User talk:RJC/Archive 2

Cave allegory

The picture Image:Allegory of the Cave (en).png wasn't my research. You can see the original of this picture in dtv-Atlas zur Philosophie, 1991 Deutcher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH& Co. Kg. München. Ask somebody adept in Plato's philosophy before you drop this picture out. --Gothika (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have academic degree in Philosophy. No marvel then if nobody will improve article with a man like you around. I never come here again, so you can be bold and happy. Bye! --Gothika (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

External Link to English Site

Hello, RJC! I tried to make an external Link to an English Site with correct address:

• Summary of Horst Peters 2001 Essentials of a profound investigation

Tell me why I get the information that the Site is not found on this server. From my own PC in Germany and from another in Switzerland it can directly be found.

I would be grateful if you find out what ist wrong with your system that it impedes instead of facilitating the acces to academic progress. I prefare to use Wikipedia instead of Google.

Thanks Eunous (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for useful advice. You will see my Summary is of academic interest. And it is of course present in English and American libraries. But unfortunataly there is often a barrier of language which I hope to diminish by the Summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eunous (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discourseur

Amended CheckUser case page. Thanks for letting me know, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Machiavelli

You are protecting a passage based on an assumption Machiavelli scholars widely agree to be a misinterpretation of Machiavelli's work. You reverted my edit because, you claim it is POV. Not only is it not, but the passage you protect has deeper problems.

It reads: "His philosophical views on politics were such that his surname has since passed into common dialect, referring to any political move that is devious or cunning in nature."

This tortuously written sentence ("common dialect"?) conflates his popular reputation with his political philosophy. What is known of "his philosophical views on such" other than what is contained in his work? Furthermore, it is simple fact, and not POV, to state that Machiavelli, in "The Prince," does not advocate "any political move that is devious or cunning."

I think you are too deep inside the prevailing POV to realize it.

So I have removed the passage in its entirety.Iconoclastodon (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, you must realize that what you wrote in your comment to me is very, very different from the passage you restored. Second, I did not write that the interpretation of Machiavelli's work that led to the adjective "Machiavellian" was false. I wrote: "A widespread misinterpretation of The Prince has made Machiavelli's name synonymous with ruthless politics and the pursuit of power by any means." What I wrote is specific and falsifiable; the previous passage was not, and you are misreading both. It was not perfect, as I knew -- I was trying to avoid weaseling by avoiding any use of "scholars say" -- but it was certainly better than what was there previously, which made no reference whatsoever to the debate you acknowledge while simultaneously making a broader claim about Machiavelli's personal political views.

And again, it is simply not true that Machiavelli advocates the acquisition of personal political goals by any means. Machiavelli explicitly describes a political goal of stability and order -- not personal political power -- to which all efforts, methods and powers are bent. Further, he writes in The Prince, part VIII, as translated by George Bull: "Yet it cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not glory. And later: "We can say that cruelty is used well (if it is permissible to talk in this way of what is evil) when it is employed once and for all and one's safety depends on it, and then it is not persisted in but as far as possible turned to the good of one's subjects." Put another way, Machiavelli is concerned with ends, not means, and that is precisely his contribution to political thought. The misinterpretation reverses those; calling that a misinterpretation is entirely uncontroversial.

Finally, the passage you restored hand-waved about Machiavelli's political views on the basis of The Prince alone, which is ridiculous as Machiavelli was a republican and, after all, the author also of The Discourses.

I would be much more persuaded of your continued good faith if you were to acknowledge the very serious shortcomings of the passage you restored. It is difficult to assume good faith when, at the same time you were granting privilege to one interpretation over another, you wrote: "Hence, there is scholarly disagreement, and so statements cannot support one interpretation over the other without violating WP:NPOV." Iconoclastodon (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not dispute that "Machiavellian" has certain connotations. And I agree it is not POV to point that out. But the entry should not reference that while failing to acknowledge the dispute. The related entries so far have dealt with this much better. I think we can agree that the term "Machiavellian" is frequently employed by people who are not at all familiar with the work. My passage spoke to the popular usage, rather than to the scholarly debate about Machiavelli's intentions. And while I agree it is not appropriate to take sides in that debate, I do think there is a risk on Wikipedia of being too gentle with clear misreadings and misinterpretations. That is particularly a peril on entries -- like Machiavelli's, like Nietzsche's -- that attract a lot of editors who think they know the subject much better than they really do, and whose edits are guided by received wisdom and popular "truths." And yes, Machiavelli was very sneaky, indeed. Which is precisely the problem with divining his personal beliefs from a tract like The PrinceIconoclastodon (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, of course, about the Discourses,(hence, the very carefully deployed "particularly") but the popular use of "Machiavellian" draws on a reputation from word-of-mouth and received knowledge about The Prince-- unless we believe that almost everyone in the Anglophone world has read and understood it. Contemporary scholarly opinion of Machiavelli does not really encompass that ghoulish usage. I would be surprised if you could find an example that contradicts that. Thanks for the exchange, and for your contribution. Iconoclastodon (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche

Two things. 1) Since when was Friedrich Nietzsche an American subject, to have US-style dates in his article? 2) Per WP:DTR, please don't ever send me a templated warning again. Thanks, and happy editing. --John (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things. First, WP:MOSNUM advises against arbitrarily changing the date formats for articles, not ensuring that the proper date format is used in each article, so there is no need for Friedrich Nietzsche to be a specifically American topic for its current format to be maintained. Second, per WP:TTR, don't be so touchy about finding a template on your talk page. Happy editing. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 03:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We may be looking at different versions of WP:MOSNUM then. I suggest a careful rereading of the relevant manual of style page. My comment about templating the regulars and my request to you not to repeat it still stands. Thanks, --John (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Allegory of the Cave illustration

Regarding this reversion [1] can you work with Theresa Knott, and lay out your concerns so she can understand them and make appropriate alterations? I had asked her to come up with a much needed graphical representation. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Art of War disambiguation page

I understand your comments regarding "soapbox" marketing... and do not argue with your logic regarding external links, and appreciate the care you took to preserve Wikipedia from excess. I apologize for getting carried away. However, I would like to request that you re-visit the deletion of the reference to "The Art of War by Mao Tse-tung - Special Edition" by El Paso Norte Press in the disambiguation page for "Art of War". Penalizing a newbie for poor judgment does not preclude the existence of the book. (ISBN: 097607267X). In the interest of avoiding the perception of some nefarious agenda, I will defer to your wishes regarding "The Art of War & The Prince" compilation reference in the Niccolo Machiavelli article, although this book does in fact exist as well (ISBN: 0976072688). I look forward to a dialogue... Digitalmischief (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick response. I agree with your point on Sun Tzu. However, on "The Art of War" disambiguation page, it references "The Art of War by Baron de Jomini", as well as "The Art of War by Machiavelli". It should reference "The Art of War by Mao Tse-tung," or it will be incomplete and inaccurate. I read carefully the terms by which books should be added, and since Mao is considered "a major writer," and "The Art of War" is considered a "major work," I believe the reference should stand. If someone is looking for "The Art of War by Mao Tse-tung," and turns to Wikipedia, there should at least be an entry that it exists, to distinguish it from "The Art of War" by other authors. I will be re-adding that single reference back to the disambiguation page, I hope with your blessing Digitalmischief (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I would like to propose a compromise. Why not let the reference stand, as I last entered it, and see if it is challenged by another editor? Otherwise, I will build a list of published works, in print and online which reference this specific compilation to present to an alternate editor to make my case. There is no academically justifiable reason for an editor to continue to delete references to a scholarly work by a major historical figure, unless you wish to continue to punish me for mistakes I made during my first posting. Other examples of specific editions being referenced on Wikipedia:

In books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_Collins

(In 2003, Ecco, an imprint of HarperCollins, published Edith Grossman's new translation of Cervantes's Don Quixote, to great acclaim.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_Lawrence_Edition

(The Penguin versions of the works of D. H. Lawrence reproduce the scholarly editions originally published by Cambridge University Press without some of the specialist editorial apparatus.)

In games:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Edition

Digitalmischief (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

From the article you directed me to: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards, rather that the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject..." My purpose here is not to antagonize you. I supported all of your other edits, but not this one. Your argument is that I have a "history of trying to promote a specific press edition," but my first posting was 2 days ago, and you and I corrected my inappropriate information. If I were writing an article, I would agree with your arguments against inclusion. However, I am trying to correct an oversight by including a REFERENCE to a published work which is widely available, referenced by name in scholarly papers, and available in libraries. I have satisfied the requirements for notability, I will even agree to replace the name of the press, and any link to an outside website with the book's ISBN, to remove any shadow of conflict of interest. Ideally, I would like to have your support, not go around you. Digitalmischief (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not liking something does not alter its reality or importance. This book is used regularly at West Point, Chapel Hill, and other prestigious institutions. There are no other editions of this book published in exactly this form. Mao himself quoted Sun Tzu's Art of War frequently, and there are many parallels between the 2 men. In reference to names of books which authors are not alive to endorse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Frost Collected Poems, Prose and Plays (Richard Poirier, ed.) (Library of America, 1995) ISBN 978-1-88301106-2. In reference to a request for a scholarly paper, an immediate one from the Department of Defense: http://www.dodccrp.org/events/12th_ICCRTS/CD/html/papers/009.pdf In reference to use in current, popular culture... ie., well known: https://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19781 (edited by the author to remove the more snarky bits)

Just an FYI, I'm a manager of a Barnes and Noble store with a graduate degree in history. I believe ,in good faith, that this is a perfectly acceptable book, easily verifiable (google, amazon) and notable, despite your personal opinion. The debate has been very spirited and I have enjoyed researching the annals of Wikipedia during the process. I have made a fair and logical argument, satisfying each guideline and point you have raised, and would sincerely like your support, but I think we might need a fresh pair of eyes if we still can't come to some agreement.Digitalmischief (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Art of War by Mao Zedong Dispute

Summary of Third Opinion:

Any works attributed by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), not already indexed specifically should be considered notable and deserving of a reference line, as long as they are verified. The editor asking for the inclusion has made an argument for notability. The Art of War community should decide on any future postings regarding this book.

I have re-installed the reference to The Art of War by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) on The Art of War disambiguation page. This is the only dispute in queue and has been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaunted (talk • contribs) 09:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Time Out For Nietzsche and Kant

If we could take a time out from our current dispute on the Sun Tzu disambiguation page... I would like to solicit your help. I noticed you are working on improving the Friedrich Nietzsche pages. Barnes and Noble maintains a file of frequent requests by customers at our Information Desk, which we try to address as time allows. On our list for some time has been updating our recommendations for "What can you recommend that compares the philosophical works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Immanuel Kant?" Unfortunately, Philosophy is a discipline for which we seem to have a lack of experts. As you seem to be an expert on the topic, I would appreciate any feedback you might be able to provide. Can you recommend a volume with a 3rd party, focused comparison of Nietzsche and Kant? Our current recommendation is:

Nietzsche's Critiques: The Kantian Foundations of His Thought by Kevin Hill, Oxford University Press, ISBN-13: 9780199255832

Unfortunately, this volume is very expensive, and we have a hard time stocking it. I've also been told it is not entirely on topic. We have a dozen surveys of German Philosophers, but with very little direct comparison. I am looking for a few alternatives to recommend. --Digitalmischief (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm afraid that we're going to have provide a multi-volume approach to this one, but it was worth a shot. --Digitalmischief (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

De re publica

No problem, I thought it might be something like that. Badgerpatrol (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't understand academia

Your comment "assistant professors are almost unnotable by definition" reveals a real lack of understanding regarding the way that academia works. By definition, assistant professors are notable, because they have done original research and they have made it through a grueling selection process. 76.231.234.118 (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:RJC.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RJC.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Allo

Thanks for responding to the Phil o' Nietzsche stuff. I hope you don't mind me responding directly on your page.

You said the original layout does the job, but how, more specifically, do you believe information should be presented? My guess at the direction this article would have to take, given the current layout, is that eventually each of the "themes" would be fully fleshed out, and, unless there were some amendment, there would be this big void in the holistic understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy.

I also see problems with the intro. Considering it as a sort of thesis, we'd have to back up claims (w/ secondary sources) like "Because of Nietzsche's evocative style and often outrageous claims, his philosophy generates strong reactions of passionate love and disgust..."

Questions arise: Which claims are outrageous? Who says so? Who has had strong reactions of love and disgust? (Also: if we are not going to explain an historical view, are claims along these lines relevent?). I don't feel like these are really addressed in the article as it is. And anyway, once these claims and persons are indeed identified (which I have no doubts can be done), we'd have to stuff them into one of the existing sections-- and often these claims are not about "death of god" or "amori fati" exclusively (though sometimes they are), but rather about the philosophy as a whole. Perhaps there should be an "Intellectual History" section?

If the question were, What is Nietzsche's philosophy? The most direct statement in the intro would have to be "His later works involved a sustained attack on Christianity and Christian morality, and he seemed to be working toward what he called the transvaluation of all values (Umwertung aller Werte). Nietzsche himself viewed his project as the attempt to overcome the pessimism of Arthur Schopenhauer." From my own edits, I feel this one phrase of mine hits closer to home: "Nietzsche's philosophy concerns understanding the human condition in the face of modernization, and overcoming its negative social effects through stronger self-expressions."

What are your thoughts? -Bordello (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I may be a bit partial, since I am largely responsible for the shape the article now has. Let me explain my reasoning for this format.

The articles on Nietzsche suffer from persistent WP:POV issues. There is a perceived need to "get Nietzsche right," which manifests itself mostly in attacking "misinterpretations" in the article's main space. Yet there is no scholarly consensus on what Nietzsche meant. I don't see a way, therefore, to provide the holistic view of his philosophy which you desire without both a) reopening content wars over what the Truth is and b) violating NPOV. What we can do is note that various themes seem important — or, more saliently, have seemed more important according to reliable sources. As such, a thematic, disjointed treatment that makes no attempt to bringing everything together seems to me to be the best option. We can write about Nietzsche's philosophy, but we cannot say what it is.

As to expanding these sections once we get more information on them, that would make the article unwieldy. WP:SUMMARY recommends having short sections that point to longer main articles where the topics are handled at length. I see this as a readability issue. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, I hope you don't mind keeping the discussion on your page (after, I'll C+P it to mine, cool?)

Secondly, unless people have a real issue with understanding expository writing --essays, criticisms, etc.-- on Nietzsche, it doesn't seem like a monumental task to assemble as many expository works as we can and then catalogue them. I agree that we are not allowed to say, ourselves, what Nietzcshe's work means, but I've only been requesting that we collect the views of those who have written secondary sources. If we do have expository writing, by the very nature of its intention to explain, I assume it would pretty clear what each writer's opinion on Nietzsche is. I mean, Walter Kaufmann and RJ Hollingdale seem to come from a similar school of thought (and they knew and worked with each other, which we could mention-- and there's commentary about their relationship as well out there); more similarity between those two than Martin Heidegger and either of them, say. I don't see where this method comes short, as they all have either an obvious big picture of what Nietzsche meant to say or different styles of trying to understand it, which they've explained. This may indeed "reopen content wars over what the Truth is," but if we make our process transparent, and our sources undeniably clear, I would hope this fix itself in short time.

I remember the old talk archives where there was one guy who argued that the article as now was a "democratic liberal whitewash" along with most of Western Nietzsche scholarship, or something of the sort, and though he was pretty intense and somewhat uncompromising, he did provide a hell of a lot of source material. I hope we can be more open to including that perspective in the article, with the proper blurb about the source (as would be required for all sources anyway), if his sources do indeed say what he claimed them to say. And instead of cutting opinions like his down, they should be challenged with constructive counter-secondary sources. Is this not the formula for avoiding B) "violating NPOV"? Hit me back. -Bordello (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What you're suggesting sounds like the literature review of an overly ambitious dissertation, far too long for an encyclopedia article. Some taste of it is given in the Legacy section, main article Influence and reception of Nietzsche. As to the ranter of the talk pages, his "point of view" was hardly constructive. All of the IPs from which he posted have extensive warnings/suspected sockpuppet notices on them. His essays constituted either original research or quotations from Safranski (who is discussed). He crossposted them to every Nietzsche page we have. I think that, in his case, Don't feed the trolls takes presidence over Assume good faith (or, rather, that assumption has been rebutted). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I'm on wiki break. Will give proper response when I gather up my chi. -Bordello (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Which one is it?

Well Which one is it? Is it acceptable or not? You recently removed my edit from WP:V, this is the text ;

For example, the use of counterknowledge statements, sometimes published by reputable publishing houses and circulated on the Internet may be believed by Tens of millions of people to be true, however the statements are still false. "The essence of counterknowlege is that it purports to be knowlege but is not knowledge".

Again, where do you suggest we discuss this important and obviously contentious subject. --CyclePat (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Article:American Academy of Financial Management

RJC - Can you please give some more direction on what it will take to get the 'advertisement' tag released on this article? I am currently using a professional qualification issued by this organization to support a visa application for foreign employment and I would encourage you to take another look at this article as it appears to have been through extensive rewrite and referencing since your last assessment of the article which puts it in line with WP:V and WP:Neutral Point of View. If you review 2 other articles namely CFA Institute and Certified Financial Planner you'll see the language of the articles are very similar or almost identical in POV and structure. However, there is no 'advertisement' tag associated with the other contemporaries. Thanks...

—Preceding Brett K comment added by Brett k (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 

Please advise

Hello RJC,

I'm soliciting objective opinions on a linking issue.

Please visit my talk page, section "Review of links" as a starting point.

Thank you in advance.

Confectus (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)