Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Unity in diversity

Could I get some feedback on Unity in diversity? Sometime back in April 2017 the page was significantly altered to state that "Unity in diversity" was merely a political motto, but I feel like there's a good case for it being more of an overarching philosophical concept—even if the phrase itself is sometimes used as a slogan. The Lalonde ref on that page mentions that the concept was current in Taoist societies as well as in Ancient Greece, but all I've been able to find so far was its treatment by Ibn al-Arabi and his followers. Would anyone else have any leads on good sources to expand this article? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Henry Clay Brockmeyer

I just put together a biography of this German-born Hegelian, who seems like he was important in the early history of Hegel in America and of the "St. Louis Movement". If anyone wants to look it over and maybe find something better to say about his impact, that would be great. Anyways, there is at least something on him now. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Value theory needs your help

Value theory is overly essay-like and needs more citations to sources.

Would anyone here care to review and improve this article?

Thanks -- 189.60.63.116 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Topics in Metaphysics

Someone has been repeatedly removing much of the content of the article Metaphysics listing the central topics of the field (in a structure closely mirroring other authoritative sources like SEP) citing poor referencing for those being within the domain of metaphysics. Some other editors' attention there would be appreciated. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Critique of Pure Reason

Hello. I have a dispute with Διοτιμα at the article Critique of Pure Reason. I have attempted to engage with this user and discuss the dispute at the article's talk page. He has, however, ignored me. I would welcome any comments on the issue, whatever they are, from editors interested in philosophy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This user has also tampered with Fundamental ontology. Their latest additions seem to be a personal interpretation of Being and Time. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Omnipaedista. I would appreciate it if you could comment about the dispute on the talk page of the article Critique of Pure Reason. There is a similar dispute at Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) that you might also want to comment on. To be completely explicit about it, I am not asking you or other editors to agree with me. I welcome your comments whatever they are. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Index of philosophy articles (I–Q) contains a link to the DAB page Pien which has me baffled. Can any expert here help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Pien refers to the concept of gradual transformation in Confucian or Taoist philosophy; see for instance Bianhua#Later_usages. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mark viking: In that case, can you repair that bad link, and perhaps also update the DAB page? I don't feel competent to do so. Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Y Done. --Mark viking (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

TY! There may be more links like that which need expert attention, but I haven't started to collect them yet. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC involving the demarcation problem

Please see Talk:Faith healing#RfC about inserting content and category about pseudoscience. There seems to be some confusion about whether all empirically verifiable facts are (properly speaking) "science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Fallacy

Hello, I am trying to improve the article Fallacy, and as the first step I have restructured it (shuffled sections and paragraphs around). I would like to ask for some feedback on its talk page to see if I am going the right way. Thanks :) Petr Matas 15:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I just took a look, and your order of sections appears to be the ideal one. You may wish to find a source for the "overview" section you created, as it's a part of the article, not the lede, and thus can be removed if not sourced. The claims in it look okay to me, so I won't remove them, but I'm going to re-write it a bit because the language is not ideal (the first person POV is a bit jarring for an encyclopedia article). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to add some sources to it myself as I edit it (am currently doing so, so please don't edit conflict me). They're fairly easy to find. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Socrates

Hi, I'm looking for advice on whether (and how much) to roll back an extended period of block evasion edits at Socrates. Please see Talk:Socrates#Looking for a clean version of this article if you have any input. Thanks, Dekimasuよ! 19:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Gestalt in philosophy

Hi, I've been interested for some time in the philosophical/aesthetic aspects of the idea of Gestalt as expressed by (for example) JJ Winckelmann, Herder, Kant, Schiller, Goethe and Hegel.

As far as I can see, no such article exists on English WP. Some time ago I translated some of an old version of Gestalt on de:WP, resulting in User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Gestalt (philosophy) which I recently uploaded to draft. de:Gestalt has been updated since then, although it still has very few inline refs: I could probably translate the relevant bits of the current article.

I am absolutely no philosopher (more into classical music and early German cinema) and don't feel particularly qualified to write the article: but brickbats/suggestions/ideas for English sources would be welcome if anyone felt it was worthwhile my carrying on. MinorProphet (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RfDs related to dystheism, misotheism

I've nominated several redirects to Dystheism and Misotheism at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 3 would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with a review

Hi,

I have proposed a substantial redraft of the article How (philosophy). I have a COI as a paid consultant to the author of the book. I'd appreciate it if someone happened to have time to look at this request, at: Talk:How_(book)#Request_for_review_of_Redraft

Many thanks, BC1278 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Major changes at Philosophical skepticism

Philosophical skepticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just came across this article during my editing and discovered that it has been undergoing major changes by multiple student editors who joined in January 2018. I have no comment on their contributions, in part because I have not extensively reviewed them myself, but it may be helpful if more are watching this article and others review the article's recent history of changes. I will do so soon if I have the time and already plan to help clean the article up to conform to the Manual of Style. Thanks. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Gobineau

Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Countering systemic bias/Mathematics" at Miscellany for Deletion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Instrumental and intrinsic value could use eyes

Could people please take a look at Instrumental and intrinsic value?

Attention from additional editors might be able to improve the quality of this article.

-- 189.122.51.140 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alexandrian school

The article Alexandrian school has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not Well Sourced/ To The Point Of Not Being Encyclopedic (All Valuable Content Here Could Be Merged Into Another Page With Maybe Three Sentences)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sleyece (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethics in the Bible

I have proposed a change to Ethics in the Bible on its talk page involving restructuring the article topically to produce a more neutral pov and better content. I am looking for consensus on improving what everyone agrees is a poor quality article. Please come and comment.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice -- article deletion

FYI. Discussion on deleting the year 1700 from List of years in philosophy here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1700_in_philosophy#1700_in_philosophy. Feel free to comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Dispute at Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger)

There is a content dispute between myself and Διοτιμα at Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger). I have tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page here, but Διοτιμα has not responded as yet. I would welcome comments from other editors, whatever they are. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Descriptive knowledge looks like it has never had any citations and in replicates material from other articles. Simply applying wikipedia rules would reduce it to zero content. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I commented at the AfD, Snowded. I believe I can contribute something given my EBSCO access. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Need input on Omnipotence paradox article

There's a dispute at Omnipotence Paradox (relevant section on talk page) concerning this edit: [1]. Can I get some outside opinions on it? Thanks. Banedon (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

I had collected half-a-dozen pages which contained {{disambiguation needed}} tags to philosophy-related topics which required expert attention; but on reviewing that handful, that number was down to two. (Good work, by Whoever!)

In main text, search for 'disam'; in edit mode, search for '{{d' (and keep on going through things like {{death date}} and {{div col}} until you find the problem flag).

• Metaphysics of presence  Done
• Anti-intellectualism  Done

if you solve either of these puzzles, remove the dab-needed tag from the article and post {{done}} here. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to try and help you out. I'm not an expert in Philosophy, but probably know much more than the average editor, since I have taken numerous classes, including upper division, and was on my way to seeking a Master's. I've continued to study it here and there since then.

First Item: now: I looked at the first one. I'm not sure what you are hoping for. Do you want the now disambiguation page to link back and have a brief explanation of what it is linking to? And you're not sure how best to word it? I'm not sure it is necessary. I don't think even in Philosophy we would consider there to be a special technical term "now" that is well defined or carefully attributed to Aristotle. As you can see it is not even in the Aristotle article--although perhaps it should be added. I could see how we could have a simple link of "Aristotle's now" as described in [2]. What made you feel a need to make a "dab" entry for it? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

How about we just ask Metadat who added it here? Medadat: When you added the wikilink to "now" this edit did you expect there to be more content about "now" as it relates to Philosophy? Can we just remove the wikilink, or do you think it should have a disambiguation entry that links back? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I see this one has been addressed by Omnipaedista with this edit. Thanks. I agree. That's what I would have done if we had not heard back from Metadat. I have marked it done. I agree that it is not a technical term in philosophy to the best of my knowledge, even though the issue of the complexity of time described in that article and by authors like Heidegger certainly is. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Second Item: Ignorance is Bliss I added this discussion to the talk page for the second one, where I pinged you and the editor who added it: Talk:Anti-intellectualism#Ignorance_is_Bliss. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I can resolve about 85-90% of the ambiguous links to DAB pages I look at (and I look at a lot – it's my WikiGnomish speciality). Here, my immediate reaction was: an editor has added a see-also item by free association to a cliche that they'd heard of, rather than to something technical. However, I don't like deleting such an entry unless I'm certain that it's useless to readers: the original editor might have had something in mind which I've missed. But, if specialists can see no obvious relevant connection, then my gut reaction was right, and the entry should be deleted ASAP as unhelpful to anyone and as confusing.

("Ignorance is bliss" may be a cliche, but it's a quote from an 18th century poem. I was very surprised to find that this edit was necessary.) So it goes. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Anarchism task force

Wanted to give notice: We're planning to split off the anarchism task force, as many of the articles in our scope are not a subset of WikiProject Philosophy's scope.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism#WikiProject Philosophy revisited

(not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Medieval aesthetics

Hello. I'd like my article Medieval aesthetics to be included in this project. I would also value any feedback on it. Maimonides Marxe (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Instrumentalism

There is a dispute between myself and TBR-qed at Talk:Instrumentalism/Archive 2#Original synthesis. TBR-qed has been trying to hijack this article since 2014 by replacing it with his own original synthesis (see also the archived discussion). At least two other editors (Modocc, WarrenPlatts; see the said talk page) noticed this back in 2015, but did not take action. After reviewing the relevant discussion, I eventually reverted TBR-qed's version a few months ago. This reversion is still being disputed by TBR-qed. I would welcome comments from other editors, whatever they are. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Generations of the Hudson River School discussion

Please come participate in this discussion of the "generations" of the Hudson River School. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Normative

There have been some big edits over at Normative that I don't have the time to properly evaluate but I think they could really use some experienced eyes to make sure that they are worth keeping and not disruptive. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Civics, 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 00:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Request comment for Big questions speedy deletion

Simple. -Inowen (nlfte) 19:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Marcus Aurelius needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Marcus Aurelius; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

• Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
• Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
• Format accepted articles
• Promote the journal

Authors

• New Wikipedia articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• Existing Wikipedia articles to be externally peer reviewed (analogous to GA / FA review - see submission page)
• Image articles, based around an important images, photographs or summary diagrams

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

• Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

On Certainty

I am reading Wittgenstein's On Certainty and have expanded the article a bit over the last couple of days. Anyone familiar with OC will appreciate the difficulty of saying much about it that isn't contestable. Nevertheless, I think it ought to be possible to draw on the Moorean propositions and images like the river-bed, the hinges and a few others. There is an e-text, helpfully. If anyone has any ideas about this, I have said more on the talk page (mainly about sources). Thanks in advance. -Soap 89.240.142.20 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

I have collected a very small batch of articles which include philosophy-related links to DAB pages. Expert help in solving these problems would be welcome. Search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode. If you manage to solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} link from the article, and post {{done}} here.

• Pietro Verri (two bad links)
• Miguel Ángel Virasoro (philosopher)

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Human Interaction Proof

Was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at this new article and assssing it. It looks like a first attempt at writing an article by a new user. Subject matter seems quite technical, and it reads more like an academic paper than a Wikipedia article. I tried to do some basic formatting cleanup, but perhaps someone here is familiair with the subject matter and can help with the phrasing, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Article on Ernst Troeltsch

The article on Ernst Troeltsch has been rated as stub class by your Wiki Project Group, but might be long enough to be brought up to Start Class now (see the talk page on this article). Vorbee (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've updated all the assessments to reflect the current state of the article. Good work by those who expanded it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Gender feminism merge discussion

Input is requested for a discussion at Talk:Gender feminism as to whether the contents of Gender feminism should be merged into other existing articles, and if so, whether the page should become a redirect or disambiguation page. Thank you. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

John W. Yolton

I have created John W. Yolton.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

Hello, I am baffled to see that Amartya Sen is regarded "highly important" in this WikiProject. Please ping me while you reply, I don't watch this page. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Anti-consumerism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Anti-consumerism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Anti-consumerism 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Change 2nd paragraph at A priori and a posteriori

-Change from: These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" which must follow it.

-Change to: These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish premise-conclusions; from what must-come before sense observation, a presence premise; from what must-follow sense observation, past future premises.

• That Kant was proposing understanding the validity of living in the present as necessary.This is a semantically more comprehensive update, Please go for the consensus, thanks...Arnlodg (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Postmodern mathematics

• Postmodern mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So I just ran across this article, and I'm completely at a loss what to make of it. First, I'm unsure whether or not this is even a notable topic (it maybe looks like this is restricted to just a few academics, and I'm not sure if that's enough). Second, if it is notable enough for an article, I think the title needs to be changed – currently it seems to suggest that this is some sort of type of math or field within math, but this clearly isn't the case. Rather, it seems that the actual topic is more about the study of math as a discipline through a postmodernist lens. And finally, there's possibly some WP:OR/WP:SYN issues going on, but I don't feel comfortable enough with the topic to really be sure. So anyone who'd like to take a swing at this would be welcome. (Notifying at WT:WPM as well). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know enough about it to throw the entire thing out, but the use of Popper and Wittgenstein as "notable figures" really does seem suspicious (and a lot like WP:OR, as you say--or even more misleading), so I encourage anyone reading this with a background on either one of those figures to take a look as well. Note, though, that their inclusion as figures in this school of thought is tied to a scholarly article (that I can't access), not their own works, which is the only thing that keeps me from removing it right now. Seems like a minority/fringe viewpoint, but I am not 100% sure. Political philosophy is more my area of interest.--MattMauler (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I've definitely read a bit in the philosophy-of-mathematics literature about "humanistic" interpretations of mathematical truth, and my guess is that there's enough to warrant an article describing the works of Reuben Hersh and others. But this article makes grand claims about what all postmodernists think about mathematics, which is unsupportable. I'd be inclined to WP:TNT the whole thing and redirect it to Philosophy of mathematics, which already has heaps of words about social constructivism, fictionalism, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What to do about Criticism of the Catholic Church

A user has suggested splitting Criticism of the Catholic Church; you are invited to discuss at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Revert,_damage_too_much_to_fix.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Modernism

Philosophy part is messy and needs untangling. I also think it glances over some important figures and doesn't have proper priorities, potentially confusing philosophies and philosophers that are important for postmodernism, not modernism.Sourcerery (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Existentialism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Existentialism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Existentialism 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback sought at Jean-François Lyotard

Hi, I'd appreciate your feedback at Talk:Jean-François Lyotard#Precursors and influences. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Political science for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Political science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Political science 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett. — Newslinger talk 21:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Ethics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Ethics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ethics 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Formal equality

Please discuss at Talk:Gender_equality#Is_formal_equality_the_same_term_or_should_it_have_its_own_article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPP listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPP. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove project links from topic categories

ABout 50 topic categories, e.g., Category:Rationalism link to WP:WikiProject Philosophy/Resources. The full list is at Special:WhatLinksHere/WP:WikiProject_Philosophy/Resources. However, topic categories, like articles should minimize links into the Wikipedia: project. Please remove them all. Imagine if every project added their links, and that topics can be of interest to multiple projects. Recall that projects do not own topic articles nor topic categories. Such links could be added to the category talk pages, and possibly within the project banners themselves. Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group: [3]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger

We could do with some more eyes - ideally those with expert knowledge - on this article. Lots of accusations of bias etc. being thrown by one editor. -----Snowded ^TALK 11:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Two editors. Against a "consensus" of maybe three or four. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC of interest

this RfC may be of interet to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

RM of interest

A request to re-title an article which may be of interest to members of this project is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Human rights for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human rights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human rights 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Right-libertarianism and its place within libertarianism

There is a discussion happening at Talk:Right-libertarianism about whether to rename or delete or merge or otherwise make major changes to that article, which seems to me that it is really about libertarianism more generally and so needs eyes from a wider selection of editors than just those who happen to be watching that article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health FA nom

Hello! I was wondering if any members of the WikiProject could kindly take a look at the review for this article that I nominated. It touches on philosophy, in assessment and treatment, and may be of interest to any members overall. With many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles with links to DAB pages

I have collected a batch of articles with philosophy-related DABlinks where expert attention would be welcome. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

• Absolute (philosophy)
• Elements of Theology
• Jean-Luc Nancy
• Medium essentialism
• Other (philosophy)
• Perspectivism
• Pietro Verri (if the name 'Regalia' is correct, an article may be missing)
• Subjective idealism
• Transmodernism

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Philosophy and/or Portal:Philosophy of science? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest

An RfC which may be of interest to members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Aesthetics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Aesthetics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aesthetics 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Philosophy of science for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Philosophy of science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Philosophy of science 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Epistemological nihilism == Radical skepticism?

There are several forms of extreme skepticism, including Epistemological nihilism, Radical skepticism and Pyrrhonism. Are all of these identical to one another? Should this be reflected somehow? 37KZ (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Template:Effective altruism

There is an RFC on the names to include as Key Figures for Effective altruism in the Template:Effective altruism. The discussion is at Template talk:Effective altruism. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:May 1968 events in France that would benefit from more input, from your input. Please come and help! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 16:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories

Opinions are needed at this AFD, whatever they may be. It's a tricky AFD that needs input from those familiar with this content area (which I am not). Best4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The result of the Afd was no consensus. There is an ongoing discussion about WP:POVFORK and other issues at Talk:Conspiracy theory. --mikeu ^talk 19:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Argmentation scheme draft

Would someone be willing to take a look at Draft:Argumentation_scheme - is this suitable for an article? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move_2

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Situational analysis that would benefit from your input. Please come and help! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 02:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Tree of knowledge

Hello, I am seeking guidance and help in defining a tree of knowledge to suit Wikipedia. Trees of knowledge have been considered indispensible to encyclopaedias of the past and though Wikipedia has many content trees, it doesn't really have a tree of knowledge. The difficulty here is the focus on the site and content. For instance, Truth, Belief, and Justification are probably going to be too vague to be relevant to Wikipedia. I've had one idea for instance, Fact, Fiction and Theory. But I don't think this is key. I am sure however that a suitable tree can be produced and refined in the Wikipedia fashion to become really important and authoritative. At very least it would provide an interesting method of content browsing.

I don't even have a basis for this tree except that encyclopaedias have done them before, they've been really good for those encyclopaedias, and that we must have one on Wikipedia where it will, eventually, be the best of these trees ever and perhaps even a guide to certain parts of the site such as the content browsing systems.

Can anyone express an interest in creating this tree and/or help me to find relevant resources? (try a websearch for "tree of knowledge", you are not going to find epistemology so, as this is the sort of thing which goes by comparison and review, it is crying out so to speak for guidance and help). Any advice, comments, information, anything, thanks o/~ R.T.G 04:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If you mean something like the Figurative system of human knowledge, there are two directions I could think of investigating. The first is to look at the system of categorization of articles we have. There is a lot of good hierarchical knowledge contained in there. At the very top of the hierarchy, categories get philosophical and the upper ontology Wikipedia has created with its categories is just one take on the problem. The second, for topics lower on the tree, is to look at the outlines (of varying quality) that have been created for various topics; see the Outlines wikiproject. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 05:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is certainly a philosophical topic. Even the most minor approach feels complex. Although I am sure this type of theme has been fluffed out a thousand times, the internet is awash with culture and philosophy, as always, just resting. However, the internet is still new in so many ways, and this is one of them. Don't be afraid of this topic. I am going to gently press for it. It really is overdue and Wikipedia will at least make something interesting out of it if not authoritative and I want to see that in my lifetime (it could take an age to write it and turn out really important so,) Thanks Mark that's spot on. ~ R.T.G 08:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Merger from Poetic naturalism into Sean M. Carroll

I have proposed a merger from Poetic naturalism into Sean M. Carroll. See the talk page for Poetic naturalism for the discussion. TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Article issues

There are comments at Talk:Jane Addams#Article issues that might be of interest to members. Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge request

Just want to make you aware of the merge request at Talk:Regress argument#Merge request. Some more opinions would be appreciated. --37KZ (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

repeated addition of self-published work in logic articles

Please review the contributions of Mfreeman2222 to articles on logic. I reverted the additions to Logic, but don't have the heart to undo them all, especially if the text is not itself unreasonable. Outriggr (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s certainly reasonable to undo them per WP:COI and request that they use an Edit request on the article talk page instead. I’ve welcomed them and added a link to WP:SELFCITE. Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please suggest how I can help.

I am an Undergraduate student studying History and International Relation at the Birkbeck University College London, and one of my modules was social and political studies. You have an interesting wiki-project and as a beginner I would like be part of Wiki-project philosophy, specifically political and social philosophy. Do you have any practical but simple tasks I can do?. --Tohnnysmith (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I often do one of two things to get started and find things to edit:
1. In the sidebar on this page (above, right), click "show" next to "articles by quality." Click one of the lower quality designations ("stub" or "start" class), and it will send you to a long (multi-page) list of articles needing improvement, sorted by importance. Do you see any with which you have some familiarity? You might be able to improve the article. The ones in the low-quality categories are often low-traffic, and some might even have simple copy-editing or clarity needs.
2. Is there a notable book on philosophy that does not have an article (I find that recent books often don't get articles for a few years after release)? You could potentially create the article (NOTE: this would not be a simple task, and I would recommend submitting it as a draft for review. The MOST important tip for creating an article about a book is making sure that you cite reviews in major publications to show the book is actually notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (books)).--MattMauler (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!

• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Will (philosophy)" Article Questions & Intentions

Hello, everyone. I have been working on the "Will(Philosophy)" article for a few weeks now. So far I have been planning on adding more content to the "Kant" and "Rousseau" sections of the article, the draft of which is in peer review currently. Last week, on February 21, I received a critique from Sulferboy, mentioning that my article was written in an essay-like style, and that I did not have secondary, reliable sources, although I have both primary and secondary sources in my References section. What should I do? Also, I just wanted to ask if it would be alright if I eliminate the following from the "Kant" section of the "Will (Philosophy)" article: "Kant's Transcendental Idealism claimed that "all objects are mere appearances [phenomena]."[8] He asserted that "nothing whatsoever can ever be said about the thing in itself that may be the basis of these appearances."[9] Kant's critics responded by saying that Kant had no right, therefore, to assume the existence of a thing in itself."? Thank you for taking the time to look over this issue? I cited my sandbox page where my article draft is located. User:Christopher_H._Moller/sandbox--Christopher H. Moller (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Responding to your second question: I would recommend asking about the removal of that material on the talk page of that article rather than here. If you comment there and give a clear reason for removing it, other editors can respond who are more familiar with the content and with the whole article. If no responds after several days, you can remove it (then if someone objects you can continue the discussion, etc.).--MattMauler (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Race and intelligence"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Ignorance, 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 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Can we please provide a link or explanation for "pathè" in Ataraxia?

Ataraxia currently includes a quote from Sextus Empiricus -

We always say that as regards belief (i.e., dogma) the Pyrrhonist's goal is ataraxia,

and that as regards things that are unavoidable it is having moderate pathè.

No definition of the term "pathè" is provided, and I'm sure that it will be unfamiliar to many users.

I linked it to some existing text in Wikipedia, but another editor felt that my link was incorrect.

Can we please provide an appropriate definition, explanation, or link in Ataraxia?

Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of business

Philosophy of business is pretty much a stub, but it would seem to be a very important article, considering the amount books written on the topic; and even the subcategory of Sun Tzu's Art of War in business books are very numerous. We don't have coverage, and it could do with some help. Could editors familiar with the topic expand the article? -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dialetheism needs attention

Dialetheism says

Harvard philosopher Cristobal de Losada Lopez de Romana has been acclaimed for his works rebutting LNC and arguing against theories around explosion. While admitting to not fully pursuing his ideas due to cowardice and focusing on other works he characterizes as Malthusian (not in their alarmist quality but rather in the start contrast between their widespread popularity and low accuracy), he has pushed these theories farther than many others before.

No cite is given for this.

Can this be improved?

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation has a new sort tool, you can see all pending related drafts here: Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Philosophy and religion

Just in case there are folks here who might be interested in reviewing drafts awaiting article status that are particular to this WikiProject. If you'd like to sign up to review/approve/decline new Drafts, instructions are here. AFC Reviewers get to use really cool automated tools that make reviewing really quick and easy, and I've really enjoyed volunteering there, and I'm really digging the AFC Sorting tool so instead of having to comb through lots of articles, I can zip right to topics I'm interested in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Gnosology and gnosiology

Is there anyone clued-up on the subject(s) who could take a look at gnosology and gnosiology? 17Awesome17 attempted to merge the former into the latter in February, but failed to copy the content across correctly, which confused matters, and was reverted. I think their sense that the articles are more or less about the same topic, however, was on the money. I could have a go at carrying out the merge properly, but it might be best if someone who hadn't first heard the term(s) five minutes ago could take a look at it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Gnosology is an attempt at translating the title of Fichte's magnum opus (Foundations of the Science of Knowledge), while gnosiology is supposed to be a Continental and Russian synonym for epistemology. There is some kind of overlap between the two articles and merging them might be a good idea. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks – that goes some way to clarifying the issue. If they are genuinely different concepts with different origins then perhaps they shouldn't be merged. If that was the case though there'd still need to be more done to distinguish them and explain the differences (e.g. gnoseology is listed as a synonym of gnosology but redirects to gnosiology, which is obviously confusing). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is P ∧ ¬P logically possible?

I have some qualms about our article Logical possibility; see Talk:Logical possibility#Is P ∧ ¬P logically possible?. Please comment there.  --Lambiam 19:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Point of view on Verbosity

The article Verbosity currently cites a number of authorities advising against wordiness, but seemingly none critiquing this advice. Any sources or other contributions would be appreciated. See Talk:Verbosity#POV Issues. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Modality has been nominated for renaming to a less ambiguous title

Category:Modality, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to a less ambiguous title. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Fine art, 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 00:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

RfC on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

Hi there is an RfC on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe that may be of interest to this project. See: Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher Langan - Scarpy (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion

This merge discussion may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

GAR notice

Two-level utilitarianism, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive IP edits

An IP editor has been making some very disruptive edits changes to WikiProject Philosophy-related articles: Héctor-Neri Castañeda, Deontic logic, Essence–energies distinction, Hypostasis (philosophy and religion), Abstract object theory. Their editing consists in inserting the phrase "∅ in Primary Encyclopedic Published Academic Source" in accurately sourced articles. Attention is needed for the pages they edit. ----Omnipaedista (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed/repaired "Table of Statistics" issue

Greetings, Since 2016 there was a "Page overflow" issue which should now be corrected here. Tables starting at "Analytic philosophy" to the end were not being shown. These statistic tables are now viewable.

• 2.13 Analytic philosophy
• 2.14 Continental philosophy
• 2.15 Ancient philosophy
• 2.16 Medieval philosophy
• 2.17 Modern philosophy
• 2.18 Contemporary philosophy
• 2.19 Philosophical literature
• 2.20 Eastern philosophy

I kept the "Page overflow" comments still in the wikicode in case this issue re-occurs. Posting here for more pagewatchers. JoeNMLC (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Aristotle's Poetics

If you look at the French and German versions of Wikipedia articles on the Poetics, you find they are noticeably superior to the one in English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetics_(Aristotle) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po%C3%A9tique_(Aristote) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetik_(Aristoteles)

Note also how much better are other articles on Aristotle's works, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics -- this is excellent.

Not everyone might agree that the English version of the Poetics article must be as complex as those others, but it still could be better at this point. Ideally it should equal those other language versions, in my opinion, eventually. A long term goal. I arrived at this issue late in the game, yet I have made this article more normal so far. That's a simple start. I reverted some weird section headings, which were, inappropriately, named 'form' and 'content,' changing them to 'overview' and 'synopsis' as typically found. Finally, if the article on Metabasis Paradox is ever accepted, I would motion to add a link to it along these lines:

"The Poetics has generated a handful of debates over its interpretation, including two that are better known, namely the meaning of catharsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis) and hamartia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamartia), and one lesser-known, the metabasis paradox."Cdg1072 (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Islamic philosophy "Eastern philosophy"? (re article Intuition)

Intuition has subject headings

1.1 Eastern philosophy

1.1.1 Hinduism

1.1.2 Buddhism

1.1.3 Islam

1.2 Western philosophy

I wouldn't include "Islamic philosophy" under "Eastern philosophy" myself.

Is there a definite ruling or guideline on Wikipedia on whether "Islamic philosophy" is "Eastern philosophy", "Western philosophy", or "other" ??

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:4CCB:A6ED:2135:2FAF (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a notable Taylor & Francis journal called Asian philosophy : an international journal of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Buddhist, Persian and Islamic philosophical traditions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, Part VI of the authoritative Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy (2002) is titled "Islamic Philosophy". --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Metabasis paradox

Hello, I'd like to ask for advice as to this article, before resubmitting once again after several submissions. What has been done to it lately is to ensure that all the statements are attributed to another party. It is not certain that the part under Lessing that mentions John Moles should have been cut short due to an original research issue. I saved the excised detail about John Moles which could be put back.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox

Hi Cdg1072. I am afraid that an anthology of summaries of philosophical works is usually not considered encyclopedic. Wikipedians tend to avoid this style of essay-like article structure. Philosophy articles tend to be organized around major themes, not organized around a collection of opinions of famous commentators/philosophers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no dispute at this point as to the notability of the topic problem, and that each section of the article describes one of the several notable solutions (Castelvetro and Vettori are important because of they were the first to respond). Prof. Ford of Princeton, for example excessively praised Elsa Bouchard's solution, which had the effect of making it very notable, due to Ford's prestige as a Classicist. That's all I'd say about notability of the problem and its solutions.

Now as you emphasize here, and as Sam-2727 also noted, unfortunately the authors' names were the only things available for introducing each solution to the problem. Yes, I know that. So does Sam-2727, who sent me here. I debated this with him to no end. As I argued to Sam-2727, given that an article is about a particular notable problem in a field, Wikipedia doesn't have a rule that prohibits authors' names as subheading titles, for the sections that contain their respective solution (theory, etc.). I admit that Sam-2727 never fully agreed with me, about this. However, he knows that he couldn't prove that those authors' names couldn't head those sections. And the last objection that Sam-2727 raised was, instead, he didn't like the solutions themselves as the structure either (regardless of their names). He never provided proof of either of those objections. Since we already debated these points, are you going to have them debated again? Respectfully, that's redundant and inconvenient, and now you've started the same debate all over. If you had a strong case about this point, I think you might also use stronger language, not "tends to." There may be no other Wikipedia article using names in that way, but there's not a rule that prohibits it. Already, it's obvious there is no other way to name the subheadings. The actual "structure" of the article isn't peoples names, as you imply, but their solutions to the topic problem (change of fortune paradox). So when Sam-2727 suggests that "eventually it might be better," clearly this one point can't be changed.

It just so happens that no convenient name exists, for each of the solutions that have been put forth. In some fields, for example, or especially for such a highly specific, narrow problem, solutions might rarely have names. And if we were to create names, that would be original research. The solutions never were given names by anyone. OK, but so what? Lessing's theory on this topic has been very influential. Scholars have adopted his view on this, since 1770, so 250 years. But because he gave his solution no name, then the problem can't be in Wikipedia? I disagree. If you could prove that you're right, then wouldn't Sam-2727 have already done so? He would have already taken care of this, and the article would already be deleted. But instead, he sent me here. Why? Here's what I suggest. Either delete the thing, or else find some substantive flaw in the article that can be corrected. The thing about authors' names being used to introduce their solutions, that can't be fixed. It seems a dead issue.

It seems that, in your attempt to claim that Wikipedia doesn't allow theorists' names to introduce their theories on some one major problem, you sound like you're claiming that there is no major, notable problem that the article is about. Although it's really strange that you would say that (and unkind), I don't think that's what you mean. You're not saying that my article has no notable, central issue. You can see that it does have one, "the change of fortune paradox." When you say an article should be "structured around" a "major theme," you're not really referring to the "structure" itself, but only to subheadings. You're equating "structure" with names of sections. But that's not "structure," of ideas presented, it's just subheadings, names. You're just pointing out that the subheadings don't bear the solution's names. As I mentioned, the theorists didn't provide theory names. (I presume this page is not the wrong place for all this, and literary theory is considered to fall under philosophy; you didn't say this was the wrong place).Cdg1072 (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Poetics is of interest to philosophy, classical scholarship, and literary theory (this means that other relevant projects would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature). It is clear that you invented the term "Change of fortune paradox"; not a good start. You could have called it "metabasis paradox." As you know the "metabasis paradox" is only mentioned once in the literature (Elisabetta Brighi, Antonio Cerella, eds., The Sacred and the Political: Explorations on Mimesis, Violence and Religion, 2016, pp. 13–21 (essay written by Arata Takeda)). You basically want to reproduce here the structure and content of this academic paper. There is a policy that can be invoked against the existence of this article: WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Usually this refers to sections of articles, but it has been invoked in cases where the very topic of an article is not considered prominent or legitimate by most relevant scholars. One single article bringing together other scholars' work on the topic for the first time, is not a good indicator about the prominence or legitimacy of the topic. The main problem is not that the solutions to this problem do not have names but that the topic does not seem to be a prominent one. I personally would endorse the existence of a trimmed down version of the article in question. You could also create an article on Arata Takeda and include information about the metabasis paradox there. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Omnipaedista, as much as I'm inclined, it seems unproductive to speak of my personal interest level. I'm just going to respond to the above, a day late because I got sidetracked. I don't completely agree with any one of the paradox solutions, and that may be the reason why my interest in it is not very high.

Before talking about notability directly, there is the statement, "You basically want to reproduce here the structure and content of [Takeda's] academic paper." But Takeda's article is shockingly inaccurate, and it's not your fault you didn't know. As I regretted while creating the article, he completely misrepresented Dacier, Lessing, and even Halliwell, which is an amazing amount of error. In that sense, what I wrote doesn't reproduce him, even though you're right that he compiled a longer structure than had appeared before. That's true, and if it has nothing to do with notability, he is at least an additional secondary reference. But I put in the correct description of the main scholars' views on the problem which are at least referred to elsewhere. Although my secondary sources don't fully define each view that they reference, clearly no secondary source fully defines, for example, The Computational Neural Theory of Humor, and perhaps none exists for the O'Shannon Model of Humor either, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor. One can with good reason delete The Computational Neural Theory of Humor--just for breaking guidelines, I understand the craziness of the content is irrelevant.

My second point is that to have substituted change of fortune for metabasis, to create a short title, seems a minor issue. Metabasis means change of fortune, and then you suggested that if the topic was considered notable, metabasis would be OK.

Third, about notability, you're right that just because an idea is steeped in the Renaissance, involves huge literary names like Dacier and Lessing, and many classical scholars wrote on it, and you can find a secondary source for almost every theory in detail--those things still don't make it appropriate for Wikipedia. And this is a really, really weird case, where a topic might barely fall short. While Sam-2727 was more optimistic, you might be right. Of course I side with him. True notability would need discussion and relevance of the idea in other work on the Poetics, tragedy, and so on. I don't think you're saying it would have to appear in a literary mag like LARB or Times Literary Supplement, but in other literary scholarship. And it doesn't appear in either. I wouldn't quite call it a "viewpoint held by an extremely small minority." It's more of a problem, and Elizabeth Belfiore also wrote about it, someone almost as prestigious as Halliwell. At least in their opinion, those people are big. For example, in the Philosophy of Humor Yearbook to come out in August 2020 with De Gruyter, Halliwell is on the editorial board, along with academic celebrities Simon Critchley and Daniel Dennett.

My last point is about how you say, "I personally would endorse the existence of a trimmed down version of the article in question." It seemed that you had just denied the notability, unless you meant that only for the full list of opinions. But whatever your judgment is, is it likely that Wikipedia could maintain the simpler piece that included say, only Dacier, Lessing, Bywater, and Halliwell (after the introductory Vettori and Castelvetro)? Maybe it would start out omitting Murnaghan, Bouchard, and Heath, but what would prevent them from being added? Compare, again, the article Theories of Humor in Wikipedia. The late Peter Marteinson, author of the Ontic-Epistemic Theory of Humor--which is referenced in reliable secondary sources, books--is still a less prestigious scholar than Elsa Bouchard or Malcolm Heath. What then would stop anyone from adding them to a shorter Metabasis Paradox given their high reputations? At some point late in the game, someone added I.M. Suslov's Computational-Neural to Theories of Humor, which there is reason to delete. And there are other individuals who could have been considered, cases that are worthy and some that are not. Concerning metabasis paradox, Sheila Murnaghan's theory on the topic is somewhat unpersuasive yet it is extremely well written, and has a backing in general ideas that are talked about throughout literary theory.Cdg1072 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to make sure that the topic is well-defined—especially if an article about the problem is to feature a full list of opinions. Before this discussion, I was a bit skeptical about the notability of the subject. (Theories of humor is indeed probably in violation of WP:SYNTH but WP:OTHER is usually not a very good argument.) Anyway, my basic point is that a problem may be age-old, but a clearly defined approach to deal with it has to have developed before Wikipedia can include it. If you think that you have secondary sources to back up your claim that the topic is notable, then we might be good to go (the title should definitely be "metabasis paradox" so that there is no violation of WP:NOR). --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In terms of defining the issue, I would suggest looking at the lead of the article. It defines the problem briefly, although you might have the impression the problem is stated redundantly (i.e., twice). This is even before the section The Problem where there's a bit more background. If you find the lead really is redundant, perhaps the redundancy could be merged into one, although I found it resulted in a logical way.

There is a secondary source that at least mentions, and very briefly describes each of the various opinions. There is not one I know of that clearly defines John Moles' specific view--so I removed him. Moles thought Aristotle changed his mind, but so did Bywater, and I know how Bywater and Moles differ, but didn't find enough secondary on Moles. The things about Aristotle himself in the more detailed "The Problem" section are connected to a few scholarly books on the Poetics. Perhaps you may find that unnecessary. I found it seemed the right way to give the paradox fuller background, in a way that could be backed up by secondaries.

The Malcolm Heath paragraph delves into his view of only Poetics chapter 13 and the single versus double plot. I could shorten that, and it should be referenced to Bouchard for a secondary source. I could add from Bouchard her very concise description (in the same article) of what Heath says about chapter 14. That's still missing.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I just worked on the Malcolm Heath part which was in bad shape. I also found yet another thing synthesized as fact, and fixed it by attributing to Halliwell by name, in that section.Cdg1072 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I found the last of the Halliwell unattributed statements, don't know how I could have passed over that all those times.Cdg1072 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Lessing can be used as the correct secondary source for Dacier (since Takeda is wrong), even if there is not a single other one. I guess publishing all this in Wikipedia hinders the prospect of publishing the correct history in some reliable print medium. I guess that is a deterrent to going forward with this, but now I've done everything I can think of to make the article appropriate.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) Sections about the views of Murnaghan, Bouchard, and Heath can be kept. The Lessing section should probably be trimmed down. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I take it that you might mean to remove: (1) that little comment that mentions D.W. Lucas alone, and (2) the comments about John Moles. I don't presume you mean to remove (3) the comments about Bywater, and (4) that list of names of people right after Lessing himself, that over the centuries have endorsed Lessing. You might let me know if you feel that of those 4 items, 1,2, and 3 should go, but 4 should stay.

However, I think you should keep in mind that (1) Bywater was first to say Aristotle changed his mind, yet (2) scholars have paid more attention to Moles than Bywater. Moles wrote a much more elaborate piece on the paradox (1979), and he is a more recent figure who was also very charismatic and a popular classicist. Thus Bywater and Moles are each, in their own way, significant. I'm going to delete the isolated comment about D.W. Lucas, as you think about it.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I just went and removed a number of things from the Lessing section, and also made the main statement of Lessing's own view much more concise. I made it less redundant. I'm against the idea of cutting out Bywater or Moles.Cdg1072 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. The article is much better now. I think it is ready to be published. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

So I just click submit again?Cdg1072 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please do that. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I submitted yesterday. But want to discuss with you the fact that I just added a caveat at the beginning, that informs about how most of Takeda's explanation of others' theories disagrees with the standard scholarly account of it. I thought you might object to putting that in, since it's me saying it -- but I would justify it on these grounds, first of all it's not backed up as my opinion, but the view of a large number of scholars in both distant past, and present. As it stood before, the Wikipedia article would just say that "Takeda wrote a history" -- and you wrote your admin note to the effect that the article follows Takeda's "structure", which it only does for a main part. So if you leave out this caveat to the reader, then they don't know that Takeda's descriptions are so at odds with the standard view of the scholars he talks about.

I also did one other related thing, and btw, I would understand if you said that the corrective comment about Takeda and Dacier should only appear in one place. I disagree that we should worry about redundancy here. That Takeda is not standard scholarship, that he's considered incorrect, is now indicated in the very beginning. But then when you get to Dacier -- the first thing that Takeda is well known to misread, there is a very brief phrase, saying that this reference about Dacier reflects the standard scholarly opinion that comes to us from Lessing himself -- in 1769, who responded critically to Dacier for the first time. Well I put these two things in, look forward to what you think. But before I even did this, the caveat was already there with respect to Halliwell in the Halliwell section, as per Elsa Bouchard's mention of him. In that case, you didn't notice it, or you did not object to me doing it.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Just now, I made the lead of the article more neutral in tone by attributing the paradox to the scholars through history that have tried to resolve it, not just coming out and stating that there is an issue. I think the redundancy there is also now better, because the very first lead statement refers more to the contemporry situation, while in the redundancy just after that, it alludes more to the earliest scholars discovering the problem. I think this is much smoother. I also fixed a really bad sentence in the Halliwell section.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

FAR for philosophy of mind

I have nominated Philosophy of mind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Your link is to the 2007 FAR. The current FAR is at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Philosophy_of_mind/archive2. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sporadic IP disruption on Transcendent truth

Please consider watchlisting this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about merging an article with the Involuntary commitment article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Involuntary commitment#RfC about merging an article with this one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Superstition in Judaism has been nominated for deletion

Hello,

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Lukas Meyer

Hello philosophers. Here's a draft about a philosophy professor. It needed third-party references, so I added some, but this is not my field so there may be more appropriate ones. Also, the text may need some changes to make it less CV-like, but I'm not sure what's important to include in an article about a philosopher. Can someone here take a look at it?—Anne Delong (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RFC at Category:Communism

Your participation is invited at Category talk:Communism § Categorization of Communism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism. Thanks, Lev!vich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of values

I used conflict of values on a talk page and was astounded to find it a red link. To write such an article is way above my pay grade but does anybody on this Wikiproject feel brave enough to try? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)