User talk:Renevandelft

Welcome!
Hello, Renevandelft, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing v. "Original research"
Hi, Renevandelft, I noticed your edit at Philosophical Investigations. This change seems very much like your own reflections on the topic, having read Wittgenstein. Maybe your comment about "absolutely isolated" is even accurate. However, it is something we call WP:Original research at Wikipedia, and it is prohibited. All changes to articles that involve an assertion of fact (i.e., anything not simply an improvement of grammar, spelling or style) must be verifiable. The best way to demonstrate that something is verifiable, is by adding a citation to an WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY, reliable source.

In any normal article where this occurred, I would undo your edit with an explanation at the edit summary about OR and verifiability. However, this article is in such poor shape with respect to WP:Verifiability and citations, that it would really seem too much like picking on you for something everybody else is doing, and much more seriously, so I find myself in a strange position. (By the way, a lot of philosophy articles are like this, so if you hang out mostly in that topic area, you will get a very skewed impression about the reliability of Wikipedia articles.) I should add that the article relies a great deal on primary sources&mdash;in this case, that means editors reading Wittgenstein, and writing up what they think the book is about. That is also original research. The point about "WP:SECONDARY sources" in this context, is that we summarize what other analysts say about what the book was about, not what *we* think it is about.

Why don't we do this: can I rely on you to take charge of this: either remove your edit if you don't care that much about the article, or find a source that backs it up and add a citation for it (see WP:RS and Help:Footnotes), or even better, imho, take charge of that whole section on and rewrite it entirely, keeping in mind that you would have to cite everything to secondary sources, i.e., not to the book itself. I hope you'll go for #3, but either of the other two choices would be fine. How does that sound to you? If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my Talk page, or you can ask at the Wikipedia WP:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Since I first wrote, I've looked a bit more at that article, and started a discussion on the Talk page, that you're welcome to join in on. You can find it here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for the (quick!) reaction. I agree that my addition can be characterized as Original research, however, in my opinion that's more valid for the original sentence. So, if we are not sure, we better remove the whole clause. Regarding the context: "For Wittgenstein, thought is inevitably tied to language, which is inherently social; therefore, there is no 'inner' space in which thoughts can occur. Part of Wittgenstein's credo is captured in the following proclamation: "An 'inner process' stands in need of outward criteria."", for me all is OK, apart from "; therefore, there is no 'inner' space in which thoughts can occur." We can remove that, no problem. Or add a clear citation.
 * By the way, you question the quality of the whole article, and even want to blow it up... I disagree, apart from this little phrase (and the level of Original research), it's quite good. It's very difficult to formulate / summarize Wittgenstein or interpretations of his texts. This is very readable and captures a big chunk of the content of the topic.

If I find a proper quote, I'll be happy to improve this part. And yes: a whole rewrite on Mind would be great, but would take a lot of energy and time...