Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 10

Meaning (philosophy of language)
Meaning (philosophy of language) is (a) orphaned and (b) needs attention--Philogo (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Percept Article
Dear all,

I’m proposing to rewrite Percept article. My proposal is at the related discussion page. Blue is looking at disambiguation from IT perspective, but we lack a good philosophical perspective. (The current text is a bit disjointed.)

If you are interested, please join the discussion with your suggestions.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear all,

Thanks for rating the proposal to rewrite the Percept article. I assume that I can copy the rating to the actual article when I rewrite it. However, there are no Wikipedians yet willing to tackle the philosophical part that needs a more professional approach and I would like to see some interdisciplinary approach.

I have also decided to harden my nudge-nudge approach in Perception article, as a next step, and would like to include some philosophically minded views. Please visit the related discussion page and add your views.

I already expressed some concerns with the current Consciousness article. We will have to address many recent scientific findings to clarify the concept. And this would require cooperation between philosophically and psychologically minded Wikipedians.

I also expressed concerns with the mess Information article is in at the related discussion page. I have invited mathematically minded Wikipedians and I invite you. All we need is a tentative agreement and further refinements will make Wikipedia shine. (I read, in New Scientist I believe, that Wikipedians are quite conservative, orthodox or just repeating what they learned in school. Personally, I think that we should fight this image.)

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

problematic editor
I'd like to alert you that has been making numerous edits to basic philosophy articles that to my eye contain a bunch of misinformation and bad grammar. I've reverted the changes to philosophy of mind, but since my domain is really neuroscience, I'm not going to try to deal with the mess this editor created at monism and other articles. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental rights deletion-by-redirect
The article Fundamental right is tagged as being of high importance within your project on its talk page. Despite this fact, (also current wqa) and  have made several attempts to redirect it to other tangentially related topics. Both seem to think it better to make the article go away than to actively encourage anyone to fix it (see their comments and mine at Talk:Fundamental right and Talk:Universal Declaration of Human Rights). I have neither the time nor the expertise to deal with this article more directly than I already have right now, quite aside from the fact that two users can easily out-revert one, especially when the two are each on track to set personal monthly editcount records. Thus, I bring this to your attention in the hope that, if you truly find the article to be that important, some one or more of you who know more about it than I do can make the changes necessary to achieve WP:CON on this issue. I have posted this same notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, and made note of it at Talk:Fundamental right. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 21:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Amoralism
Just popping in to let the people here that Amoralism is in dire need of help. Most of the article was just OR essays, and I gutted most of it. With your help, I would like to reconstruct it as a proper article. Really, it is probably the single worst article I have seen on this website that isn't pure vandalism. Zazaban (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For starters, how about if we create different sections for the various kinds of amoralism? I propose the following categories: moral relativism, moral anti-realism, moral fictionalism, emotivism, hedonism. People could each volunteer to write a section. Are there more views that should be added? Husserl08 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rating of importance for article on Kosuke Koyama
This probably relates to theology rather than philosophy, but as the article on Kosuke Koyama is listed as coming under your remit, I thought I would raise the question here. You can see that this article is also under the remit of the WikiProject group for Christianity, who have rated it as low importance on the importance rating scale. It also states that the WikiProject group for philosophy have yet to rate the article for importance, but I wonder whether you would also be happy to rate the article as low importance. I certainly think that there should be an article on Koyama in Wikipedia, but I would hardly say that this article would deserve the centrality of, say, Plato, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Rene Descartes or David Hume. Could some one please look at this article? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Shanata (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Theory of Others
Someone put together Theory of Others as a parody (or something) of the article on the Other. Could a more experienced editor help get it removed?--Ducio1234--Ducio1234 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that it does not meet wikipedia's notability criteria. I marked with the verify and notability tags, and will leave a note on the articles talk page and the creators talk page. If we don't hear anything from them, or see improvements in the citations, in the next 7 days, I'll try recommending it for deletion.  I see that your WP:SPEEDY didn't go through, so we'll go through the full AfD process. Shanata (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I'll keep an eye on the article.--Ducio1234 (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've recommended the article for deletion, please visit the AfD to comment. Shanata (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:32, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)


 * I signed WP:Philosophy for this program. Be looking for a links to it on the navigation templates soon. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very pleased with this program. Check out these Article alerts. You should check this once in a while. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Two proposals
Greetings folks, I am having a hard time with the Wikipedia regulars in CFD. Could I get an amen at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30 please? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears from the discussion that you made controversial changes with scant prior discussion over a short period of time. Surely the amount of discussion and the time allowed for it should be in due proportion to the strength of the controvesy. I would suggest revert changes to the prior staus quo and leave a month for discussion, your intitiating same by setting out dispassionately the pros and cons expressed hitherto.  That would be in keeping with the following that makes a lot of sense to me:


 * remember to nominate the category for discussion before making substantial deletions from or edits to the category. It's virtually impossible to "discuss" a category and how it has been used when it has been completed changed just prior to nomination.

--Philogo (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Say you know Philogo this repudiation of my actions is undeserved and nonconstructive. I solicited input in this forum for half a month. You can portray it as if there was no input, that it's controversial and I'm just off on my own all day. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm over here trying to get things organized. I think the important thing to note here, is that there are a few people in CFD and there is an even smaller number here. If we want to make any progress on categories we have to conduct a great political movement for over a month? There are several other entries on this page after this topic. It's reasonable to believe that silence is consent. Now we will need to go through the process of organizing the support we need ahead of time in order to do this simple thing that is proposed. It should have been speedy deleted, and this production is mindless bureaucracy. I don't mind bureaucracies or oligarchies so much at all -- just mindless ones.

Please do state your opinion below one way or the other explicitly. When there are five votes either way we will act on the result at CFD. Let's see how long it takes. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not ashmed to agree with the view above quoted


 * remember to nominate the category for discussion before making substantial deletions from or edits to the category. It's virtually impossible to "discuss" a category and how it has been used when it has been completed changed just prior to nomination.

When you leave aside the rhetoric in what you say, not much is left. Your rhetoric is is either insulting to individuals (as above) or to "clubs" being the term you apply to more than one person who disagrees with you or queries you (e.g. "Maths Club" and recently "Philosophy club". I cannot really see the thrust of your changes in categories, the pattern - so it seems ad hoc. Why not set out a programme of change and if a group of editors, say six, agree, then you can proceed with confidence and support rather than in the face of objections. The controversies that you arouse and the criticisms you receive are the price you pay for going it alone; you must choose and  then lie in the bed you have made for yourselfPhilogo (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Branches of philosophy
I am proposing to tighten up the Branches of philosophy category by limiting it only to Logic, Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Social and Political philosophy, and Aesthetics. All the other "philosophies of" I am proposing to put into a Philosophy by field category. This change would affect the section of the same name in the Philosophy article and the Portal as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I recommend going even farther by including aesthetics and political philosophy under ethics. This limits the categories to the traditional four.  Aesthetics might seem like a strange choice for a category of ethics, but ethics broadly construed is concerned with value and what is good, and philosophical issues of aesthetics (going back to Plato) often concern its relationship to morality.  I also propose that philosophy of language be categorized under logic.Husserl08 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Philogo (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical traditions
I have a very similar proposal to the preceding, to tighten up the Philosophical schools and traditions category by creating a Category:Philosophical traditions, limiting it to Analytic, Continental, Marxism, and Eastern, putting others in Category:Philosophical theories and/or Category:Philosophical movements. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Philogo (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a strange set of top level categories. I suppose "Marxism" during its 1917-89 period of apparent success might qualify as a tradition, albeit one largely of the spectacle of tenured academics doing ten gyrations around base and superstructure before breakfast. But what of the first two? Note that the Continental philosophy article itself says "It is difficult to identify non-trivial claims that would be common to all the preceding philosophical movements. The term "continental philosophy", like "analytic philosophy", lacks clear definition". Not a very solid basis on which to tighten definition? And that is as one would expect from any category which throws together Heidegger and Adorno. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal FAR
nominated Muhammad Iqbal 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi/Mid/Lo Importance? what is the standard?
Can someone explain to me how the various project importances are given? I see that the mostly unknown group Abahlali baseMjondolo has been given a 'medium' importance rating, (in Human rights, Philosophy, Africa and Urban studies and planning). Does anybody know how such ratings are given? What do they mean? How does such an obscure and fairly unknown group get an 'medium' importance rating? What are the requirements for low and/or high? FFMG (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The importance scale is briefly explained here. You might get a more thorough exposition by surfing the links from WP:ASSESS. Regards, Skomorokh  19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ratings should really be given by people with experience in a project -- in particular not by unregistered editors. Note though, FFMG, that your edit summaries misuse the word vandalism, which should only be used for edits that deliberately intend to deface an article. Looie496 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Abahlali baseMjondolo no longer appears to be listed as a Philosophy article. Shanata (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * While it doesn't look like a philosophy article, it belongs in the project as it is within the scope of the WP:ATF. Skomorokh  22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that vandalism was maybe a bit strong, the first edit by that IP had no edit summary, so I reverted it on that ground, (as I could not see how the article rating had suddenly changed across all projects), then the same IP made the same changes with a small edit summary but no discussion on the talk page.
 * Putting aside this particular article, I feel that project importance should be discussed first. FFMG (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the wikiproject assessment system basically operates on the principle that assessments are too obscure to be interesting to pov-pushers and other rogue editors, so that only "experts" associated with wikiprojects will care enough to set them. If that obscurity ever seriously breaks down, the system is likely to fail. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings folks, I attached the whole task force system to the assessment scheme originally. Any member of the project can make an assessment. Any changes appear in the "logs" which are one general log for all of philosophy and logs also broken up into task force areas. People should be encouraged to watchlist the logs for the areas they care about. Anytime an article has a parameter change by more than two, it appears in bold. This has been a mental guide for me to try to designate the ratings with the idea that I should be off no more than one.


 * The importance ratings I have assigned are based on whether or not I could reasonably believe that an article's topic would be covered in some class within a baccalaureate program in philosophy. There are a LOT of unassessed articles, and I have been moving them up slowly usually straight to MID. This is for two reasons: A) We have Top, High, Mid, Low, and None to work with, so that is a pretty broad range and B) I am thinking that LOW should be saved for very questionable ones that get moved out of unassessed somehow.


 * The whole scheme is at a phase still where the articles should all trending up in both ratings and importance. This is because we are formulating the baseline of the assessment itself to some degree since we still have so many unassessed.


 * In general the stubs are easy to identity. For myself, I have never assigned anything higher than a B, and then only once. This is as high as can be given without a formal process. There is a rubric published on the assessment page which probably needs to be re-written at least a little too. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of certain new philosophy-related articles
Recently a couple of new philosophy related articles have been created by User:Thlgnosis. The notability of the subjects has been disputed, as well as possible WP:COI and WP:BLP problems. I'm asking for people with knowledge of philosophy and other closely related subjects to assess the notability of the articles' subjects. Articles in question are: Lars-Henrik Schmidt, Social Analytics and Research Centre GNOSIS. Please provide your insights on the talk pages of those articles and perhaps also on Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Thank you! 193.244.33.47 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Vice

 * Category:Vice is being proposed for deletion Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30 Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Consciousness article
Dear all,

I have proposed new text for intro on consciousness article on the related discussion pages. I think that I managed to articulate it in line with the latest findings in psychology and neurology, but would like others to review it and comment.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * replied on that talk page: Talk:Consciousness --Philogo (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Glossary of philosophical theories
An editor has moved Glossary of philosophical theories to Glossary of philosophical isms. There appears to have been scant prior discussion, and it is difficult to assess the wisdom of the move since Glossary of philosophical theories is now empty and redirects to Glossary of philosophical isms. I propose reversion of the move  to the prior status quo pending discussion project members and others interested. Does anybody know how to revert a move? --Philogo (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support your proposal. You need to use WP:RM or db-move. Skomorokh  13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not experienced in that kind of thing. Would you (or some other kind ed) do it? --Philogo (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories

 * I propose that any future changes to Logic categegories are discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic--Philogo (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Glossary of philosophical isms
I do not think that the following, which appear in Glossary of philosophical isms are philosophical terms or subjects and hence a fortiori not the article's declared content, i.e. " topics relating to philosophy that end in -ism " (unless we stretch the word "relating" so that the list could include almost anything). A lot of them would be better placed in articles relating to theology, economics, lit crit etc. If we do not prune we might as well rename the article "list of words that end in -ism, handy for scrabble players perhaps?

Capitalism Careerism Communism Anthropomorphism Collectivism Consumerism Creationism Cubism Defeatism Egalitarianism Environmentalism Equalitarianism Ethnocentrism Expressionism Externism Extropianism Fascism Fideism Freudianism Gnosticism Humanism Islamism Jainism Jansenism Jonesism Judaism Legalism --Philogo (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "ism" is not a good organizing principle for a page like this. I also agree with some but not others on your list. I think each of them is in fact a theory in some field. I proposed renaming it to glossary of philosophical theories. We can also direct your concern Philogo to this organization by considering the content of each of the "theories" categories in each of the major fields, (Category:Ethical theories, Category:Metaphysical theories, etcetera). Perhaps if we organized the glossary around only the four major core areas Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Logic we could address your concern. Perhaps also it is a time for a glossary for each area. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I might be better to have a list of philosophical theories, better that is than philosphicals "isms". If the article is entitled Philosophical Theories, however the fact that an entry refers to "a theory in some field" would not be grounds for inclusion under the heading Philosophical Theories.   We might just as well have a list of extinct animals that include dogs on it on the grounds that a dog is an animal of some sort. Makes no sense at all. (BTW do you Really think that consumerism is a "a theory in some field"?) Meanwhile my proposal is that the list of items above should not be in the current article under the current title.--Philogo (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ones like "consumerism" technically still can be described as theories. However they are not theories in any field as much as theories in individual people's minds. I agree that it is not good for the glossary. However it may fit somewhere in the theories category tree.

In a related story...I have nominated Philosophical theories to be moved to "non-empirical theories" (Discussion) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Philago, they are philosophical terms that are isms, well, at least most of them are. I'm in the process of adding references to the glossary to establish that the terms you have listed above fall within the field of philosophy. The Transhumanist 02:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sory I do not agree that most of the following are philosophical terms that are isms.

Capitalism Careerism Communism Anthropomorphism Collectivism Consumerism Creationism Cubism Defeatism Egalitarianism Environmentalism Equalitarianism Ethnocentrism Expressionism Externism Extropianism Fascism Fideism Freudianism Gnosticism Humanism Islamism Jainism Jansenism Jonesism Judaism Legalism


 * To convince us, please cite any reputable philosophy text book, academic journal or fair equivalent that discuss the following as philosphical theories or use them as philosophical terms(if that is what an "ism" is supposed to be) for the following examples: Careerism, Consumerism, Legalism. It may be that philosophical texts refer to the "isms" on the list but that cdoes not make them a pholosophical theory.  Philosphers disuss mathematics, trees, wordsm &c but that does not make them phosophical theories.  Similalary even of philophers have mentioned or discuused Capitalism, Expressionism, Cubism that does not make them philosophical terms or theories.  --Philogo (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gregbard, "organizing principle" has nothing to do with an article's includability within Wikipedia. The primary criteria for inclusion are notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view. The article meets each of these. As examples of the notability of the class of things known as "philosophical isms", I've supplied references on the glossary's talk page. The Transhumanist 02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is-ought problem
We have an Ayn Rand supporter (the same one who attempted intrude her definition of Philosophy into Philosophy) insisting that a paragraph on Rands "solution" to the above problem being inserted in the article. Two editors have reversed but but the matter is now on the talk page (to avoid an edit war). Issues raised are those of Weight and Notability and we are being told that "Ayn Rand is a highly notable philosopher, and propogating her onto Philosophy pages make emminent sense". Involvement by other editors would be appreciated, but I realise its asking a lot. --Snowded (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider Ayn Rand to be a "highly notable philosopher" and have seen no evidence to the contrary. In any case I did not consider the deleted paragraph to have made any useful or interesting contribution to the subject, the is-ought problem. For these two reasons I delted the paragraph in question but this was initially reverted on the grounds of vandalism. The editor who revereted does not appear to have much knowledge of the topic in hand, nor of philosphy in general so I do not accept his reversion as one of expertise--Philogo (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but I know this editor of old, he will continue to revert on a 2:1 vote. He is tenacious in inserting claims about Ayn Rand in different philosophy articles.  We need other editors engaged at least briefly please to sort this out.  --Snowded (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets us hope others will watch Is-ought problem--Philogo (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe post a notification on the talk page of Philosophy? Not sure how many people monitor here.  --Snowded (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Porphyry (philosopher)
I have been working lately on Porphyry (philosopher) and would appreciate any feedback. Does anyone care about second-rate Neoplatonists anymore? :-) Jwhosler (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, and I have recorded and will be recording my progress and goals on the talk page. Jwhosler (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A question for you...
Do eudaimonia and eudaimonism mean the same thing?

These articles seem to indicate that they do.

The Transhumanist 00:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested on Republic
An article on an important subject that tends to cause a number of debates. As one source states "there is no consensus among scholars or citizens as to exactly what a republic is" and untangling the various sometimes contradictory definitions is always complicated. I've been doing some work on it today, and another user has been commenting on those changes, but extra eyes would be very welcome. - SimonP (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorites paradox importance assessment
I just noted that this article has been rated as Low-importance. In light of the importance of vagueness in philosophy I'd say that this article should be rated at least Mid-importance. Paradoctor (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did change it. In general, almost all of the fallacies and paradoxes are in the "mid" range. You don't have to be bashful about those ratings. Any member of the project can change them. Please do. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had assumed there was a formal process attached to the project, but couldn't find the proper place. Silly me. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you should sign up on the participants roster. Welcome. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity Article
It seems to me that the article on Objectivity is in serious need of some attention. For instance, Hegel and Marx aren't even mentioned in the current version of the article. I've started to draft a short section on feminist criticism of "assumed objectivity" (as in MacKinnon and Hasslanger). In general, however, epistemology isn't really my area. Anyone else interested in working on this article?Fixer1234 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bumping" this request. I've started to clean up this article by removing material about "general applications" of objectivity and about the idea of "neutrality".  These issues are covered by separate articles, and needn't be covered at length in an article about the philosophical concept of Objectivity.  Would some folks with a good grounding in epistemology take a look at this article?  While we're at it, perhaps we could improve Subjectivity as well? Fixer1234 (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Objectification could use a look as it doesn't really cover the original (Hegelian) sense of the term.Fixer1234 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed at Aristotle
Could someone please take a look at the last couple of days at Talk:Aristotle. There's been a suggestion to take some of the material out and start a new article, partially motivated it seems by a desire to include Ayn Rand in it. I think this needs a few more opinions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlo Tamagnone
I'd like to take a notice of this article to English-speaking wikipedians. In the Polish Wikipedia we're thinking, that it's a hoax (Tamagnone was born in 1937, started writing books around 2000, there are virtually no serious data on him in Googlebooks or Googlescholar, cross-wiki spamming and using of sockpuppets, even the very content of the article is a bit strange, espescially for an unknown philosopher). In French Wikipedia my friend Ziel began the process of suppression of this article. In the Italian Wikipedia it wasn't removed, but many doubts remained (please see the discussion of the Italian article). In Poland Italian philosophy isn't very good known, so we probably can't verificate it. Maybe you have any ideas? (Personally I think that this article is a hoax made by one of the "recensents" of Tamagnone linked whitch the Italian pulishing house Clinamen, which publishes Tamagnone's and Bazzani's books). Laforgue (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing philosophy topics
I recently updated my page of missing topics related to philosophy and wonder if some of you could have a good luck at it. Some of the topics may qualify mainly as redirects - Skysmith (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That list is stellar. I think you (or someone) should copy some of to Requested articles/Philosophy. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox
nominated Omnipotence paradox 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Name for a fallacy
What is the name for the error that confuses the name of an object with the object itself? For example, the argument runs like this: (one name for manure from bulls) is a 'bad word' (impolite). "Therefore," the manure itself is a bad thing (ineffective as a fertilizer? impolite to mention at the garden center?).

In case my example isn't exactly parallel: The particular problem I'm dealing with is at Talk:Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, where an editor is having trouble separating the fact that an expert wrote a fairly detailed description of a (completely unfounded) idea from the idea itself ("woman trapped in a man's body", by the way). The expert rejects the idea -- the whole point of the named source is to point out the many flaws in the idea -- but an editor keeps describing the idea itself in the article as "his" idea simply because the expert described it. Surely there's a name for this error? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The map is not the territory,  Skomorokh   06:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * isn't that merely equivocation?--Buridan (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I knew if I asked, that someone would be able to tell me the name.  I'm off to read the article... WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. Request for comment
There is currently a discussion regarding how much material regarding certain matters of the subject's private life should be included in the article above. A request for comment on the subject can be found at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.. Any input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion: Propositional logic or sentential logic?
We currently have an article Propositional logic and a category Category:Sentential logic. I have started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Logic --Hans Adler (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Color of this project
A few of this project's templates were recently colored a bright orange. I object to this, and am wondering if anyone else does, or if I'm just being grumpy. Specifically: I find it a lot harder to read (poor contrast), and distracting when reading anything else. (Greg already commented at my talkpage, suggesting that in the future each task force should have its own color scheme). I'd prefer we returned to a default scheme (grey or blue), or use something a lot less dramatic/garish/subjective than the strong orange. Thoughts from anyone else? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Philosophy topics (eg)
 * Template:WP PHIL 1.0
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Announcements
 * WikiProject Philosophy/tab2
 * Template:Philosophy/Nav
 * and the main header graphic at WikiProject Philosophy
 * I agree with restoring the white/gray colourscheme for the main project at least. The orange is rather jarring and does not aid navigation. Perhaps there could be a slight alteration for the taskforces, but I'm not sure if there's much benefit in such branding.  Skomorokh   18:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the color, I only wonder whether it's orange or yellow. ;) Question: Isn't there a guideline stating something about accessibility for color blind readers? Paradoctor (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am open minded to any color. If we come to a consensus about a three color scheme I will make the changes. (I am not overly enamored with the orange either.) I just would like a consistent and unique look. Currently the scheme is A) ffac2f B) ffcc7f C) ffddaa. Obviously B and C are lighter versions of A. We should address our debate to a main color, and then decide if the other two are light enough, etcetera.




 * Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick, non-representative look at opinions in the wild:   . A very slightly off-white?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have toned down the tone on the scheme. However, I am still open to redoing it if there is a movement on a particular scheme. I am intrigued by the thesis that the "color of philosophy is brown" as posited in one of those links.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should just stick with the preview blue theme color and temporary keep the groups on history section as non-transparent. Mainly because the Schools section is still require a lot of categorization. To me, it look way more confusing when the sections are alternating without a purpose. Also I think we should really considering the Wikify Navigation in accordance to Template:History of Western philosophy before doing things to rash. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Category move/merge proposals
I have recently made some proposals to move, merge or rename categories.


 * merge History of ideas => History of philosophy


 * merge Criticisms => Criticism

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * rename Abstract objects => Concepts
 * i have no issue with the second, but the 1st and 3rd are entirely different sets of things. History of ideas is not the history of philosophy and if the history of ideas is written like a history of philosophy then it needs marked as needs improvement.  abstract objects are not concepts, though some concepts may be abstract objects, and the inverse.  the sets do not overlap though.  --Buridan (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The prevailing view is that concepts can be explained as either abstract objects or mental representations, however some people do not believe in the one or the other way as legit. Rename to concepts avoids this. I see it as a legitimate criticism. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Williams at FAR
nominated Bernard Williams 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Africana womanism
Helo everyone! You may be interested in checking out Africana womanism. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Emanuel Swedenborg
I have done the GA Reassessment of Emanuel Swedenborg as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article does not meet current GA Criteria. As such I have placed the article on hold pending work that needs to be done to bring it up to current standards. My review is here. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of the possibility that the article will be delisted if work is not done in the next week. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Domenico Losurdo
Please look over Domenico Losurdo and assess whether this article is noteworthy. Perhaps it can be improved. See the talk page. Perhaps it is not notable, and should be suggested for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Being and Nothingness
(Not sure if I'm posting in the right place. Apologies if not).

The article on Being and Nothingness appears to be highly confused. Not being an expert myself I do not wish to attempt to improve the article- rather, I have a suggestion for the specific segment on 'Sex'- Nathan Oaklander's article 'Sartre on Sex' (The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings Rowman and Littlefield, 1980 might be a useful resource to help clarify this particular segment. The gay science (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Deductive theories => Theories of deduction
I have proposed to rename Category:Deductive theories to Category:Theories of deduction. This was an unfortunate choice of name by myself. The category is not intended to describe "deductive theories" as described in theory (mathematical logic), it is intended to house the various theories about math and logic. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideologies => Theories
I have proposed to merge Category:Ideologies to Category:Theories at CFD. Please support this effort to organize and otherwise tighten up the categories under Cat:Theories.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Schools of thought => Theories
I have proposed to merge Category:Schools of thought to Category:Theories at CFD. Please support this effort to organize and otherwise tighten up the categories under Cat:Theories.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

both of these suggestions are pretty much wrong headed. how do you think these merges solve anything? --Buridan (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with them? Explain your reasoning please, so the rest of us know what you are talking about.  Thank you.  The Transhumanist  04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rationale
I have been organizing articles under theories for some time now. It has been working out quite wonderfully up to this point. There are categories for "epistemological theories," "and "x theories," etcetera for every branch of philosophy. Using this method, I have been able to identify areas where articles have "fallen through the cracks." I have found articles which are inconsistent with the rest (objectivism or objectivity? and many many others). Using this method we are very often able to differentiate between the "theory" and the "concepts" which usually play the role of a theorem of a particular theory, Using this method, eventually I hope we will be able to organize while differentiating between concepts and theories. I think this is a very logical way to organize things in the philosophy department.

I find that by organizing primarily in terms of "theories" I am able to deal with the widest range of articles and always find an appropriate place for them. This doesn't work under "schools of thought", "ideologies" (and "movements" only works for theories with significant followings). Do you see how, by starting with the highest level of abstraction, and working inward we are best able to categorize. A particular theory may very well be a "movement", an "ideology" or a "school of thought" however those are vernacular terms, and subject to a lot of debate, not precise terms like "theory." These categories are just redundant and unnecessary in that view. Please help me straighten things out. I think by limiting ourselves to accounting for the idea in the "theories" category tree and the social entities in "movements" it will result in a wonderfully organized philosophy department, quite frankly.

In organizing things so as to have a category for everything we have "philosophers", "literature" "theories" in every branch. I also propose we also have "concepts" so as to diffuse others out of the branch categories. What I do not want to see is "x terminology." and "x movements." "Terminology" is a junk category to use to hold articles before they are properly organized. Adding "movements" at the lower levels will double the clutter. I think at that level we must chose between "movements" and "theories" and not do both. In this regard "theories" makes eminent sense as well.

So, like I said, I have put a lot of thought into it. Any help appreciated. You should also check out User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories for another idea I had. I think it may be a bit much to make a task force out of it though. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What if a reader is trying to find a list of "schools of thought"? Under your system, how will he find it?  The Transhumanist  04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the stellar Glossary of philosophical isms (which should be renamed theories) should serve in that capacity. In fact I think it is so good it should serve as the basis of several other lists broken out by branches and fields of philosophy. I think that would be infinitely more useful than merely a long alphabetical list. That glossary should be the flagship of any efforts in this area. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the isms aren't all schools, and they aren't all theories. But they are all isms.  Anyone looking for the isms of philosophy can find most of them in that glossary.


 * I wouldn't want to see it replaced by some other page the scope of which is not specifically "isms". The page was designed for ism-seekers.


 * The multi-page glossary you are envisioning can be built without getting rid of the current one. Though it is going to take some dedicated editors. Without those, it's just a pipe dream, because casual editing will never get the job done.


 * If you go forward with the project, I suggest you add the isms last. That way, you'll avoid getting AfD'd for simply copying or cforking the ism glossary.


 * Getting back to my question, how will a reader using the category system find schools of thought?


 * I don't like that you are trying to remove classifications. Adding classifications and rearranging them is fine.  But removing a bona fide classification of things that exist in the real world is not a good idea.  Topics can be 2 things at the same time.  They can be both "theories" and "schools of thought" (isn't the latter a subcategory of the former?).  The two terms are definitely not synonymous.


 * By the way, keep up the good work. The Transhumanist  19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I share you interest in the whole area of interest. However, I don't know what to tell you at this point. I think you should let go of the "isms" which is a vernacular term. We should organize around the precise technical term "theory", especially in the category structure (please observe:Category:Isms which I started was deleted). We will not be able to organize around "isms." Please lets be absolutely clear: YES they are all theories, every one of them. I don't know what more I can do for you if you do not accept that reality. The term "theory" is precisely and clearly defined specifically for the purpose of dealing with this very thing.
 * Theory:{theorem1, theorem2, ..., theoremn}
 * Monism:{"There exists only one fundamental substance"}
 * Monist materialism:{"There exists only one fundamental substance", "The one substance is mater"}
 * Monist idealism:{"There exists only one fundamental substance", "The one substance is mind"}
 * Dualism:{"There exists only two fundamental substances"}
 * etcetera for every single other ism


 * I don't know if I can make it any more clear. You will have to present a counterexample or I think you are reasonably compelled to agree?!


 * I used to see it your way about "isms", but now I realize that there is a better way. Nobody who is looking for "isms" or "schools of thought" is going to be mystified to find them organized under theories. They will find what they are looking for more easily because there will not be some to be found in one place, and some found in other places. Right now they are all over the place. It's a mess. There is no reason for it. I've gone through hundreds of these. Is Cognitivism (ethics) really a "movement" for instance? There are bunches of those. I certainly should remove the movement category and add the theories category in those cases. You will find there are very few which qualify as a "movement."


 * I wouldn't worry too much about messing around with the glossary. However, I think we should think big and consider the possibility of several by field each one of which could be a featured list someday. It's not so undoable. (see also User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoning... the problem though is that categories are not categories in the sense of say dewey decimal numbers, but they are categories in the sense that people find them useful. as such having a strict programmatic hierarchy isn't the goal, neither is analytic clarity, which is likely only accessible to a few, what is ideal is that people can find the 'stuff' using the 'categories' that come to their individual mind in their own invdividual context. They should not have to use a glossary to find out that you call schools of though ... theories, they should be able to use schools of thought which are different than theories. etc. --Buridan (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical syllogism
I'm not sure enough to change it myself, but it seems to me, that the article at most captures a single aspect of the topic (the intro sentence seems already to confess this). AFAIK the hypothetical syllogism is just Modus ponens and Modus tollens, at least up to Wissenschaft der Logik.

Googling around found Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic by John Neville Keynes, who gives pure hypothetical syllogism for "Q⇒R, P⇒Q gives P⇒R" and mixed hypthetical syllogism for "Q⇒R, Q gives R", noting that older texts only calls the latter one "hypothetical syllogism".

Now it seems, and this part I can judge least, contemporay usage in English language texts has completely shifted to the former case ("Q⇒R, P⇒Q gives P⇒R"). But even then, the original usage should be mentioned.

--Pjacobi (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of first-order logic
In case you haven't noticed, has been working to improve the article on first-order logic. Since FOL is a core logical concept that is of common interest to both philosophers and mathematicians, it would be good for someone to review the article and give a philosopher's perspective on CBM's work.Please comment on Talk:First-order logic.
 * Yes, please; any comments would be appreciated. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice for Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
nominated Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Albert Einstein
...is at peer review. Help get it back to FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New portals and templates
There are several new portals and templates which have been created and updated recently. They can use some development and attention. The portals are set up so as to rotate between articles. If anyone thinks an article should be featured, it's easy to put it in the line up.


 * Portal:Aesthetics
 * Portal:Social and political philosophy
 * Portal:Ethics
 * Portal:Metaphysics

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Ethics
 * Social and political philosophy
 * Template:Philosophy of mind
 * Template:Philosophy of science
 * Template:Philosophy of language

Either/Or
I have conducted a reassessment of this article's GA status. I have placed the reassessment on hold as there are some points to be addressed at Talk:Either/Or/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Humane
Could someone who's more of a philosophy expert than I am (which isn't all that hard, sadly) have a look at Humane? Right now it's very much a dictionary entry, unlike some of the other ethical concepts listed on its page (e.g. Justice) whose articles discuss their philosophical meaning and background. JiveTalkinChoirBoy (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dustbin category
I created the article Dustbin category, for the expression is commonly used to describe an imperfect catch-all category of last resort. Can anyone help me improve it (or merge it with an existing article that I overlooked)? It seems to belong in this neck of the woods, rather than under scientific classification per se. Sam Weller (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Hylomorphism overhaul
I've come to the conclusion that the article on Hylomorphism is in a rather shabby condition. Thus, I've put together a draft for a revised article and posted it on my user page. As you may notice, the draft discusses only Aristotelian hylomorphism. I believe that the article Theory of forms adequately discusses Plato's hylomorphism (or, if it doesn't, then it should). And, at any rate, when modern philosophers debate the merits of "hylomorphism" as an alternative to materialism and dualism, they're generally talking about Aristotelian hylomorphism. (I, for one, have always heard "hylomorphism" applied to Aristotle's theories, not to Plato's.) In addition, I feel that combining Platonic and Aristotelian hylomorphism into a single article makes things unnecessarily confusing. (Many of the remarks about "hylomorphism" in the current article apply only to Aristotelian hylomorphism, thereby compounding the confusion.) Anyhow, I'd appreciate any feedback on my draft. (Please note that I am not suggesting that we discuss only Aristotelian hylomorphism in an article titled Hylomorphism. Rather, I am suggesting that we revise this article in accordance with my draft and rename it Hylomorphism (Aristotle).) --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with Dispute Resolution
The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:


 * AHD definitions 1, 2, 3 loosely grouped under the "humanism" article
 * AHD definition 4 briefly mentioned under the humanities article
 * AHD definition 5 has its own article at Renaissance humanism and connection to definition 1 mentioned in the humanism article
 * Recently, an editor added a disambiguation page to direct readers to the different types of humanism, and added the appropriate hat-note to the article.

Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.

The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:


 * WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.
 * Also at WP:DICTIONARY: "The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles."
 * WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
 * WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
 * WP:Naming conflict: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.

Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have bias on philosophy articles?
I know that bias is unavoidable, and any system is prone to systemic bias. I guess what I'm really asking, is What should I know beforehand if I suffer burnout after investing many months into WikiProject Philosophy? Wikipedia operates through consensus, which I feel is a good thing. Is this a bad thing, however, for maintaining neutral encyclopedia articles on philosophy? I am a good writer with strong rhetorical skills and copy-editing skills. I quit after I realized I can't be indifferent about allowing Wikipedia to turn a few blind eyes for highly productive, yet quid pro quo editors who simply volunteer in order to plant their "pet lies" into Wikipedia. I guess what I'm asking, is if this niche of Wikipedia is highly ethical? An altruistic editor can never be as productive, nor powerful, as a quid pro quo editor. Wikipedia's survival depends on facilitating pragmatism, but if I were to rejoin, I would never venture outside a specific subset of article content, and would never leave until every article I contributed to became a featured article. 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings, and thanks very much for your interest in contributing! In response to your question, I would say that the encyclopaedia's philosophy articles are of rather poor quality, not very comprehensive, and in some specific instances controlled by individual editors; there are few articles that are battlegrounds, and I have seen little concerted attempts to maintain biased articles. You might have difficulty attracting collaborators, but I would say you have a good chance of being able to radically improve articles without obstruction if you so chose. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh   12:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I'll try to make one philosophy article into an FA this year because even when I semi-retired, I didn't stop assuming good faith and will just try a new niche.  The battleground stuff is egregious, and I never intended to edit an article that was so controlled by a quid pro quo editor that actually did honest and highly productive work for lots of other articles outside of the one or two articles in which he had a conflict of interest.  Hopefully, I'll never run into an editor like that if I just volunteer and contribute to an extremely narrow niche of philosophy articles.  I'll bite the FA review task from the "To do" tab and make it my priority this month.  윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

אני חייב להיות אקר אני מבין במחשבים אני יודע מה זה חצי מאקר'Bold text'' ''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.178.76 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say "pet lies" is around 40% of marginially trafficked articles and nearly 90% of any article specific to a small cultural group such as minor Scientology, Jehova Witness, Objectivist, ect. Where only they would care. That's the problem for having a "one stop shop for facts" on the internet. But alas, sometimes the articles are not too bad. Objectivity isn't so favored as a consensus of subjectivity. I guess I agree. The real problem are wikipedians who think wikipedia needs to be consise (It's the fucking internet you retards! If I want to write an article on blue M&Ms and want it to be 8,000,000 words long, who the fuck cares? Is there a lack of space??)and idiots who think SOME sources opinions are inferior to others (their own). Sanitycult (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I have cautioned this editor about incivility. I see no evidence of previous warnings, so I don't think anything more needs to be done at this point, although it would be nice if Sanitycult would revise the more objectionable parts of the message. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's objectionable about it besides my inability to be wishy washy and disengenious? At least people know where I'm coming from and that I can't spell or be gramatical.Sanitycult (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of articles dominated by people pushing POVs. Libertarianism (metaphysics) used to be total WP:OR and after many warnings deleted much of it. Now someone has come in with more references, but doesn't feel they really have to ref material so I'm sure a lot of it is WP:OR.  Anyway, if anyone wants to take a quick look and encourage the person to better ref their material. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Carol, this is a complete mis-representation. I clearly said that WP:V and WP:RS apply, in so many words, both on the talk page and in my edit summary. What I disagree with is that the stricter standards of WP:BLP apply (and I clearly laid out why). I also disagree with you to the extent that "references" require superscripted little numbers versus in-text citations, like to books that have their own wikipedia pages already. If your comments are effective in getting some more eyes on Libertarianism, great, but don't come over here and start pretending that people "don't really feel they have to ref material." Come on over and read the whole thing on the talk page. It should be pretty obvious that the person who is complaining about refs has added exactly 0 refs to the article herself, and then complaining that the established editors have made many good contributions to wikipedia, and who are actively working on improving, including refs, etc, aren't doing it fast enough. Edhubbard (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually my complaint was someone (who I mistakenly thought was you) writing "In general, editors should try and find references if they feel references are lacking, rather than assuming bad faith." And I do NOT want to become an expert on the topic so thought I'd see if any here. If you look at how bad WP:OR was last time, you can see why there might be concern on this topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Carol, I apologize then. Sorry for jumping on you.  I agree that getting a few more eyes on the libertarianism (metaphysics) page will probably help, and asking you to become an expert in, what is in all fairness a kind of esoteric field of academic philosophy, is not fair.  I know that Peter is working to improve the article, and from working with him on previous philosophy articles in wiki-world, I know that he is working to do so within the normal rules of wikipedia.  I know that some of my own frustration (and I assume his) is because I do see what Peter and I are trying to do as being a good faith attempt to get the article up to something worthwhile including references and so on, but then seeing the article quickly tagged and so on distracts from (and slows) that project.  Peter has a wealth of knowledge on the topic, and is probably one of the best qualified people in the project to work on this article. Unfortunately, the philosophy project lost one of its best (and most contentious) editors when Francisco Franco left the project. He is the one who almost single-handedly brought the Free will article up to FA status, and would have been a great asset for this one too, as it's a sub-division of the Free will article.  Another user, Brian Morton has the background to help out, but his Department Chair won't let him until he gets tenure! In any case, let's hope that a few others will help out, if even just by going to the SEP article and adding references where appropriate.  Cheers,  Edhubbard (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian violence
There is a proposal to delete this large, comprehensive article about Christian violence. I am pretty sure the proposal is another religiously motivated one. We could use some rational input at Articles for deletion/Christian violence.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already a Christian Terrorism article, so why the hell is this an issue?Sanitycult (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Large, comprehensive"? It's large, all right, but it's largely a list of disconnected quotes.  The article looks far from encyclopedic in its current state. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfection
The article Perfection is, well, heterological. On one hand it's a WP:SYNTH of different concepts of perfection; on the other, the ethics/aesthetics/ontology/theology sections are taken directly from one author. The notes section says it best: 119 citation to Tatarkiewicz, and 0 to all other authors combined.

I'm not sure if this is better handled by fire or some gentler method; I leave that to your discretion. But the current state of the article is extremely poor: the article doesn't seem to even merit its C-class rating from your project.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian philosophy dispute
There is a dispute about whether Agni Yoga should redirect to Living Ethics or be a separate article, at redirects for discussion. If anyone is a knowledgeable about Russian philosophy or just wants to lend a hand, we could use your help. Thanks.  [ mad   pierrot  ]  13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
There is currently a discussion at WP:MATH about creating a template for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy citations. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson GAR notification
Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance
I am a biologist/taxonomist working on the article Nomenclature. One section of the article is headed “Names, words, language and meaning” – a bit ambitious for what must be a relatively short and unpretentious paragraph. The intention is to show how nomenclature, as the arena of names/nouns within language as a daily activity, connects to both linguistics and the philosophy of language. I need a simple statement that covers current thinking concerning the way words as names/nouns combined with the rules that govern their use impact on the way we structure or perceive the world. There ... real easy for you chaps and lasses. I'm not looking for "solutions" - more state of play. Perhaps it is best if you just read the article and see what you think needs fitting into the slot that seems to need filling (please) Thank you. I would be very grateful if you could suggest an appropriate para on the talk page of the article. Nothing too complex. I'm not asking much am I? Granitethighs (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ask three philosophers one simple question and you'll get five complex answers" ;). Skomorokh  10:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to provide a response on the aforementioned talk page. Ostracon (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone watching the Religion and philosophy RFCs?
I posted a RFC on Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy three days ago about a merge from Virtual and haven't had a single comment. While I didn't really expect a bunch of philosophers to make a decision on anything, I thought at least there would be some lively debate on my orphaned text on Metaphysics. ;-) If no one shows up soon I'm just going to dump the whole thing into Gilles Deleuze and let you guys fight it out from there. I only speak the computer flavored version of Virtual myself. I can't go back to the authors of the text because nearly all of it came from anonymous users. Thanks! UncleDouggie (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Order as opposed to chaos
Wikipedia has long had a lengthy disambiguation page titled order. Whether it will still be there five minutes from now is questionable considering recent edits (someone moved it to a title identifying a different topic, then deleted all of the material and replaced it with a short silly list of unrelated things, not at all intended as a disambiguation page, all apparently in good faith; if this becomes an edit war you may need to look at histories to see the page I'm referring to).

Besides an authority issuing an order to be obeyed, listing things in alphabetical order, the Loyal Order of Moose, 2nd-order differential equations, architectural orders, placing an order for the purchase of books at amazon.com, etc., etc., one of the topics mentioned is order as the opposite of chaos.

That topic deserves an article but has none. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Barbados Group. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

teachings attributed to Aristotle
List of teachings attributed to Aristotle What is this list supposed to be? I think it should either be deleted or renamed and reworked. I don't think the title is specific enough as it is. Any thoughts? Pollinosisss (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the page should probably be deleted. It started life as perfectly sensible redirect for "Aristotelian". Someone changed Aristotelian into a disambiguation page (again, quite sensible I suppose.) But then someone else objected that many of the entries shouldn't be on a Dab page, but instead of deleting the superfluous entries, he/she pointlessly created List of teachings attributed to Aristotle. Singinglemon (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Formal language (logic)
''See Articles_for_deletion/Formal_language_%28logic%29

Owing to the repeated removal of philosophical, and metalogical, content by mathematicians and computer scientists from Formal language, the article Formal language (logic) was created from a split, and for the first time all this wonderful content is safe and covered. However, this is apparently not an acceptable solution for certain people. They want to travel along into the philosophy department and give us heavy-handed treatment with our own articles.

The way I see it, either have a comprehensive article which includes coverage from all academic areas, or split the article so that each academic area can cover their own material. This would seem to be a very simple matter of decency, fairness and interdisciplinary coverage.

It seems to me that the POV is that basically, philosophy, philosophical logic, and metalogic are unimportant to what they care about. That would ordinarily be fine. However, it does not justify the deletion and removal of content which is of concern to philosophy academics. What I am saying is that YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If it turns out that this article is deleted, I will expect the content to be preserved and merged into the formal language article. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Metalogic vs Metamathematics
There is a discussion at Talk:Metalogic proposing a merge with Metamathematics. Please discuss at that Talk page. Examples would be appreciated!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical traditions
There is a discussion about the categories Philosophical traditions and Philosophical schools and traditions being held at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_27. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsolved problems in philosophy
I don't like Category:Unsolved problems in philosophy. The "problem" of free will for example is not really a problem for many philosophers. To say that it hasn't been solved yet seems to insult all those who have given definitive answers in the past. Any thoughts? Pollinosisss (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not a good category -- misleading at best. Perhaps Philosophical problems (where Unsolved problems in philosophy is currently redirected) would deal with this better? Certainly deals with your issue of some problems not being, well, problems to various schools of thought.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This page needs a very hard work because there are so many questions that haven't been answered since the ancient Greece time or at least one school has said that they've got the answer of it and another school hasn't agreed with it.I would rather say since the problem is unsolved it's called philosophy.Once it's been answered it's called science.This idea isn't always true but I think it usually is.--Arash Eb (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Georg Hegel
There is a discussion about the category Georg Hegel and being held at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_8. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Brandywine School
I noticed your project box at Talk:Brandywine School, and thought I'd let you know that the Brandywine School is a minor school (movement?) in painting. If it is also a school of philosophy, please let me know. Smallbones (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell the Brandywine School is not involved in philosophy.


 * A number of art schools/movements are currently included in the philosophy project under the Aesthetics task force. I've actually been meaning to bring it up as I don't believe articles such as this one should be included in the Philosophy project.


 * Does anyone have any thoughts on this? It seems to me that most art movements are beyond the scope of our project. Pollinosisss (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to restrict "aesthetics" to "philosophy of art" for the purposes of tagging, though that is something that the task force members ought to decide. Skomorokh,  barbarian  06:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Outline" v "list" war visits the philosophy department
Talk:Outline_of_logic

Could we get some comment on this issue from some members of this project? There is an editor on a campaign to rid WP of all outlines. "Outlines" would seem to be a more evolved form of list, and so I cannot understand the motivations to devolve. It is my hope to nip this in the bud before this person moves on to the Outline of philosophy.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be more neutral to say that there are some editors trying to make all lists into outlines, and some resisting that. I haven't seen anyone trying to get rid of all outlines.  My view is it should be decided case by case based on the nature of the content.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly I'm not trying to delete all outlines. The outline project needs to have its position and remit clarified, and the renaming of lists should cease until this is established. I've yet to see any pros given for outlines over lists. For example, outlines per WP:OUTLINE impose a rigid structure on the page, and a rigid naming scheme, which often is not the best way to present data or name the article ("Outline of circles" for a recent example). WP:LIST gives us the power to use several schemes, presenting the data in the most logical way for each article, or even each section. The problem as I see it is the ownership of "outlines" and "lists" displayed by some members of teh outline project, and I welcome more input from the wikipedia community rather than the outline project presenting this as a fait accompli. Outline of philosophy could use improvement, such as the multi length columns, some hierarchical structure, etc being fixed, and it may be better off as a list (it doesn't meet the outline projects outline requirements, anyway). I'll also note that the lead violates the GFDL by being an unattributed, modified, copy of the Philosophy article lead, which should have been noted on both pages. Verbal chat  20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * why? is this just more bureaucratization and wikilawering or is there really some point to constructing more rules for this? --Buridan (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory promotion at Human rights
A number of Iranian editors are attempting to add poorly sourced or unsourced claims to Human rights concerning a 6th century BC artifact, the Cyrus cylinder. They claim that it is supposedly the world's first charter of human rights, and that the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great effectively originated the concept of human rights. (To summarize, this is a fringe theory promoted by the late Shah of Iran in the 1970s as part of his regime's propaganda and has subsequently been promoted by Iranian ultranationalists, particularly in the pro-Shah diaspora. Mainstream historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic.) This has previously been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's now being discussed at Talk:Human rights. Human rights is listed as a high-importance article for this WikiProject so some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages
I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There is some existing data from September 2008 here. Skomorokh,  barbarian  15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I dig Bruce Lee being within the scope of this project. But 74th on a list of 4705? °_^ ROFLMAO Paradoctor (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I requested lists of popular pages for some of the task forces a while back (ancient,medieval,philosophers,literature,religion). We should get some data next month.
 * Pollinosisss (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I made requests for all the rest. I've always wanted this info. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I look forward to viewing the lists. Should be interesting Pollinosisss (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Misanthropy
I tried cleaning up this article yesterday by removing the trivia, removing a few things from the intro, removing items from the 'see also list' and removing part of the philosophy section. 91.104.205.67 undid most of my changes earlier today . Could someone take a look at the article in question? Pollinosisss (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is resolved for now. Let us know if the problem arises again.  Is there anything from the deleted--and clearly excessive--material that might be worth keeping? Perhaps the misanthropy in literature (could be a separate article)?Shanata (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Philosophy: article being turned into an almighty mess
Can somebody take a look at Jewish Philosophy? What was previously (eg: 22 September) a tight, well-focussed (albeit 89k) article about philosophical activity has ballooned to 200k, and still growing; in a style that is simply not Wikipedia; with digressions into how what became the Islamic world didn't have any cultural thought apart from Judaism pre 700 CE; and simply no focus at all.

What should be a tight, orientating introduction to some of the key figures and most important areas of philosophical discussion has instead become an almighty mess.

Will anyone take this on? It now needs massive cleanup, and significant mentoring for the editor in question. Jheald (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So mentor me already...the article was an irrational mess prior to the re-write...in fact it really didn't represent very much about judaism at all. In your opinion, what should happen.  As my profile reflects, I am new at this.  Naive? yes....stupid?  no.


 * Perhaps you can agree that goofing on people is not nearly as constructive as direct first-contact prior to going public with criticisms that never got to me.


 * So mentor me already...with some helpful, constructive criticism...rather than goofing.
 * Jimharlow99 (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Jimharlow99 has now taken on these concerns and is working to address them. Expert eyes could still be useful though.  Jheald (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Philosophy/Medieval and others to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at:


 * WikiProject Philosophy/Popular pages.


 * WikiProject Philosophy/Aesthetics/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Epistemology/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Ethics/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Metaphysics/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Logic/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Social and political/Popular pages.


 * WikiProject Philosophy/Ancient/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Medieval/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Modern/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Contemporary/Popular pages.


 * WikiProject Philosophy/Philosophers/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Philosophical literature/Popular pages.


 * WikiProject Philosophy/Science/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Language/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Mind/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Religion/Popular pages.


 * WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Analytic/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Continental/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Eastern/Popular pages.
 * WikiProject Philosophy/Marxism/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rfc at Talk:Celestial spheres
A request for comment on a large amount of disputed content in the article Celestial spheres, a B-grade article of low-importance within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, is under way here. Anyone who can usefully contribute to the discussion, please do so. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Burden of proof (logical fallacy)
Hello. I submitted an AfD for the article Burden of proof (logical fallacy), on the grounds that Unfortunately, the AfD has gotten few responses and seems like it will expire with no action taken. I'd appreciate it if some interested folks could comment on the AfD (either for or against) before it expires. Phiwum (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the fallacy described is not discussed in philosophy, logic or critical thinking literature and hence the page is WP:OR,
 * the term "burden of proof" is sometimes used to describe another fallacy (which this article is *not* about), but that fallacy is better known as Argument from ignorance and already has a WP entry.