep (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The two terms are not coextensive philosophically, you are correct. Do you just need help untangling the redirect or is there something else going on? BabyJonas (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Two specific questions, I guess: (1) What should the redirect point to? (2) Should anything be added to or removed from the disambiguation page? Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Years ago I happened to read on a web page that in one of his dialogues Plato states that on an Egyptian pyramid there was an inscription which described the way how man can reach the condition of a god by simply breathing. Could anybody here help me find the citation? Thank you very much for the attention.05:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Timothy Leary here. Skyerise (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is posted here as the Category:Medical controversies page falls under the Wikiproject Philosophy purview.

The issues follow from discussions at CFS: Talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Problems_of_controversy

There does not seem to be any guidance on what in WP terms constitutes a medical controversy and there is a danger that the Category: Medical Controveries could act as a self referential axiom, whereby a page listed at Category:Medical controversies is automatically defined as medical controversy without necessarily meeting, or continuing to meet an encyclopaedic definition of a Medical controversies.

Suggested principles of what would be required to meet an encyclopaedic definition of a medical controversy.

What a medical controversy is not:

• Not a media controversy. i.e a controversy that is presented in the media as a medical issue but is not reflected as such in MEDRS

• Not a mere difference of medical opinion, either between individual clinicians/researchers, informal groups of clinicians/researchers, formal research groups, institions or specialisms.

• Not an historical division of opinion between individual clinicians/researchers etc.

• Not a fact established by unsupported opinion even when expressed by authors of MEDRS.

Location of a medical controversy:

• A medical controversy should be capable of location within one or more aspects of an illness, disease etc. Classing an entire illness as controversial is rarely encyclopaedic, controversy were it truly exists can be identified in aspects such as diagnosis, physiology, treatment, research etc.

• A medical controversy may also be geographically specific. This can be difficult to address encyclopaedically and it is essential that the geographical nature be clearly specified.

• A medical controversy may be service or specialism specific, again to be encyclopaedic the clinical/academic location of the controversy needs to be accurately identified.

Attachment of controversy to illness/disease:

There are multiple points by which controversy can attach to an illness. Poor research, fraudulent research, political speech, media commentary, poor or dangerous treament, fraudulent treatment and fraudulent practitioners, celebrity comment, clebrity patient etc. From an encyclopaedic perspective these sources of controversy should not of themselves support classification of a subject as a medical controversy. Of course if a piece of research or a treatment has impacted on clinical practice, then that research or treatment may of itself be a medical controversy - Hyperemesis gravidarum is a non controversial medical condition, but its treament with thalidomide remains profoundly controversial because of the harm caused. It is notable that this is no longer a continuing medical controversy as a treatment because no resonable clinician would any longer prescribe thalidomide it for morning sickness, but it remains a controversy because of the the continuing effect on the lives of those who were harmed.

Sources defining a medical controversy:

In science controversy isn’t about mere difference of perspective – different groups of researchers are in energetic argument with other groups all the time, for there to be medical/scientific controversy there needs to be more than the usual fighting of corners, instead there needs to be an exceptional divide in scientific perspective. In medicine such an exceptional divide should be indentifiable in MEDRS, with the material clearly specifying the basis and location of the controversy.

The Specific case of CFS:

Medical controversies tend to resolve as research progresses, while in comparison political, media, and social controversies do not, although these latter types may fade from general interest. CFS is certainly a difficult illness about which to construct an encyclopaedia article, it has more than one name attached to it, diagnosis is by symptomology only, there is no current certain treatment and its pathophysiology is not established. Nevertheless over the last 25 years there has been progress in formulating now well established processes of diagnosis, there is general clinical acceptance that management options are limited and offer little benefit for most patients, and there has begun to be progessive investment in researching the biological bases of the condition. Various media controversies have attached to CFS and the false association of the XMRV retrovirus and ongoing open data issues related to a study called PACE are research controversies that have attached to CFS, however neither has impacted on the established positions on diagnosis, pathology or management. To the extent that CFS has itself been considered controversial, this has been related to a debate about the differing significance of imputed psychiatric versus physiologic characteristics, this debate continues between differing specialisms but it is notable that the practioners of just one specialism continue to talk (without providing evidence) in terms of the condition being controversial and that this specialism (psychiatry/psychology or indeed primarily a single English dominated school of thinking – BPS) has in recent years lost ground in the research focus and funding. Neither of two major reports published by respectively the US NIH and IOM http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2322800 and http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19012/beyond-myalgic-encephalomyelitischronic-fatigue-syndrome-redefining-an-illness in the last 18 months referes to CFS as controversial.

Comments on the general issues of medical controversies and on the specific case of CFS would be welcome. Particularly on the appropriateness of removing the CFS article from the medical controversies category, and/or the creation of a medical controversies(Historical) category. --In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• CFS should be removed from the medical controversies category...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• For WP purposes, this doesn't seem a matter of philosophy, but of reliable sources. Here is a 2015 Lancet article on the controversies surrounding CFS. Here is a 2015 Lancet position paper on the IOM report, which says "The authors of the report hope that the new name will send a signal to clinicians and patients, and could be the first step towards a widespread change of attitude". That's a medical journal hoping clinicians pay attention to the report's recommendations and the fact that there is a position piece in a an important medical journal shows this is still a big controversy within the medical community. Here is a 2015 news article in Science about the PACE controversy and some of those challenging the studies are researchers. Again if this makes it to the Science news section, it is still controversial. My hope is that IOM, Cochrane, and NIH reports will go some way toward establishing consensus within the medical community. But it seems clear from MEDRS that the controversy isn't over yet. --Mark viking (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

From a philosophy perspective there is indeed a question regarding semantics and what “controversy” means in the context of an encyclopaedia. There is more to the issue than a simple question of RS. When (for an encyclopaedia) does the normal level of academic or professional difference of opinion become controversial ? If we were to accept a test of any difference of view as constituting a “controversy” then the whole of theoretical physics would be one enormous and near perpetual ‘controversy’, yet to for encyclopaedia such a classification would clearly be absurd. Certainly (as I acknowledged above) differences of clinical opinion and research perspectives regarding CFS exist, but the question is whether these constitute a medical controversy. The fact that one medical specialism has a narrative (exemplified by Prins et al 2006) in which CFS is consistently presented as “controversial” does not make for a controversy, likewise for one journal and its editor to favour one research perspective does not constitute a balance of MEDRS (Open Letter to The Lancet). And news, even scientific news, by the very nature of the overriding character of the news media, inevitably provides a presentation that heavily weights for ‘controversy’ where only common difference of opinion is in play. The semantic and encyclopaedic question is firstly what is it that constitutes “controversy” ? Only once that is addressed then can we answer the question of whether (for Wikipedia) CFS is as whole subject a medical controversy, or whether elements attaching to CFS are separately ‘controversies’ or whether these attached issues are merely part of the general progress of medical science. --In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway to move the article Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (with a single comma) to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Please share your opinion on the matter at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ever since my timid contribution to negated existence was bluntly dismissed by User:Blue_Mist_1 (see User_talk:Blue_Mist_1#nonexistence, diff), I have been struggling to put something together that somehow provides a bigger view of the topic. The sciences have come a long way since Parmenides put forward his view of the world, after all, and I am convinced that so far we have a blind spot here that should be addressed by WP. May I kindly ask the community to contribute to User:Kku/Nonexistence? You may notice that I think there is more to it than what can be said from the philosophical side. You are free to improve (or critizise) those parts as well if you feel inclined. Thanks for many interesting contributions in advance. -- Kku 10:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Usurpation is under discussion, see DRAFT TALK:Usurpation -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There are these two categories: (1) Category:Branches of philosophy (maybe soon called Category:Subfields of philosophy) and (2) Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy. The way I get it, (1) is for the main fields of philosophy, (2) for the crossover/fusion between philosophy and another discipline. I have no experience with philosophy and for me it seems "off", that Category:Political philosophy and Category:Social philosophy, who are fusions between social/political science and philosophy are not in (2) but in (1). Is is because of history/tradition? Would suggest me to start a discussion at Wikipedia:CFD to restructure them into (2)? – CN1 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Both seem to be sub-fields of philosophy. BabyJonas (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We over at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion decided now to nominate Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy for renaming to Category:Philosophy by topic. The reason is to set it apart from Category:Philosophy of science, because every discipline is also a (branch of) science. Also there are topics who are no discipline, like time, happiness, life etc. This is only an information, I have no further questions. CN1 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So apparently we have a series on Certainty. I'm mystified as to why this particular aspect has to have its own series, not to mention everything else has to defined in terms of certainty. Some of the related concepts have nothing in common. Solipsism and fatalism? Is this worth cleaning up, or should it just be deleted? BabyJonas (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have started a peer review of life here. Feel free to drop some suggestions on how to improve the article. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Due to the inherent inter- and multi-disciplinary nature of the Globalization topic, there is a lot of intersection with categories of related WikiProjects of WP:GLBZ. Currently, comments would be welcome on a proposed re-name of Category:Sociocultural globalization (a major aspect of and 2nd tier level of the Globalization category) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_28#Category:Sociocultural_globalization. Thank you in advance. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Philosopher used to have sections that referenced black and women philosophers which have been removed. However the argument to reinstate them is only between myself and one other editor. Accusations of "victim mentality" among other things have been thrown around. If other people could come in to give their suggestions, that would be very good so that this isn't just a dumb one-on-one argument.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You are all invited to the discussion. Lbertolotti (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an rfc at Talk:Michel_Foucault#RfC:Should_Foucalt_be_tagged_with_LGBT_and_Gay_categories.3F over whether the following categories should be applied to the article: Category:Gay writers, Category:LGBT historians, and Category:LGBT writers from France. I invite interested editors to comment whatever their views. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The current article is a stub. I ran the extensive German article through Google translate and put it in my userspace. Anyone is welcome to help clean it up. Thanks! — goethean 16:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but what happened to the citations? Article content will need to be properly cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Plato is rightfully listed as among our top 1,000 Vital articles. I was disappointed to see that Plato was rated a class C article there, although I think it might currently be Class-B. The reason: lack of in-line citations. I agree; that's a problem. Same with other Philosophy articles I have encountered.

I'm willing to do a little work to find citations. However, finding good RS on-line is not fun. I've Google searched for Philosophy material on-line many times since I took Philosophy classes, and it is always a chore. Most of it is long rambling articles written by people who may or may not be experts. If they are it is often way to technical for the lay reader, or just the opposite: way too superficial. My initial search turns up self-published works at Universities.

Any suggestions on where to go for good WP:RS for Plato and for other Philosophers and Philosophy subject matters? I could go to my bookshelf, but then it makes it harder for others to verify, if my book is not available on-line. Same problem with going to the library. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

How would you do that for Einstein or Euler or Shakespeare or Rembrandt? ~~ BlueMist (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Great! I think it would be wonderful for that article to have an audit and verification of the content. I agree that lack of inline citations is a problem, especially in the philosophy sections. Finding RS to verify assertions and cut out any synthesis would be a help. It is perfectly alright to use offline treeware reliable sources. If you wanted to make it easier for fellow editors to check sources themselves, you may consider checking if your books in question have scanned content in Google Books. If not, you may want to prefer books that appear in many libraries, rather than more obscure tomes. Either way, Wikipedia:Book sources can help ascertain the relative availability of your sources. Good luck! --Mark viking (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I find most of my sources on Google Books. Google has scanned a huge number of both copyrighted and PD books, including recent texts in many fields, and they can be searched. A random sample of works on Aristotle: Adler, Aristotle for Everybody, Irwin, Aristotle's First Principles, Lenox; Being, Nature, and Life in Aristotle, Leunissen, Explanation and Teleology in Aristotle's Science of Nature. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on a requested move to change numerous article titles which contain Dr. King's name. Randy Kryn 11:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an edit conflict over whether the sentence "Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos" is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Outside opinions are needed. Please stop by at Talk:Reductio ad absurdum#Removal of example from introduction. Thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 21:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I know this seems like a trivial issue, but more and more, aggressive editors are PUSHing their opinions by removing good examples from philosophy and logic articles simply because they don't like the POV the example expresses. That is what is happening here. If this keeps up we won't be able to use common sayings like this in articles. Please take a look. Thanks --Chetvorno^TALK 21:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion about ((Theology)) over at Template talk:Theology § Too large - discussion resumed in 2016. Feel free to join in. Thanks! YBG (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a page move discussion at Talk:Euclid_of_Megara#Requested_move_8_August_2016. PamD 08:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Should someone with an undergraduate degree in philosophy be listed as a philosopher? BabyJonas (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, otherwise David Cameron would be a philosopher and an economist, which he obviously isn't.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@BabyJonas: You're asking this question the wrong way. What WP says about a person being a philosopher is based on what WP:RS (reliable sources) say about them, not whether they have or do not have a particular credential. Sometimes this is not straightforward, though, when someone's status as a philosopher is not generally agreed upon. A person's own claim to identify as a philosopher can be considered, but is not necessarily determinative.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In some cases, the claim to be a philosopher is one strong signal that the person is not. It's also the case that there are academics, with doctorates in philosophy, who, in terms of their contribution to the field, could hardly be considered philosophers. In fact the question 'What is a philosopher?' is, itself, a philosophical question, not one that can be answered with a simple set of easily established criteria. Fustbariclation (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone; I've proposed a possible drive/subproject for creating articles about women in philosophy over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Kevin Gorman and women in philosophy, partly in memory of Kevin Gorman, and partly to continue his good work. If you think you might be interested in being involved, please do go and comment on the thread in question. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested: I have set up an editing drive about women in philosophy. Several members of the Women in Red project have expressed interest in joining in, and, of course, all members of WikiProject Philosophy would be more than welcome. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, only a very casual editor at Wikipedia, so apologies if this is not the right way to go about things.

I just want to point out that Lettrism concerns an obscure, but significant, 20th century art movement, and I have trouble understanding why it's under the Philosophy portal. It's an art movement, and belongs to that category. From the talk page (where I've grumpily made comments) it seems like many commentators aren't familiar with the movement at all. I think it would receive more knowledgable treatment under a portal concerning art movements. It has a strong relationship to Dadaism and even stronger relationship (in fact, an inspirational precursor) on the Situationist International, which in turn influenced Fluxus and Punk. Can it somehow be reclassified under whatever art portal is more appropriate, so the article gets editors who are more familiar with the movement? I'm not an expert, nor particularly adept at Wikipedia, but I definitely know that this article deserves a more thorough treatment. The Lettrists were historically important in the history of 20th century art. Feel free to let me know on the talk page, but be aware that I am a very occasional (and extremely minor) participant at Wikipedia. Thank you. StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Do any of these three articles talk about the same concept and need to be merged?

• Social learning (social pedagogy)
• Social learning theory
• Public sphere pedagogy

Based on the definitions in their leads, they all sound somewhat different, but it's hard to tell if that's because each article is a little too narrowly focused or if they're actually separate topics. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 00:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This requested move discussion for Desiderius Erasmus is also relevant for other philosophers' articles. – Editør (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Team,

Coming here as I am not sure about the talk page of the article. The last edit was in 2010. The topic of the article is frequently used by journalists to defend against intolerance. It is also a subject of many research papers. I have also found many books that use the topic while discussing intolerance. However, I don't see too many notable philosophical discussions or debates around the topic. So my question is where does the topic belong to? Philosphy / Journalism / Literature? I am not sure how such topics are handled so please help --Wikishagnik (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good discussion of toleration, including paradoxes[1]. Given that Popper originated or popularized the paradox, it seems firmly within the philosophical sphere. But other domains, such as psychology or politics, could also be interested in the topic. It is OK for an article to be of interest to multiple Wikiprojects, so feel free to add a Wikiproject if you think it is compelling. With regard to the article itself, how the paradox is discussed really depends on the sources available. If this is a topic in journalism, and not just something reported on by journalists, then feel free to add to the article summarizing the sources found. --Mark viking (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ad hominem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is sometimes mentioned during talk-page discussions. Following one such discussion, a recent edit removed the following:

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.^[1]

The text is perhaps a little ambitious, and a "failed verification" tag was added recently by Jayaguru-Shishya. However, the text was adjusted on 12 November 2011 so it has been in the article a long time and I'm hoping that someone familiar with the topic will check what should occur. The talk page has a May 2010 quote ("questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue") that appears to be from "Walton, Douglas. Informal Logic", and that was the original reference. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The topic of Veneration is under discussion, see talk:Veneration -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello all,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

At Talk:Discipline_and_Punish#Crime_and_Punishment_.3F, I have sought opinions regarding possible alternate translations for the title of Michel Foucault's Surveiller et punir. I encountered someone who felt it was known as Crime and Punishment rather than Discipline and Punish. Should we have a redirect at Crime and Punishment? Please comment there if you have an opinion on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to include existential philosophy, there's a few other movements partially or fully within continental philosophy that are of approximately equivalent importance, e.g. Psychoanalysis, Hermeneutics, Structuralism, Feminism, and Critical Theory that should probably be included. We could alternatively just leave out existential philosophy as it would be under the heading of continental philosophy like the above.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion currently active at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016 features arguments for either variation. Greater participation is invited. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of "Carl Jung"

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  ^u/c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 20 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite some time ago there was a discussion about the redirect Third Realm, which redirected to Nazi Germany based on its usage as a calque of Drittes Reich (almost always rendered in English as "Third Reich", not "Third Realm"). There seemed to be a general understanding that the situation was suboptimal, but there was more than one possible fix, and it seems we never got around to picking one.

So I've gone ahead and made it a two-article dab page, to abstract object and Third Reich (the latter being a redirect to Nazi Germany but it's not completely implausible that it might not always redirect there). I'm not sure this is the best possible solution, but at least it's better than the way it was. --Trovatore (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable solution: I added a reference to the third realm to abstract and concrete so the disambiguation would make sense for that topic. --Mark viking (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day, a peer review has been requested for the Legalism (Chinese philosophy) article. Interested parties are invited to take part at the review page, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Legalism (Chinese philosophy)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My list of missing topics about philosophy is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

During the week-end I started reading a book on ethics and decided to look up some key terms on Wikipedia for comparison's sake when I discovered that there is no Wikipedia page for "Evil" nor is there one for "Good" as key terms in ethics and philosophy. When I looked closer, I found that another editor last June here [2], had apparently decided to delete both of those pages in his or her preference for a single merged page called "Good and evil". The "merger" was apparently done after a tiny Talk page announcement which no-one seems to have taken seriously, but that editor decided that a no-response to his Talk page proposal could be interpreted by him or her as non-opposition and therefor endorsement to do the merger, which was done last June with no-one noticing it. This merger makes no sense from the standpoint of the study of ethics and philosophy. Philosophy pages should not be merged together because they represent polar opposites of meaning. The two pages should be returned to their original state from last June and the current "Good and evil" page can just be left there as its own limited discussion of this polarity in philosophy. The single topic pages deserve to remain as single topic pages for "Good" and "Evil" separately and without merger. I do not think that the editor that did this had any ill intentions, only that the background of that editor appears to be in economics and mathematics and not in philosophy or ethics. I have notified their page anyway for fair notice practices at Wikipedia. Can somewhat restore the single purpose pages to their state last June before they were apparently inappropriately merged. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Pascal's wager#New paraphrase for lead for a discussion about a simplified summary proposed for the lead.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at Talk:Inherently funny word#Proposed merger about merging the contents of that page into Humor (or Comedy) and Humor research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Especially the section on Aristotle could use some help from somebody who knows more about what they are talking about. Cake (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@MisterCake: I'm not expert on Aristotle, although I did take a class on Ancient Philosophy for which half was about him. I quickly perused the section History of logic#Aristotle and didn't see any glaring problems, except for a lack of WP:RS. Can you post your specific concerns about that portion of the article on the article's talk page and give notice here when your concerns are noted? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Gave it my best go. Surprised the article has no reference to e. g. the law of noncontradiction. Cake (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, About a week ago i decided to create a navbox for philosophy of science, you can see it in my sandbox:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox

i need help to finish it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Experimentalism is a major movement in philosophy of science, yet as far as I can tell every sentence in the article on it is false, and the one citation is both unreliable and does not support the statement it is supposed to support. Anyone have the requisite background to do some doctoring?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to this new article. I'm not sure what to do with it, because (1) the topic is valid -- Britannica has an article with this title; (2) the content seems not bad; (3) the sourcing is completely unacceptable. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not much evidence, but I have never heard the term used. In addition, I spent a little while searching and found relatively little evidence that it's a widely used term. For instance, here is Eric Schliesser using the term in a way that does not seem to match the use in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3L5qjgyqU. It does appear to have been used in discussions of Descartes: https://books.google.com/books?id=H1H1CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=mathematicism&source=bl&ots=-BzCZPGbW5&sig=QVeGY5AniYmr0uJUjiAd_FEQWNs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE46mOmZvSAhWB5SYKHVZKD-A4ChDoAQhDMAU#v=onepage&q=mathematicism&f=false, but I'm not sure that establishes notability, or justifies the range of topics included in the page. P.S. I wasn't sure whether to post here in response to you, or on the talk page. I will gladly move my comment if need be. JustinBlank (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree the sourcing--so far--is weak, but the concept that everything is mathematical I have certainly encountered and I think it is probably fair to say that Pythagoras and/or his cult would sign on to such an ontology, or at least one where math is a basic foundational building block of reality. Consider Mathematical universe hypothesis, [3], [4]. There was also this 'documentary' by NOVA on Cable, which describes math as the "language of the universe", and one subjects says is the universe "only has mathematical properties." I suggest we build on the article rather that dispense with it. JustinBlank's reference is helpful. My google search of "mathematics and reality" produced quite a lot . of material on this subject. The only question for me is whether the term "mathematicism" is the best term of this kind of thinking. Or if it belongs in the Mathematical universe hypothesis article or somewhere else. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me as if the relevant question isn't whether this is a useful concept (that's original research), but rather whether it is a recognized and notable term of art in philosophy. I agree that there are some interesting similarities between the different ideas presented, but that's not how we should decide whether to have an article. JustinBlank (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@JustinBlank: I never suggested that the concept was "useful" (or not useful). I simply showed that the ideas are "out there" in the WP:RS. The question is not whether there is WP:RS for the concept of a mathematical ontology--there is--but where the material and proponents of that conceptualization (or similar concepts) should be filed in the encyclopedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is another article in Discovery "Everything in the Universe Is Made of Math – Including You". I admit that Discovery is certainly not a great source for topics of philosophy, as a mainstream for lay-persons "scientific" magazine. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked into this some more, specifically Googling the term 'mathematicism'. It appears the terms has different meanings to different experts:

• Britannica "Mathematicism, the effort to employ the formal structure and rigorous method of mathematics as a model for the conduct of philosophy."
• Collins Dictionary (of Harper-Collins) "the belief that everything can be explained in mathematical terms"
• Oxford Living Dictionary "The view or belief that everything can be described ultimately in mathematical terms, or that the universe is fundamentally mathematical."
• The book "Unity of philosophic experience" by By Etienne Gilson describes "Cartesian mathematicism" here.
• Book titled "Fields of Sense: A New Realist Ontology" by Markus Gabriel says here: "Ultimately, set-theoretical ontology is a remainder of Platonic mathematicism. Let mathematicism from here on be the view that everything that exists can be studied mathematically either directly or indirectly.[18]" (the footnote referring to a work by Alain Badiou is too long to include.

Sorry if I repeated any of your research. It seems the term can be justified in the WP:RS, but the exactly meaning obviously varies depending on the WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Criticism of monotheism has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone who understands Philosophy please remove the excessive puffery at this article? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI. I changed Logicians from this to this. I hope everyone agrees this was a needed change. I do not know much about the formatting and requirements of disambugation pages, so if I did something wrong, please let me know... --David Tornheim (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a good start, but I'm not sure it's finished. Normally, we like to see the redirect for plurals point to the singular, but since Logician itself is a redirect to Logic, that approach might be problematical here. Perhaps raise the issue at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Disambiguation? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't like this solution as it stands. It's counterintuitive for logician and logicians to take you to different pages, and the latter is currently too much about the word "logicians" (Wikipedia is not a dictionary).

I would propose:

• For now, both logician and logicians should be redirects to list of logicians. Then put a hatnote at the top for the Chinese philosophical school.
• That's a stopgap; someone should write an actual logician article about the profession. Then logicians should redirect to that article, which should have a hatnote for the philosophical school. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with both of you here and especially like the idea of an article dedicated to logician(s). I'm sure you both agree that the way it was when I found it (this) was a bit shocking. Even more bizarre is it had been that redirect for 10 years with no dispute! I didn't know just how justified that redirect was, so I made it so it was not completely lost until a long-term decision could be made. I'm glad we are pretty much on the same page. Can we cut and paste this discussion to the talk page of the article? I think it should be moved all at once, but I am afraid to do that without your permission. I opened a section at the article talk page here: Talk:Logicians#Changes.

Also, I think that if we are all in agreement we can make some of the changes you guys proposed without having to go to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. But if either of you want to post there, please feel free. My only real concern is how justified the original redirect was and whether it truly needs to be preserved, that might be worth asking at that page.

Wow. The School of Names had 1,820 views in the last 30 days [5]. Based on that, I am thinking maybe we should go to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Disambiguation after all. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the question is, would the searches/links specifically by way of logicians be comparable to people looking for an article on the profession. I can't say for sure no, but I really doubt it. I think searches for and links to the search term "logicians" are overwhelmingly going to be for the profession, and searches for the philosophical school can be handled via a hatnote, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (Note by the way that 1820 views is not really a lot — for comparison logic had 76K, though of course that doesn't mean that "logician" would.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Down at the bottom - see comments by me. Requesting someone with good experience with philosophy journals to weigh in. K.Bog 23:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note - to avoid any impression of forum shopping or canvassing, please comment here and not at the Articles for Deletion discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of one's point of view, this is indisputably the proper place to request comment for this topic. I don't think I'm falling afoul of any of the four criteria for canvassing. So I don't think comments would be inappropriate in the AFD. K.Bog 00:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so this IS an attempt to solicit comments for the AfD? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's an attempt to solicit comments on the issue we discussed in your AFD proposal, for the purpose of resolving that discussion. I'm not sure how it could be any more transparent. K.Bog 00:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking people to comment here, or at the Article for Deletion discussion? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am ambivalent. K.Bog 00:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert in philosophy, but I dod know about academic journals. The question is whether it is considered a serious professional-level academic journal, not whether it is technically peer-reviewed; many journals in some fields of the humanities still have the older custom of being selected by a reliable editor. (Until recent years, neither Nature nor Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was peer-reviewed in the usual sense; Albert Einstein refused to publish in any journal that was going to review his manuscripts.) What is relevant is the following:

1. Neither Columbia , Princeton, Yale, Harvard, UCLA, nor Berkeley have a cataloged copy of the journal (even though it is available free on the internet, they have apparently not decided to catalog it). Many other excellent universities do (Chicago, Duke, Indiana, Ohio State for example), but clearly it is not regarded as essential to a graduate philosophy program.

2. the publisher, Pacific University, is not a major research university.

3 The authors are typically philosophy faculty ay smaller universities, not senior faculty from the most famous departments,

4 The articles are written in a very slightly less formal and technical style than the usual academic philosophy journal.

But

1. It is indexed in the major index in the field, Philosopher's Index, and would therefore probably qualify as notable by the standards used at WP.

2. It is composed of a sequence of special issues on different topics and schools of thought. Typically such special issues are selected by the issue editor, who has the primary responsibility.

3 There is no reason to think this is primarily or in significant part a student journal, with editing and articles by undergraduate ofr graduate students.

4. The Board of advisors is very distinguished, but that is not necessarily meaningful DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk-page concerning whether the current first sentence (including its footnote) is correct, encyclopedic, and appropriately supported by citation. More voices would be welcome. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit war here about a writer who may be a crackpot; someone with subject expertise please take a look? —swpb^T 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Said editor (Dchmelik) is promoting Mike Hockney's fringe theories (Hockney is the author of The Armageddon Conspiracy). This editor is clearly conducting original research here on Wikipedia and most of his edits should be reverted per WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Swpb is apparently not even a WikiProject Philosophy member, but hoping to get people to push his anti-philosophical view. What I wrote is not original research, but cited, and is not fringe, but groundbreaking academic material. The fact that Hockney wrote The Armageddon Conspiracy novel has nothing to do with his non-fiction. Is rude sophistry of the ad hominem fallacy, rather than reading the material, the best you can both do?!--dchmelik (t|c) 09:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of the discussion about mathematicism. I haven't looked carefully, but from looking at the first two references, they do not appear to be independent secondary sources. Can any of it be merged to mathematicism? I do find these Platonic ontologies interesting, even if they usually have serious problems. It's amusing how scientists (who think their knowledge of the scientific method some how makes them experts on epistemology, which they frequently know little about) try to reinvent the wheel with stuff like in What the Bleep Do We Know!? rather than spend some time studying philosophy and not waste our time with crack pot theories that have already been considered long ago without such naivete and superficiality. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted Dchmelik's last edits ([6], [7]). @Dchmelik: Could you please provide independent secondary sources? The burden (see WP:BURDEN) to prove the notability and academic relevance of Mike Hockney's work is on you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

They're secondary sources on Tegmark and on MUHs. As David Tornheim pointed out, actually the MUH article doesn't even start with secondary sources. You're just worsening that problem--dchmelik (t|c) 11:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, please stop restoring your version until this discussion is over. Your edits have been questioned by more than two editors so you are going against consensus. Furthermore, the burden to prove the academic relevance of your sources is still on you. Tegmark's work has been published by Random House and Annals of Physics. Hockney's (a self-professed member of the Illuminati! (see here)) The God Game is self-published (official publisher is "Hyperreality Books"; no further details about it are known). --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Is unknowing sophistry of the argument from authority fallacy, rather than reading the material, the best you can do?! Many intellectuals (philosophers, scientists, mathematicians) over millennia didn't have a degree (though Hockney apparently has at least an Masters in Communication) or (famous) publisher, but that didn't stop them from writing some world-changing ideas, that are all over Wikipedia. He says he's a member of the Pythagorean (also Leibnizian) Illuminati (philosophers of Platonic enlightement, as in Plato's Republic,) which aren't in that article, but as such, they are of interest in contemporary Neopythagoreanism & Neoplatonism (and modern German Idealism, such as Leibnizianism, that continued Classical Greek ideas.)--dchmelik (t|c) 11:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Our personal views are irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia; we are supposed to provide detailed citations to reliable sources. The whole sophistry-talk is an obvious red herring. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A source's material or accuracy, not perceived authority, makes it reliable. As for red herring, not really, as this isn't a formal debate. Formal reasoning fallacies apply in any case, but ones that apply to formal debates only apply to those.--dchmelik (t|c) 12:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) Mike Hockney, The God Game, Hyperreality Books (actually Lulu Press, an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform, according to Google Books), 2013. chapter 1 (The Illuminati): "This is one of a series of books outlining the cosmology, philosophy, politics and religion of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a senior member, working under the pseudonym of "Mike Hockney"."

Dchmelik's edits (insertion of citations to Hockney's work): [8] and [9]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you mean Hyperreality Books is Lulu Press, no, they are separate. Lulu Press publishes thousands of separate people's books, and Hyperreality Books published (no longer publishes) ebooks on Amazon.com, Lulu Press, Smashwords.com, Google Books, iTunes, and maybe others. Now that you've quoted that, one can see why some science article editors may not read to the actual science/math material in the ebooks (despite Pythagoras or his teacher Thales being two of various people called 'the first scientist') but I'm sure you've made these Neopythagoreans more interesting to people at this WikiProject who edit articles on such schools of thought.--dchmelik (t|c) 12:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

See also [10] and [11]. In my view, these threads should be deleted per WP:FORUM: "material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines". Those threads are not about improving Wikipedia but an invitation to original synthesis/original research. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not true; you're misreading/misrepresenting what I said. Swpb (who edits the article) said ‘WP:BRD: bring concerns to talk, w/sources,’ so I did that (only summarazing/paraphrasing and stating why ideas are relevant... in addition, academics have publicly, later, used Hockney's term 'philosophical mathematics' the same way as he does, with MUHs either based on his or using some same ideas, cited now on the talk page.) On your first link just above (actually to a different article's talk page!) I just asked if people knew about some other material relevant to the topic, describing what I may have read or thought. If they cite sources for that, of course, they can't use what I thought unless some reliable source says the same thing. Anyway, I clarified that comment now.--dchmelik (t|c) 01:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Who says that Tim Maudlin took the term 'philosophical mathematics' from Hockney? You keep inserting original research to Wikipedia articles which is unacceptable. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a different article, and I didn't say that, though they are using the term the same way and Hockney should be credited as the originator of the contemporary term and one relevant theory.--dchmelik (t|c) 00:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

‎Marcocapelle has been removing Category:Critical thinking from a range of articles that are virtually a catalog of tools often considered essential parts of the critical thinking toolkit, Occam's razor and Analysis being two recent examples. I've complained before about the state of the Critical thinking article and Marcocapelle is correct that these articles did not mention "critical thinking" by name.

I'm afraid I don't put much stock in the category system because the criteria for inclusion seem somewhat murky to me except when the categories are used for driving worklists. Would the correct action be to add a mention of the role these topics have in the general art of rationality or critical thinking and then re-add the category? And thank Marcocapelle for pointing out the omission? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh and Marcocapelle: Ideally for any category someone can find a published list somewhere to use as a source. This is challenging for me, because I am not sure whether "analysis" or "Occam's razor" should be called critical thinking. I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to say, so I would depend on a source. What might be cited? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• • To be more precise, per WP:CATDEF, sources on e.g. the topic Analysis should consistently indicate that this topic Analysis belongs to Critical thinking. So this is not about sources on Critical thinking but the other way around. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: can you take a look at this discussion and the Critical Thinking article? I'm not all that impressed with that article, and I am curious if you have a similar take. Looking at the article will help address the questions regarding the categories that should apply to critical thinking. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Having glanced over the article, it looks okay, but not particularly good. Logic and rationality seems to be desperately in need of sources, some of which I can scare up. Many of those sources can also be used at Critical thinking. I know for a fact that there are academic works on critical thinking, so I'm a little surprised at the relative sparsity of sources. All that being said, every single aspect of logic is, at least tangentially connected to critical thinking because critical thinking is, in a nutshell, the habit of relying on logic effectively. So I strongly disagree with removing the category from logic-oriented articles such as these without a better rationale. I've watchlisted this page and the pages I've linked to. I'll start poking at them as I can. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Thanks. I thought you would know what to do! --David Tornheim (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey all! I recently stumbled upon Condition (philosophy) while looking through articles tagged as needing sections. The article feels like a personal essay, but this certainly isn't a topic I'm familiar with. If the article looks fixable, some cleanup would be much appreciated. If not, perhaps we could propose it for deletion. Any thoughts are much appreciated. Thanks! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed article for deletion via WP:PROD. As always, feel free to object by removing the template. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AfD. Discussion is here. Comments are most welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone on this project care to check this one out? It all seems very odd, but perhaps a Kierkegaard expert will understand it. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Massive edits by IP turned the article, especially the lead, to be about Synergetics. Could use anther pair of eyes. El_C 08:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a dispute about a philosoophy journal at WP:AN, and what kinds of sources are permitted, in case anyone here is interested. See here. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The dispute at AN is about an admin's behaviour. But anyone wanting to comment on the content dispute is welcomed to bring the topic up at WT:JOURNALS, although I would advise people to read read WP:JWG and User talk:Randykitty#A request for background. It is specifically about whether or not academic journals articles should list the editorial board's members / how to avoid WP:PROMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There is now a RFC on the article concerned - probably best if other editors contribute there. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The article on Public Philosophy has been revised at some point and now contains errors. Firstly, it confuses the definition of "public philosophy" under which it is philosophy that is undertaken in a public venue with the position that the public should be only be educated by philosophers and not interacted with. Secondly, it confuses the definition of "public philosophy" under which it means philosophy that addresses issues of public importance with the view that the public must be interacted with. So, for instance, the project undertaken by Essays in Philosophy special issue on public philosophy (Vol 15, issue 1, 2014) is completely misrepresented. The fact that the issue was organized under the first definition, under which "public philosophy" is philosophy in a public venue, is taken as indicating that the authors are committing themselves to the view that public philosophy should "merely" aim to educate the public. Yet not one of the authors in the issue commit themselves to this position. Indeed, a philosopher can only interact with the public in a public venue.

Is this still an issue? I don't know who wrote this or when and why it isn't discussed on the entry's talk page. I have made some edits. More citations are needed. Hypatiagal (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I am starting a rewrite of the evidentialism article, and since I don't think that I have the level of commitment to finish it, I invite people to rewrite it here. Thanks! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to coment, ask questions and draft Free will changes at talk:free will in the light of new empirical evidence.

Enjoy the day, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am currently involved in a disagreement at the Fashionable Nonsense article, which concerns whether or how criticism of the book should be reflected in the lead. I would welcome comments from other editors, whatever their view of the issue, because discussion on the talk page is currently stalled. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

We have an article Type–token distinction, and another Type–token relations. I suspect that we want to merge these. -- 179.210.72.9 (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a new article, Individual Philosophy, which seems to be mostly original research. Is this a topic that deserves its own article, or should it be redirected to Philosophy, other?

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Carole- Original research is the best type of research... I know Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia but I think we should be sharing ideas too. Gestcom (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom

I have "prodded" the article; it clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Object Although I object to deletion, the article is original research...you know when I made it I thought that Original research was a good thing! It doesn't seem right that an inspired collection of ideas on a notable subject has no place in wikipedia. If we can't collate knowledge then how can we expand our minds? However, if you were being strict, it is original research, but I challenge you to find an article free of original research or free from referencing original research. You can't write without adding originality, especially in the works of philosophy. I guess what makes me upset is that it would be perfect for wikipedia if these ideas were on some blog... and then I could reference it and it would all fit perfectly. Anyway, wikipedia is nothing if not a democracy. Gestcom (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Gestcom

Gestcom, Have you read what it says in the guidelines about WP:No original research? The first sentence, in bold is "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. " Content in Wikipedia should be cited based upon reliable sources and should not be OR. I agree with the Prod tag.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

((Infobox journal)) now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of ((Infobox journal)). If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

• Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Philosophy journals).
• One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
• VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST

• There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
• |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
• If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.

• Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with ((R from ISO 4)).
• WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm writing a draft article about Afro-pessimism, a philosophical approach in the Black Radical tradition: User:Hexatekin/sandbox/Afro-pessimism. I'm wondering what (if) people use as infoboxes for philosophical concepts? I know we have the Template:Philosophy sidebar.. but it also lacks categories for Black Studies. In my academic training, it's understood that African-American studies isn't a very useful concept when we are talking about ideas and movements related to Black Studies which stretch outside of the geographical space of North America. For instance, Pan-Africanism. The same goes, alternately, for Africana studies, which is a useful concept, but also not used by all groups studying blackness and racialization of people of African descent that are part of the diaspora, and have their own perspectives not necessarily tied to the base of Africa in a geographically specific way. I suggest that we worth towards understanding Black Studies as a unique philosophical line of critique and area, and one that is included in the Template:Philosophy sidebar. Hexatekin (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

This may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC 2: Specific proposal to revise the third bullet of MOS:JOBTITLES.

The goal is to adjust MOS:JOBTITLES in a way that provides an easy "rule" for capitalization that is a compromise between the conflicting philosophy and linguistics approaches to the proper name concept. Please keep in mind that the discussion is about finding a way to end years of editorial dispute, not perpetuate it by forcefully advancing one's (or one's profession's) preferred ideal. I.e., no WP:TRUTH or WP:GREATWRONGS should be injected.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Hero, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Should the categories Ashkenazi Jews, German people of Jewish descent, Jewish atheists, Jewish philosophers, Jewish socialists, Jewish sociologists be added to this article?Talk:Karl_Marx#RfC RolandR (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing some discussion of "preferentism" vs. "non-preferentism", e.g. here ( https://books.google.com/books?id=hJhaBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA650&lpg=PA650&dq=preferentism&source=bl&ots=otF2X_RQT7&sig=sLMoNLI6AVcnAlzTa9_X0K1iG3k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkztup7pDXAhXGDZAKHeU-BvQ4ChDoAQg0MAM#v=onepage&q=preferentism&f=false ) (The Routledge Companion to Ethics, edited by John Skorupski). Wikipedia apparently doesn't have any mention of this topic at all.

Does anybody care to create a stub article on Preferentism? (Or a section about it in an existing article if appropriate?)

Thanks -- 189.122.198.138 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Illusion, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Gender of rearing is up for deletion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Could one of you experts please, please have a look at the article Discourse on the method?
It's in an abysmal state! Seems the authors made heavy use of their misconceptions and conjectures. A lot of issues already listed on the Talk page, proposals how to improve it too. But since all this is obstinately challenged as original research (which to my mind in this circumstances is quite impertinent), it seems that is a task for seasoned Wikipedians to do. (I can't. Otherwise I would spent the rest of my life in libraries to harvest all the refs to feed them. And which btw. no one needs who actually has read the book in the first place.) --89.15.239.96 (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

To my mind → French WP Discours de la méthode is excellent and exactly how this article should be. --2.247.246.125 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind assessing Maoist Theory of National Struggle? It's a newly created article moved directly to the mainspace by a student participating in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/HIGR_210_Socialism_in_China_(2017_Fall). Just for reference, the article has already been userfied once before, but maybe this time around it is OK for the mainspace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Philosophy

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Infinity (philosophy) has been undergoing significant expansion by one enthusiastic editor recently. Much of the added material has some English problems, which is easy enough to fix, but it's grown beyond my ability and expertise to really evaluate. A lot of it seems pretty off-topic, but there might be some worth keeping, so if anyone wants to take a look, it could probably use some eyes. Thanks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Any philosophical insight that would be useful for the improvement of Draft:Comparison would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

When researching polychora, I came across the idea that spirits are four-dimensional beings. However, I do not see this anywhere on Wikipedia. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)