Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 17

Still no section on epistemology in John Locke article
No one has added a section on epistemology in this article. Locke is one of the most important philosophers on epistemology in history. The article mentions his importance in the field but does not discuss his theories on epistemology at all. This is inexcusable. This should be a priority for WikiProject Philosophy. ProfGiles (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Traditional knowledge

 * Category_talk:Traditional_knowledge

This article has apparently been around awhile, and the category was created recently. They are under the scope of all sorts of areas, like "history of science," "sociology," "philosophy," "intellectual property law," and "Indigenous rights." I am quite dubious about the whole thing. There do appear to be sources for the term "Traditional knowledge" however, I believe this is a very unfortunate example of scholars in one area using a term like "knowledge" carelessly, whereas any scholar in the actual area responsible for studying "knowledge" (i.e. epistemology) would not use that term for this concept. They would call it "Traditional beliefs." Knowledge is true justified belief. So the question is 'what justifies "traditional knowledge?"' I do not belief it involves logic or science in this case.Greg Bard (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of relevant AfDs
Hi all, I have nominated Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) and Neohumanism in a Nutshell for deletion. Your input would be very welcome at the AfDs. bobrayner (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Antichrist
The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:The Antichrist (book) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Major changes at free will still...
As mentioned here a month ago, an editor at Free will is pushing some edits that were very controversial among the handful of other editors active over there, but the rest of us (I guess I can only speak for myself) seem to have run out of time and energy to keep repeating over and over again why they are not productive edits, and he has now managed to get a lot of them integrated into article. I don't want to just flat out revert him, but really I don't think any of the changes he has made (to the lede at least) have been productive at all; I've just run out of time to keep telling him why.

Please, if anyone has any time, give a look over the recent edit history at Free will and anything from the past several pages of talk archives and weigh in with your opinions so this guy doesn't have free reign to go about completely rewriting the article for the worse just because nobody has time to stop him anymore. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am "this guy". The article has not been rewritten for the worst, and is only slightly revised from what was originally there. Most of the many edits I have made are trivial, as the in-line comments suggest.
 * The original article with the original introduction can be seen here, and the revised article with the changed introduction can be seen here.
 * The chief alteration that might cause Pfhorrest unease is that the original introductory paragraph has been replaced by two introductory sentences:
 * Free will is the ability of agents to make choices. In philosophy controversy exists as to what degree and under what circumstances free will is possible.
 * and the remainder of the original paragraph is now placed in a second paragraph beginning:
 * To illustrate one controversy, consider the philosophical position of nomological determinism, which holds...
 * The effect of these changes is to make free will an independent topic standing on its own feet, where before it was defined entirely by its relation to determinism. The controversy over determinism now is introduced immediately following the first two-sentence paragraph as an aspect of discussion of free will instead of as the defining issue, as was the case before the revision.
 * I have added sources to support statements simply asserted before my changes, and made some rewording that does not make any substantial change in meaning.
 * Some rearrangement of paragraphs was made in the section In Western philosophy to help the logical flow by placing discussions of topics together instead of scattering them about. Some references were placed in "cite book" template. The "i.e."'s and "e.g."'s were replaced with "that is" and "for example", and so forth and so on. Brews ohare (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As anyone reading the original can see, it did not define free will by its relation to determinism, and in fact my first major contributions to this article a few years back were specifically helping settle an ongoing debate about how to neutrally state the definitional start of the lede without bias toward either incompatibilism or compatibilism, and doing so required defining free will separate from its relation to determinism. The old lede (the consensus after my intervention years ago) began with an intentionally broad and open definition that all notable positions could agree too, then stated the different contentious positions, starting with the one of greatest historical notability, the incompaibilist one, but following immediately with an overview of compatibilist alternatives.
 * Brews' new lede instead begins with an overly terse, apparently complete and definitive definition that does not leave an opening for the presentation of alternative completions of it. It then presents incompatibilist issues "to illustrate one controversy", implying that incompatibilism is "common sense". It introduces a new paragraph completely misunderstanding the meaning of "determinism", even missing that the sources that it itself is cited to contradict the misunderstanding implied by it. Compatibilism is then presented as some sort of alternative viewpoint running against the "common sense" of incompatibilism, and the sentences giving a brief overview of the definitional disputes, rather than being right at the start of the article where they belong, are almost at the end of the lede, following the compatibilist material in a very unnatural way, as they originally served to introduce compatibilism and incompatibilism, but now follow more extensive discussions of them.
 * I have only a small amount of time right now to come here and make these comments -- I've got big problems going on in life that preclude my usual patience -- so I strongly exhort other WP:PHIL editors to please come keep an eye on this article. Brews does not appear to have much philosophical background and seems to be trying to learn the material while making big edits, and the whole thing is coming out a mess. I can tell he really wants to be productive, but it just doesn't seem to be coming out that way to me. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Pfhorrest's remarks do not reflect what is written. It is unfortunate that his personal situation precludes supporting his assertions with any detail. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A further exchange of views has taken place at Talk:Free will, which is probably where further discussion should continue. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hobesian trap
I'm just reading Steven Pinkers The Better Angels of Our Nature and I was kind of surprised that the Hobesian trap is still a red link. Would anybody like to give it a try? --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page template
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

I have made a report to ANI concerning Alan Liefting's interference with this page.Greg Bard (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Images
Hello Philosophy group. I would like to know if anyone knows how to find out in which legal copy-right-group an image falls. I would like to add an image (a map) to the article of Plato's The Laws. So, I read up on what to do and it clearly tells me to find out which legal copy-right-status an image has. But now how to figure that out. Does anyone know? --Fan Singh Long (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
A request for comment can be found under the header: RfC on two usages of 'physical determinism'. It concerns the difference between nomological determinism and physical determinism. One party claims they are unimportantly different, and the other claims that while sometimes they are used as synonyms, a useful distinction can be drawn. There also is a difference in interpretation of several published works in this area. The RfC was posted February 8, but so far has attracted little attention. Please consider adding your two cents. Brews ohare (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

IEG proposal aimed at improving coverage of topics that lay at the intersection of women and philosophy
Hi all - I just posted a draft of an individual engagement grant proposal aimed at improving the English Wikipedia's coverage of topics that lay at the intersection of women and philosophy through targeted academic outreach. If it's approved, I would be conducting the project along with Alex Madva and Katie Gasdaglis. I'm hopeful that if approved and carried out, it would go a long way towards addressing Wikipedia's under-representation of our targeted topic areas, and would create a scalable model of educational outreach to underrepresented disciplines that can be used in other fields. A lot more details are available on the meta page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Realism
The usage of realism is up for discussion, see Talk:Philosophical realism -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Treachery
The usage of Treachery is under discussion, see talk:Treachery -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Treacherous
The usage of is under discussion, see talk:Treacherous (song) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy of chiropractic
What does everyone think about Philosophy of chiropractic? I had moved this article to "Foundations of chiropractic" since that is noncontroversial, but it was moved back. I am pretty sure that this is a non-careful use of the term "philosophy" by non-philosophers, and should not be permitted. Greg Bard (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The philosophy of chiropractic meets WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS criteria. The topic is proven to exist and it is discussed in a scholarly manner.  You've agreed that important philosophical concepts such as materialism, vitalism, holism are encompassed in the philosophy of chiropractic.  This indeed is careful use, as the sources are both verifibale and reliable. DVMt (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that there are any academic philosophers today who subscribe to vitalism. That is a purely historical entity in philosophy. However, this article is portraying contemporary philosophy as supporting vitalism, and that just is not the case. Greg Bard (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Vitalism is only one perspective, as it blended with materialism and holism. Are you disputing the quality of the sources and their reliability? DVMt (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess WP:COMMONNAME applies. I wouldn't call it philosophy but we're supposed to use what it's normally called. At least it is in wikiproject Rational Skepticism so they'll keep an eye on it. Dmcq (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So now he has moved it and other "of chiropractic" articles to "of Chiropractic" and he has also removed the Rational Skepticism wikiproject template (because, after all, there's nothing to be skeptical of here, right? Nothing to see here!). I am dubious about the appropriateness of WP:COMMONNAME. If a small group of chiroprators got together and called their technique a "mathematical subluxation treatment" (you know, because it's so precise and exact like mathematics) the Math Wikiproject would put the hammer down on that nonsense immediately. This situation is ridiculous. Greg Bard (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME does apply and if you want the rational skeptic tag it could be added. However, it saw this as redundant as WP:MED tagged and rated it as a B-Class article and would be 'supervised' there.  Greg is going off an a tangent about 'subluxation' which has nothing to do with the 'name' of the article.  Also speculation and conjecture (if a small group of chiropractors...) add nothing to the topic at hand.  It's simply a common name and there is no reason to rename as anything else based on the fact that the sources cited were reliable and verifiable, hence the WP:MED rating and tagging. DVMt (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you give me an example of a philosopher who has ever used the term "philosophy of chiropractic" and to what he or she was referring?Greg Bard (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing none of my points. DVMt (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Likewise, for likewise reasons. COMMONNAME states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." My claim is that the title is inaccurate. So, again, is there a philosopher who agrees with you? Also, is there some very good reason for capitalizing those titles? Are they the name of a book? If that's the reason, then the article needs to be about the book. Otherwise they should not be capitalized. Greg Bard (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The title is accurate. The reason why it was capitalized was because it refers to the profession 'Chiropractic'. This is per WP:MEDMOS where all article regarding medical specialties have to follow the same standard throughout.  Furthermore, it is standard to capitalize professional designations (i.e. Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, Doctor of Osteopathy, Doctor of Chiropractic, Doctor of Physical Therapy, etc.  DVMt (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken in your application of the policy. "Doctor of Medicine" is clearly referring to the profession, however "Philosophy of chiropractic" needs to leave the "chiropractic" lowercase. You will notice this is the case for every single member of Philosophy by field. Also, just restating your claim, doesn't make it so. The title is not accurate. There are no academic philosophers who either use, nor would consider "philosophy of chiropractic" to be appropriate any more than any mathematician would consider a hypothetical "mathematical subluxation treatment" as mathematics, and for the same reason. It isn't an irrelevant tangent. It is a valid point. You can't just appropriate academic and scholarly names for your own purposes. Greg Bard (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not mistaken, the title is verifiable, meets WP:MEDRS criteria and is notable.  We must be careful and try not to own pages.  Do you have any specific sources that says disputes the title? DVMt (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Yes you are. (Again, just repeating it doesn't make it so). This is a very clear violation of Naming conventions (capitalization), which states in its opening sentence in bold letters, "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun." So that really settles that matter. As far as who has sources, it is YIU who has the burden of proving that this is philosophy, and you haven't done it. Again, there are no sources from any credible, scholarly, or academic philosophers that confirm your view. And please don't cry WP:OWN when the entire conflict is being played out on talk pages. Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Professions use proper titles. Hence, if I wrote an article such as Philosophy of Traditional and Chinese Medicine" it would be ok, and a simple direct such as Philosophy of traditional and chinese medicine would suffice.  You have also failed to address my point, again, which states that the title and article are compliant with reliable sources, that are verifiable that meet stringent WP:MEDRS policies.  Also note, that Osteopathic medicine has their own philosophy  as does Chiropractic medicine .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVMt (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here by User:DVMt. He said two other editors suggested he do so and this is probably as a result of previous comments I've made at the alternative medicine article. I guess a brute force attack is justified. We should first determine the term or terms most frequently used in the scholarly literature to indicate this topic. Google Scholar results of possible article titles are provided in the table below.

Based on the above I think that the article title should contain the word philosophy but that the preferred variant should be Chiropractic philosophy. The meaning is somewhat different from "philosophy of chiropractic" but it has the advantage of removing any grounds for dispute over the capitalisation of the "chiropractic" and it doesn't imply a formal branch of philosophy (although there are lots of "Philosophy of ..." articles that are plainly not formal branches of philosophy – e.g. philosophy of accounting. Of greater import, the article as it stands needs quite a bit of work. It reads from an insider's perspective which is most evident in the use of terms which are not explained in the article. Also, the focus of the article should be on chiropractic theories and concepts but it deviates from this quite regularly and the conceptual/philosophical content of the article is undeveloped. The quote box in the lead should be removed as a priority and nothing should be mentioned in the lead which is not in the body of the text. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly support "Chiropractic theory." This is the least presumptuous, and most accurately descriptive title.Greg Bard (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note the disruption here by User:Gregbard despite consensus here in depth analysis here .  Unfortunately this seems to tedentious editing and not listening to other editors.  DVMt (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't have consensus which is precisely why Greg should have perhaps waited somewhat longer than a minute before moving the page to their preferred title. Personally, while I don't think that Chiropractic theory is so bad, I still favour Chiropractic philosophy on the basis of the search results as the most commonly used term. Anyhow, as already suggested by User:Kevin Gorman, one of you should take the issue to the requested moves board. There, I'd tend to focus more on the merits of any proposed move rather than editor behaviour. Please inform me on my talk page if either of you initiates a requested move process. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not all philosophy is academic (i.e. Western) philosophy and vitalism is quite common in non-western philosophical systems to this day, and Chiropractics and similar therapeutic systems generally tend to align with Eastern philosophy. Similarly the argument that it is an historical entity in philosophy today is a non-argument, since by the same token we couldn't refer to Descartes' or Gorgias' thoughts as philosophies. For this reason there is no problem in locating the article at Chiropractic philosophy which sources indicate is the common name.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't really disagree more. I find this very unhelpful to the project. I have tried to keep this project consistent with academically accepted standards. Not any old thing is philosophy. Vitalism is within the scope of this project, but only for historical reasons. Vitalism within contemporary literature is not really philosophy anymore than Flat Earth theory is a scientific theory. "Philosophy of chiropractic" is a misuse of the term by non-philosophers, and should not be acceptable within this project, nor within the philosophy category tree. Greg Bard (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Should category traditional knowledge be listed in category knowledge?
Your comments welcome at Category talk:Traditional knowledge. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy

 * User:Snowded is presently gutting the article Metaphilosophy and pushing for it to be merged entirely into Philosophy, although much of the material was moved there from extensive discussion that was deemed inappropriate for Philosophy itself, as well as content from one of the first wikipedia articles, Definition of philosophy, which was merged to there.


 * I would appreciate some other veteran wikiphilosophers to come at least keep an eye on what's happening there to make sure that whatever changes happen end up being productive. I don't have time to mount a proper defense against such broad editing strokes; most of the article as it was a few days ago is already gone... although some useful structuring changes have been introduced in the process. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Snowded has taken his personal views that metaphilosophy is a non-subject to the extreme of rewriting this article to make it fit his description. He has paraphrased sources to put his own slant on what they say and removed the actual verbatim quotes that were present before, which do not exactly fit Snowded's ideas. He has fought tooth and nail to prevent citing an article on Metaphilosophy from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and slandered this article as a hodge-podge undeserving of mention. Talk-page discussion about this source is simply stone-walled by Snowded.


 * This high-handed approach could be taken to WP:ANI, but that is seldom productive in matters of content. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ironically I just came here to ask for some more editors to get involved in the page. Brews remains frustrated that he was in a minority of one on Philosophy (I recommend a quick read of that talk page to get a sense of his approach) and the energy seems to have moved to Metaphilosophy.  I think we have some coatracking going on here.   I'll stand by my comments on the talk page.  Brews would you please stop misrepresenting people's positions.  I don't think metaphilosophy is the same as say epistemology which is a different statement from the one you suggest.  I've explained that to you several times.  Similarly its your use of the IEP that is the issue not the IEP itself.   You're very very welcome to take it to ANI by the way.  I doubt you will though, looks like huff and puff.  The bulk of the material I removed in effect was a replication of subject matter already covered at Philosophy it was not linked to, or referenced to, metaphilosophy  Snowded  TALK 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It would appear that Snowded agrees that some new eyes are needed on both Metaphilosophy, which Snowded objects to as being too insignificant to warrant an article on WP, and also on Philosophy, where he objects to including a link to Metaphilosophy on the grounds that this topic is not as established as fields like epistemology. The Talk pages contain extended support for considering 'metaphilosophy' as a subject in its own right, and Snowded accepts none of them. Brews ohare (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews at least concerning our Philosophy article, you are flagrantly misrepresenting Snowded. The question there is concerning an insertion into the lead which would give metaphilosophy a very prominent position within or above philosophy. No one agrees with you about that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew: An advert for your position elsewhere not pertinent here. Brews ohare (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The move of "metaphilosophy" to "philosophy of philosophy" was very ill advised. InPho, IEP, and PhilPapers all use "metaphilosophy" as a subject heading. The SEP has no entry for either, but the term "metaphilosophy" is used in other entries, whereas "philosophy of philosophy" is completely absent. So that's 4 out of 4 of the major philosophy reference resources. I have made a great effort to stay consistent with the usage of terms, and categories in these resources. This move needs to be moved back immediately. Please in the future, consult these reference resources before deciding that one title or another is should be used or changed.Greg Bard (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I protested it on the page but no back up so far. We have a WP:OWN problem on the page although it has calmed down a bit  Snowded  TALK 09:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The move back to Metaphilosophy is a good idea, as the subject is sometimes seen as broader than the term 'philosophy of philosophy' seems to suggest. The original move was less about a 'good' title, and more an attempt to avoid a debate over a narrow view that metaphilosophy was one or the other of its many meanings. Brews ohare (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning a sub-section on Metaphilosophy to be included in the article Philosophy
An RfC concerning addition of a subsection to Philosophy can be found at this location. Please comment upon its inclusion and any modifications you think would help make it better. Brews ohare (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy reference resources
We have an editor (User:Star767) who has developed a strong opinion that he or she does not like Philosophy reference resources for apparently aesthetic reasons. This editor has created the category Category:Process philosophy so as to split out members from Category:Process theory. While I am dubious at the usefulness of this split, I am willing to accept it, if this person or any other feels that it is useful. However, what I do not find acceptable is removing this template which provides links to philosophy reference resources. This template is extremely valuable for people wanting credible, reliable, scholarly information about the subject matter, and I find this person's idea that they do not please him or her aesthetically as boneheaded priorities. Could someone please comment on the category issue, or the template issue? Greg Bard (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Meta, meta, meta
We could do with some eyes on meta-ontology and metametaphysics Snowded  TALK 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded has undertaken to remove all works in the section Meta-ontology that do not have specific reference to meta-ontology in their titles. This narrow focus interferes with easy access to pertinent works. Please discuss at Talk:Meta-ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Or in their content Brews, get your facts right. I also left one general one in as a compromise.  But if we carry on at the current rate you will have a full reference list for the Ontology article  Snowded  TALK 15:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The prospect of a long reading list is indeed a horrible imagining. If a reader clicks on a link and finds a source doesn't help them understand matters better, they might suffer greatly, continuing to experience that gnawing feeling of not knowing. Brews ohare (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a repository for everything you find on a google search. ALso please just let things run from time to time and see if other editors get involved. No one was allowed to comment on your recent RfC on Philosophy without having their views challenged, rechallenged etc.   No further comment from me, but please try and keep to policy on the articles concerned,.  Snowded  TALK 15:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowded: Every listed source in Talk:Meta-ontology is germane, as I have explained there, despite your repetition of objections lacking counterarguments or specifics of any kind. Brews ohare (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Star767
This user has been going to town on philosophy articles and categories. He obviously has no special knowledge of the subject matter. I have reverted numerous contributions in the past 24 hours. Please help me monitor the situation. Greg Bard (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was alerted to this post by Gregbard. He is targeting me. I tried to discuss issues with you, Gregbard and you refused. This is trying to roundup a gang against me. Isn't there a rule about posting this kind of thing on an open page and soliciting a group to go after me? You don't seem to have an understanding of subjects that I do. I admit that I am not a philosopher, but you are sticking articles on other subjects that I do know about into your categories and ignore what the content of the main articles says in the disciplines you seem to lack knowledge in. You don't value discussion, compromise and consensus. And you are spamming categories with your preferred links, which is POV in my view. Star767 (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is ganging up on you but you are tag bombing multiple articles and seem unable to explain your reasons on the talk page of the articles concerned. I'd question your understanding on most of the articles that you have tag-bombed and you need to stop the personal attacks. If you don't get your act together this is going to end up an ANI  Snowded  TALK 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * After you said that previously, I modified my behavior and now always add talk page comments. But I'm the only one doing so. I've seen many other tag bombing and I've never see anyone leave any talk page comments. An article I was editing was tag bombed more so than you have ever seem me do. I asked Bbb23 about it, and he said to just follow the advice on the tags and fix the problem. That putting huge fix-it templates on article is normal and meant to be helpful. So I'm the only one leaving talk page explanations. But I resent the targeting of me on this page, especially since no one contacted me personally first, or tried to work with me,  and Gregbard refuses to discuss but just gives orders.    Star767 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Greg's post was legitimate, your talk page postings simply make assertions they don't argue a case. I suggest you sit back and think for a bit then work on maybe one article with other editors until you learn the ropes. I've had to waste a lot of time last night and this morning clearing up you multiple changes so take it slowly please  Snowded  TALK 01:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Publically targeting an editor as "on a mission" on this project page is wrong
I don't think it's legitimate to publically target an editor and urge others to follow me around and revert my edits without any discussion. I worked very hard on some of those pages. You, Snowded, already told me to use the talk page to discuss, which I now do but you don't. You are reverting legitimate work I did without any apparent evaluation of the quality or any explanation of why you are reverting, other than using the wording of Gregbard's post that I was "on a mission", an assessment that you appeared to accept uncritically without evaluating my work. And you don't use the talk pages to explain, as you lectured me to do above.

You don't have to assume that I don't know what I'm doing. I certainly do in scientific areas and Gregbard doesn't seem to understand the areas of psychology, psychiatry and sociology, for example. He is pushing a ridiculous article Process (philosophy) which is up for deletion and almost certainly will be deleted. That's how I came to be involved, and realized that many of the Philosophy articles were way off track and in disrepair. Please reconsider. I suggested to Gregbard that we get outside views and help from uninvolved editors. He wasn't interested. Star767 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Take your grievance to ANI then its nothing to do with this project Snowded  TALK 02:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Template spam
We have a minor incident were an editor has place Philosophy sidebar on more then hundred Bios as seen here. Not sure what others think but we now have a problem with many of the additions causing sandwiched text in the first paragraphs. Mass revert ? what do others think on this.Moxy (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sidebar was only meant to be used on the articles linked from it. So at some point this will probably be reverted. The "philosophy topics" template and "portal" templates is another story, and they will eventually appear on every top, high, and mid importance philosphy article. I would like to see it converted to a collapsible type like Logic first.Greg Bard (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The template spam promoting several specific reference sources placed in over 60 categories is in violation of the practice of keeping categories purely for navigation. It's POV to promote favored reference sources in categories. They are meant purely for navigation. The template is Philosophy reference resources. and the opinion at Village Pump/Policy is overwhelmingly against. Please urge Gregbard to stop. He reverts every attempt to stop it, but will not seek or respond to consensus. Star767 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So many errors...
 * This particular section is about the Philosophy sidebar template, an issue that was resolved a while ago.
 * The template you are referring to isn't spam of any kind, it isn't "promotional" at all, and the resources it points to are almost universally accepted by this project
 * You shouldn't cry about the fact that it is on 60 categories, because you can reasonably expect it to eventually be on every one of Wikipedia's categories that correspond to the hundreds of categories listed at PhilPapers.
 * The template isn't in violation of any practice, nor policy at all.
 * The consensus is certainly NOT overwhelming, and it doesn't matter anyway, since not a single editor from among this project opposes it, so it's none of anyone else's business as long as it only applies to philosophy categories.
 * I certainly don't see anyone urging me to stop except you alone.
 * Trying to portray my actions as going against consensus on a question that only arose in the past 72 hours is disingenuous, as have most of your posts since the issue began.
 * SO THAT'S A LOT OF ERRORS. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that YOU are a problem editor. You have fewer that 2000 edits, and I have over 75,000. Why don't you entertain the idea that perhaps you should slow down and do some observing instead of campaigning.Greg Bard (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Manual of style

 * Manual of Style/Philosophy

Folks, there are on-going issues that repeatedly affect the articles and categories, and discussions thereabout. Although I could mention a few specifically, what I mean to address is the over-arching situation that leaves our project at the mercy of people who have no education, nor experience in philosophy, even though very often, they are supremely confident that they know what is and is not appropriate for producing scholarly, academically supported, comprehensive, balanced in coverage and non-point of view pushing articles in our area. WikiProject Philosophy is a very small project. Only a handful of people do almost all of the work. Some of our very best contributors only work in very narrow areas. Many of our best contributors only contributed for a short time and no longer are with us. We are basically a tiny village, in a world-wide community. My recommendation to address this in only a very small way, is to formally adopt the Manual of style, and come to consensus formally on what we want so that when the larger community wants to get involved we have something to point to as guidance. In addition to what has been proposed (most of which since 2010), I would propose that we formally adopt a consensus in favor of the Philosophy reference resources template on appropriate category pages, and the navigation banners (for instance, Template:Category-Philosophical_theories/header) on the few most important categories which have been repeatedly called into question by Rich Farmborough. For obvious reasons, I believe we need to limit the consensus to actual WikiProject Philosophy members. Greg Bard (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, and if issues as they arise on articles (like what to reference) could be resolved in that manual of style it would help all round Snowded  TALK 23:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The only part of the Phil MOS which I think will be controverted is that "There should be an exact formal definition [of a theory or concept], in whatever philosophical terms contemporary philosophers are currently using. The formal definition may not be satisfactory to all perspectives, but is one supported by reliable authority. It may serve as a starting point for those wanting a more intellectual understanding." What I think is meant by this is that there should be given a clear explication of a theory or concept from the beginning which is then built upon and responded to in the rest of the article. This is of course the method of most IEP and SEP articles, and the way most classes are run (at least from my experience), and probably the best way. The problem is that it so frequently seems to run against most people's conceptions of WP:NPOV.  For example, you take Metaphysics (Aristotle) and you say (as the article says right now): 'The principal subject is "being qua being", or being understood as being. It examines what can be asserted about anything that exists just because of its existence and not because of any special qualities it has.'  Of course this is not the only the interpretation of Aristotle's Metaphysics, so it would be worthy to later give alternative accounts. The problem, I see, is that then people understand WP:NPOV to mean that you can't unproblematically claim such a thing when there are the alternative accounts.  So then there is the inclusion of problematization in the defining of the theories or concepts, which precludes the statement of an exact formal definition.


 * I already argued against the unacceptability of including Philosophy reference resources in categories at Village_pump_(policy). Template:Category-Philosophical_theories/header seems even less problematic to me: This is just including a parent category to the subject category.  I'm not even sure why it's controversial. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much Snowded and Atethnekos. Your input is very constructive. I will try to incorporate you concerns into the MOS (unless you want to have a crack at it first). I'm feeling a bit under pressure, but I would like to take some time and notify active participants that the MOS is an issue to be addressed. Greg Bard (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed section updating meta-ontology
An addition to meta-ontology is presented here. The article meta-ontology as it stands at the moment is focused upon the Carnap-Quine debate over what ontology is about that took place in the 50's. More has happened since that time. Comments and suggestions for improvement are solicited. Brews ohare (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Snowded has mounted a filibuster to prevent addition of material about developments in Meta-ontology since the 50's. I call it a filibuster, because he never engages and keeps dragging up objections that become more and more vague. It is time for someone to pay some attention here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh, there is material there properly sourced. Brews is now trying to write a general essay based on things he considers part of the subject without providing a third party source to confirm it is a part of the subject.  In effect he seems to want to create a parallel article to ontology.  His failure to get any support to the "meta" changes he wants to Philosophy seems to have been displaced onto this article.   My objections have been the same throughout: no coatrack, proper sourcing.
 * Checking the history Brews got a one year ban from Arbcom on Physics articles which was then made indefinite as he didn't change his behaviour.  I think we are getting the same pattern now on Philosophy, especially issues that pick up on his earlier science/philosophy issues  Snowded  TALK 16:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger of meta-ontology with ontology
The subject meta-ontology does not appear in the latest Oxford Companion. We do have meta-ethics, metalanguage, metalogic, metaphilosophy and metaphysics. I wonder if we should take a position that a"meta-X" which does not appear in a major third party source such as the Oxford Companion (or possibly two or more), should not have articles, but the material should me merged into "X". That would get rid of a lot of the problems of coatracks, original research and the like. Snowded TALK 17:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge meta-ontology made here Snowded  TALK 17:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Pejoratives like coatrack and original research don't belong in a proposal. This attempt at merger is bypassing the formal merger procedure of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sidebar subject list vs. footer navbox.
I have been slogging through WP:VA creating footer navboxes for a wide range of biography articles. Only a few projects prefer to have sidebar subject lists rather than footer navboxes. WP:OPERA has historically had sidebars that only includes a list of opera compositions by author. However, if the composer has other notable subjects including non-opera compositions, they were excluded from the sidebar. Thus, I still had reasonable grounds to create opera composer navboxes. However, your sidebars seem to include all related subject matter. Nonetheless a small minority of important philosophers still have footer navboxes. I am not sure if I should get involved in createing navboxes for your project's important biographies or not. I have created one for Thoreau many months ago before I realized this preference today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nicod's axiom and Łukasiewicz
The article should be supplemented with the information about Łukasiewicz's reaserch on this axiom: it's quite important and without it an article about Nicod's axiom doesn't actually have much worth. Perhaps even moving it to "Nicod-Łukasiewicz axiom" is a good idea. I wite about it now, because I've just seen the English article, lacking interwiki to the Polish version (Aksjomat Nicoda-Łukasiewicza), which I'll soon add to it. I wasn't looking much for the English sources, but this article can give some ideas about it:. Laforgue (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the logical-and symbol with the overbar (rendered ⊼ ) supposed to mean? --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a variant of Sheffer's stroke (perhaps an obscure one, I didn't see it before). Laforgue (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC) And I've just found English translation of the article of Łukasiewicz (, but it's not PD). Laforgue (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors Invited to Laissez Faire article
There's discussion about the criticism section and a talk thread. Comments or additions to this section of the article would be welcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  20:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Parable of the Sunfish at peer review
I'd like to invite editors interested in philosophy of science to comment at the peer review for Parable of the Sunfish: Ezra Pound ponders literary and scientific epistemology by way of 19th C. pre-Darwinist biology. Many thanks, Garamond Lethe t c  18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Apex fallacy
I posted about this on the Logic taskforce, but their talk page doesn't appear to get much activity, no posts since 2012, so I thought it might be better to bring this up here. For those who are familiar with logical fallacy, I am wondering if you might recognize whether or not this phrase describes a concept or misunderstanding or argument already covered under one of the existing articles.

I have read a lot of them, but nowhere near all, and it is difficult to remember all of them and relate ideas to them. I expect this familiarity is developed over time and would like to know, for those who have a better understanding, if it might be appropriate to redirect this phrase to an existing fallacy page which may be related to it.

It is nominated for deletion so I would prefer to find out quickly so a redirect could be done while keeping page history intact. There may be a lack of resources (I found a notable newspaper and 2 quotes by notable psychologists, but am being told it is inadequate) so until that is found, directing to the closest applicable logical fallacy page may at least be somewhat helpful. Ranze (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The closest thing I can think of is the genetic fallacy, but that's not particularly close. I don't think this has gained enough traction yet to warrant an article, and one of the consequences of that is no one else has published something like "The apex fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy...."  I wouldn't object to a redirect, but I think it's skirting WP:OR.  Garamond Lethe t c  18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ascribing properties of the most visible/successful members of a group to the whole group is self evidently a variant of the Fallacy of Composition. Wikipedia records such variants. CSDarrow (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless the article is developed I think that it will be deleted for lack of citations to reliable sources. The history can be kept intact by moving it to your userpage for further development. See WP:USERFY for instructions. It is not appropriate to redirect this to another article or move content here to another article because of lack of sources. If there were sources and this were a WP:stub, then perhaps it could stand alone or be merged, but there are no good sources presented.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Need help at Law of value
Law of value needs some serious help. The article is composed mostly of original research, has trouble maintaining a neutral POV, and is way too long. We need some volunteers to help out with cleaning it up. I've gone through and tagged a lot of the original research, but the article is too overwhelming to work on alone. Also, we need some experts to come in, for help in highlighting trivial information that can be removed.

I've also requested help at WikiProject Socialism, which I think may be more applicable, but Law of value is also listed as belonging to this WikiProject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed replacement for redirect
It is proposed to start a page to replace the present redirect from Deflationism to Deflationary theory of truth. An RfC can be found on its talk page at Deflationism. Please make comments and provide suggestions for improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This proposal has been replaced by a proposal for a new section in Deflationary theory of truth. Please comment there. Brews ohare (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Aristotelian Society
Hi, I've created and populated a category for the presidents of the Aristotelian Society, referring to the links in the list on that page as a 'source'. The list itself isn't sourced (but the Soc. website is in 'External Links', and /is/ the obvious source) and a lot of the articles are stubs that don't mention the Society, or don't source the statement that they were a president. This is bad. 8(

I'm starting a thread about this at WikiProject_Organizations#Aristotelian_Society. Revent (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed ban

 * WP:ANI/I

Greetings folks, It has been proposed that I be sanctioned with a topic ban in the area of local government, due to issues arising from my creation of the Category:County government in the United States. I maintain my innocence, and claim that administrators are seeing the world as a nail for no good reason. It also appears that the fact that I have defended myself and maintained my innocence has resulted in even more hatred toward me. If you appreciate my work here, or hate my guts, you have you opportunity to make your opinion known when it may help or hurt me the most. Greg Bard (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings. It does not look to me as if the issue has anything to do with this project. So why post it here? I really don't care one way or another about the specific issue. My question is only about the possible connection of the issue to this particular project. Thank you. warshy¥¥ 15:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Only because I have done a lot of work on behalf of this project, and if I am banned, I might not be able to continue. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Honesty
Honesty is in dire need of attention. Although it may not immediately be thought of as a philosophical topic, there is certainly much to be drawn from philosophy to fill out an article on such a concept. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by Flow, not by Notifications/Echo.  This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Implication
The names Definitional implication, Causal implication, and Decisional implication each redirect to the DAB page Implication. The DAB page defines each term, but at present there doesn't seem to be anything to link to. Could members of this WikiProject help in either changing the targets of those redirects or creating articles (even stubs) at each name? Or maybe these should be handled in another way? Thoughts? Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs more theory: Aleksei Losev
The biography of Russian philosopher Aleksei Losev has recently been expanded but it needs some help from topic experts. The biographical details should be augmented by a discussion of actual philosophy—what ideas Losev drew from and what ideas he originated, especially what is his scholarly legacy. Any takers? Binksternet (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quine's indeterminacy of translation: fresh eyes needed
A recently improved version of Indeterminacy of translation is disputed. It would be helpful to have some input on the discussion of Willard Quine's major thesis underlying (among other matters) the interpretation of modern science and how to present it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of it Brews, not all of it,  Snowded  TALK 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, Brews has started with an article that was incomprehensible and written in an unencyclopedic style, and turned it into a longer article that is incomprehensible and written in an unencyclopedic style. Looie496 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding inclusion of a footnote to Carnap's paper in Quine's dispute of this paper.
Comment is invited upon including a sentence about a paper written by Carnap in a discussion of that paper by Quine. Snowded has suggested that such a reference is irrelevant to the topic, but I disagree. The RfC is found here. Brews ohare (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, Snowden thinks that there is enough material on the Quine-Carnap debate in other articles which are already linked and really wishes that Brews would stop creating strawman restatements of opposing editors views. We need focus on article subject not the constant addition of essay like material  Snowded  TALK 05:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggested merge …
of Deconstruction and Jacques Derrida on deconstruction. See Talk:Deconstruction. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

External links in category pages
WP:CAT says, "Like disambiguation pages, category pages should not contain either citations to reliable sources or external links."

Greg Bard has been pushing a template that spams external links into philosophy-related categories and resisting all efforts to remove them. This has been discussed extensively at WT:CAT, and even Greg is unable to pretend that there is anything other than a minimum of 50% firm opposition to his external-link work (and others, including myself, count the numbers rather more strongly against him). Greg keeps saying that there is a clear consensus here at WikiProject Philosophy to post external links on all cat pages that overrules this opposition and the general rule against external links on these pages. I have read this entire page and found no evidence that anyone except Greg is determined to keep his external link template in place. Would the rest of you please join the discussion there, in the hope that we could get this settled? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My claim is that the consensus is that InPho, SEP, and PhilPapers are reliable sources, and should be used as guides for the creation and formation of categories. A long time ago I had asked the American Philosophical Association if they had established a standardized system of categorizing subject matter, and they had not. In the absence of that, I have been using these credible sources as guides, and have been in contact with their editors as well. They have provided links to Wikipedia articles and categories, and we should do the same. That is basically what the category template Philosophy reference resources is all about. Greg Bard (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is an actual consensus about this, then you should have no trouble at all finding someone else who agrees with you. So far, though, you are the only person who seems to have been involved in this alleged "consensus decision".  What one editor wants is not the same thing as an agreement by a whole group.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:PHILO is not a military unit that assembles at the command of one person demanding to see if we have a consensus on some issue. This was posted a very short time ago. This issue has come up before, and I have not seen any objection to it yet. I think the amendment to that policy which specifically targets this template needs to prove it has a consensus first. First things first right? So far, that has not been proven. Greg Bard (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A WikiProject "consensus by silence" cannot override a specific guideline, as is noted at Talk:Categorization. If there isn't a specific consensus, the guideline applies, and the template is unusable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion at WT:CAT was formally WP:CLOSEd as rejecting the use of this particular template on categories. It now needs to be removed from several dozen cat pages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Veganarchism
Dear philosophers:

This article: Veganarchism appears to be mainly about a pamphlet written by one man. Is this the name of a legitimate philosophy, and, if so, is the extensive coverage and quotes from one source appropriate? I have already removed some promotional links to various sources which sell the pamphlet. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Quantifier variance, mereology, and philosophical realism
An RfC is posted at Talk:Quantifier variance for comment and suggestions. There is some conflict here, less about content than about a fruitful process for constructing this article. Brews ohare (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Semeiotic
Semeiotic is a short article on Charles Peirce's variant spelling of semiotics, and debate among some scholars about whether and Peirce and Saussure's different spelling preferences relate to their different theories of sem(e)iotics. Various discussions have begun in 2004 and again in 2006 at Talk:Semiotics (see "Peirce spelled the subject semeiotics" and "Semeiotic, Semiology, Semiotics") and in 2006-07 at Talk:Semeiotic but no clear consensus ever emerged and no action has taken place.

I very nearly merged the content of semeiotic to a section of semiotics, but thought better of it. It is best to see if there is controversy on this action, and try to find consensus. Therefore I am inviting participants in WikiProject Philosophy and WikiProject Linguistics to comment at Talk:Semeiotic Cnilep (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this here. I have commented (supported the merge suggestion) at the merge talk page. Regards, warshy¥¥ 14:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What articles are the best places for these sources?
I found these two articles that are potential sources. Where are the best places for them? Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Solove, Daniel J. "Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'." The Chronicle of Higher Education. May 15, 2011.
 * Solove, Daniel J. "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy." San Diego Law Review, Vol. 44, p. 745, 2007. George Washington University Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 289. On the Social Science Research Network. - An essay that was written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review

New article on gender studies lecturer Nicholas Chare
I've created a new article on gender studies lecturer, Nicholas Chare.
 * Nicholas Chare

Further help with expansion would be most appreciated.

Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Need pro viewpoints for "Nothing to hide argument"
I am writing Nothing to hide argument. I want to see if anybody can find "pro-nothing to hide" arguments, or people who agree with "nothing to hide" so I can include their statements in the article. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Murray Rothbard article
QUESTION: Which should go first in the lede characterization of Rothbard, "political theorist" or "economist?" RfC here SPECIFICO  talk  23:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review of Jainism
Hello, I have listed the article Jainism for peer review. A considerable part of the article is dedicated to Jain religious philosophy (anekantavada, soul, karma etc). I request your help in making it a Featured Article at Peer_review/Jainism/archive4. Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thought
Dear philosophers: There have been some changes to the Thought article recently that may be of interest. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Pseudophilosophy
Greetings folks, I finally created Category:Pseudophilosophy, as I have been meaning to for a while. For a long time I wondered whether or not the Philosophy project was strong enough, to deal with having this category. Already, we have an editor, (User:Lerr) who has depopulated the category, and prodded it with the claim that "there is no such concept" as pseudophilosophy. Well, I think all of the serious philosophy editors know that not just anything is philosophy, and are frustrated and alarmed at some of the impressions of some non-academically oriented contributors. Some guy handing out photocopied sheets of paper with a tiny font and misaligned text on a street corner in San Fransico is not philosophy. Please help sustain the integrity of the Philosophy project, and Wikipedia in general, by monitoring this category. Greg Bard (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Pseudophilosophy is a pejorative term, denigrating a topic as superstition armed with the weapons of philosophy (to paraphrase Leo Strauss). The term is so infrequently applied to a specific topic that the danger of indulging in synthesis or undue weight would be high by the binary choice of categorization. The connection of that topic with someone's accusation of pseudophilosophy should not be concretized by category; instead it should be discussed in appropriate shades of gray through the employment of prose. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We agree with Binksternet and are dismayed to see attempts (at Philosophy and Pseudophilosophy, for example) to exclude certain types of discourse from the category. Why on earth couldn't we classify some guy's street-corner manifesto as philosophy? (Just being "philosophy" doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia necessarily.) It seems from our passing encounters with you, Gregbard, that your particular interest is analytical (Anglo-American) academic philosophy. Why not just do a good job with improving articles in that field? (We know you work very hard doing just this.) Why worry about excluding other types of thinking? The article on Pseudophilosophy is not well-developed; could you clarify what you mean by this term? groupuscule (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Maybe Pseudophilosophy should redirect to Science—don't those superstitious fools recognize that you can't use inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning?! groupuscule (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have notified the Fringe Theories Noticeboard of this topic since anything that could accurately be described as "pseudophilosophy" is most probably a fringe theory. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

According to Pseudophilosophy, science and continental philosophy are pseudophilosophies. I don't think pseudophilosophy is a useful term for a category. It is more a pejorative for something you don't like. It would be better to not put things in the philosophy category rather than put this pejorative label on them. Bhny (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A category should be thought of as a tool to aid in searches, not as a way of making covert assertions of fact. So the question is whether this category would be useful for searching.  It doesn't seem so to me, mainly because the term has been used in such a scattershot way.  There is very little consensus even among subgroups about what things are pseudo-philosophy -- the term is used only by individual authors in idiosyncratic ways. Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The lack of consensus over applying the term is exactly the problem. There are a number of article subjects for which many high-quality reliable sources can be found labeling that subject a "pseudoscience". There is no such congruence of sources for labeling subjects as "pseudophilosophy". It may be that, as claimed below, many or most academic philosophers consider Ayn Rand's ideas to be "pseudophilosophy", but good luck finding academic sources that say it, much less a consensus across multiple sources. She is just one example, but the problem repeats across different proposed subjects for this category: There may be an occasional source calling this or that by the term, but no broad agreement for applying it to any of them. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. In order to define something as "pseudophilosphy," the concept of 'what is philosophy' or 'what constitutes philosophy' would have to be very thoroughly defined on the minds of those trying to categorize rhetorical or written statements to begin with. A 'philosopher' that starts from Nietzche's thought for example, would not agree at all with a second 'philosopher' whose starting point of reference is Spinoza's thought. Or even between contemporaries such as Descartes and Spinoza, where one was aware of the discourse of the other, there is no agreement whatsover on 'what constitutes philosophy'. Kant completely disagreed with Spinoza's philosophy, and in the end denied it as the incorrect manner to approach the questions beseeching the human mind. But he did not "label" it "pseudophilosophy." Only a "scientific" or rather positivistic approach to 'Philosphy' would have use for such an unuseful term in philosophical inquiry as "pseudophilosophy." I have no use for it whatsoever. warshy¥¥  15:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That you have no use for it isn't relevant. The question is whether Wikipedia has a use for it, and that is determined by sources. There's a fairly widespread consensus in academic philosophy at the moment that Ayn Rand isn't a philosopher, in the normative sense of the word 'philosopher'. That is, whatever it is that Ayn Rand was doing, she wasn't doing the same sort of thing that, I dunno, Sartre or Quine or Elizabeth Anscombe or Plato was doing. Philosophers do make these kinds of judgements. Said judgements may not be useful for you, but if there is a way of sourcing this kind of thing, I don't see why we can't have an article or a category. The difficulty is how do you source the judgement of something being a pseudophilosophy. It's difficult enough for a term like pseudoscience which is in much wider use (hence why we have things like WP:FRINGE and WP:FTN etc.) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You may hate Rand right down to the amphetamines coursing through her selfish "fiercely anti-academic" veins, but why would you do your team the disservice of dismissing her arguments with a platitude? Why are the aforementioned "academic philosophers" so insecure in their own field of study that they feel the need to exclude others arbitrarily? And: if you do intend to draw these walls around "Philosophy", please be much more precise with your definitions! groupuscule (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter why. I'm not on any team (academic, Anglo-American, analytic or otherwise, I'm a software developer). I'm not particularly interested in Rand. The point is there are philosophers who consider Rand to not be a philosopher and wish to enforce such a boundary using terms like "pseudophilosophy", just as scientists do with "pseudoscience". Whether you consider that a desirable state of affairs or you think the term platitudinous is irrelevant. The question is how does Wikipedia handle it according to policies, not whether people like it or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These philosophy professors think that "analytic philosophy" is pseudophilosophy. groupuscule (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Groupuscule, your source doesn't say that. And even if it did, dissenters always exist; we're interested in the consensus of relevant experts. This is analogous to how Wikipedia treats scientific consensus. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Zabala & Davis write: "We submit that any method found within philosophy such as analytics, which purports to speak for the entire field, is too shortsighted, limiting, and conservative for philosophy in general." They accuse analytic philosophers of "imposture". Note this article's special focus on (some?) analytic philosopher's desire for demarcation itself, as exhibited here.
 * How do you propose to select relevant experts? Anglo-American analytic philosophy is newer and has fewer practitioners than most of the world's philo-sophical communities.
 * As you well know, Arc de Ciel, we do not accept your opinion of "how Wikipedia treats scientific consensus". Indeed, we consider pretense in this area to be dangerous as well as wrong.
 * aloha ~ groupuscule (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in debating this point here, as it does not seem productive. Please feel free to ask at a relevant noticeboard if you feel that my understanding of Wikipedia policy (and in general, that of the other WP:FTN regulars as well) is incorrect. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Except no such consensus exists for philosophy. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Determining whether such is the case is why I suggested expansion of the main article first; the point I was making is unrelated to your comment. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fairly problematic for science, too. There are the clear-cut cases like astrology or Velikovskyism, but the problem is that there's a substantial contingent of editors who want to apply the term to anything that doesn't fit into Daniel Dennett's worldview, and they're probably going to be able to find sources.  Determining whether these sources amount to a consensus is difficult, and the discussion may be determined by the number of hardcore eliminative materialists you find in a particular venue.
 * So my view is we have enough problems already with this sort of thing, and we don't need to add more. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Editor from FTN here. I see that the CfD is going to be a (snow?) delete. It seems like the topic could be defined fairly consistently, e.g. as things that are not considered "valid logical thought" as the category definition puts it, and the standard to be applied would be the judgement of the scholarly community (ideally specific criteria used could be sourced as well) - but of course this may not be the case. So my main question would be: are there sufficient sources on the topic to produce an article as detailed and well-sourced as Pseudoscience? I think that if so, then that should be done - and if it is warranted (i.e. if the article shows that there are indeed reasonably clear standards) then the discussion might be revisited after that. Otherwise, think Binksternet's comment is a strong argument. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Similar problems apply to Pseudoscience—it's a pejorative term used to imply more coherence in the field of "Science" than really exists. It's galling that Ayurveda is on the list of pseudosciences but String theory isn't. groupuscule (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC):
 * For more "pseudo" intellectualism see pseudohistory, which says that "most Afrocentric ideas have been identified as pseudohistorical". It seems to us that the "pseudo" designation has mostly to do with protecting one's own guild from outsiders (and thereby increasing the perceived value of the type of knowledge under control of the guild). groupuscule (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Groupuscule, the issue is academic standards and valid methodology. More than any other field, philosophy is the subject matter where the average person believes that they are already experts without having any formal education in it whatsoever. Even very intelligent people who are fans of philosophy and appreciate its cultural value can be its worst enemies. There is a popular impression that philosophy is a joke, and (even in your own view) that some guy handing out strange literature on a street corner is philosophy. It isn't. Philosophy is limited by logic and critical thinking, and when mushy thinking finds its way into literature, or debate, it is the job of philosophy to say no. This isn't a subjective matter, and it isn't pushing a POV, in fact, it is quite the opposite. Identifying pseudophilosophy absolutely is about identifying "outsiders" and thereby increasing the value (i.e. the real value, not hte PR value) of the type of knowledge that is called philosophy. Such "outsiders" are outsiders, not because of their social status, but their words alone. If they don't meet the standard, then they absolutely should' be identified conspicuously, just like pseudoscience should be conspicuously identified as such. It really is a matter of how much a person respects philosophy as a legitimate academic study, or just believes that just any old thing is philosophy. Greg Bard (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like you are trying to define Logic (as opposed to pseudo-Logic), a much more defensible position since Logic is characterized more centrally by principles of internal consistency. (Whereas philosophy has a strong tradition of dialectics.) Gregbard, we like your essay on Mathematosis and urge you to consider a similar perspective on Philosophy. groupuscule (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Logic is an arm of philosophy, and so in the sense that matters insofar as identifying pseudophilosophy is concerned, they are completely synonymous. So too, epistemology is an arm of philosophy and that is why esotericism is pseudophilosophy. There is no "whereas" to be had, as any dialectic is still limited by logic and critical thinking, otherwise it's not philosophy.
 * Your idea that philosophy is somehow subject to the same phenomenon of mathematosis on the part of mathematicians is complete nonsense! The claim about mathematosis is that mathematicians have an undue supreme confidence on all matters, mathematics or otherwise because they think the mathemetical thought they may be so well versed in grants them special insights into philosophical questions, and it does not. So this is a case of drawing an equal sign in between two things that are not equal, and a serious case of tu quoque also. The reality is that philosophy rightly deserves the reputation of exactitude, rigor and clarity, but popularly enjoys none of that reputation due to people's ignorance -- so much so that even a guy handing out strange literature on a street corner in San Franscico is popularly thought to be philosophy. Whereas, if someone would call numerology "mathematics" the whole mathematics community would howl about it! Greg Bard (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is why "pseudoscience" makes sense but "pseudophilosophy" does not. Science is defined by the scientific method, in other words by methodology.  Pseudoscience is activity that pretends to use the scientific method but actually doesn't.  Philosophy, though, is not defined by a method.  It can only be defined as something like "pursuit of wisdom".  But if that's what philosophy is, then "pseudophilosophy" is activity that pretends to pursue wisdom but actually doesn't.  There is no objective way of recognizing such a thing.  What you end up with is "philosophy is what I do; pseudophilosophy is what everybody else does". Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FACEPALM Philosophy, is, in fact, defined by a methodology. (Please see Category:Philosophical methodology). It is, in fact, objective, and this whole discussion makes me sad for this project, and sad for Wikipedia in general. Greg Bard (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you can try to define existentialism and phenomenology as not being philosophy, but you're going to have trouble getting consensus. Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no serious claim that either existentialism or phenomenology is pseudophilosophy these days. They are both well accepted within mainstream philosophy by philosophers of both major traditions. Greg Bard (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

See also Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 3. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   03:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Universalism
I have attempted to cleanup the Template:Universalism infobox. But I feel it still needs some work. It would be good if others could have a look and see what they can add to it in the way of links, formatting and categorization. --Devin Murphy (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Consequentia mirabilis broken
There is a parser error on the page Consequentia mirabilis, an article in the scope of this project, which I don't know how to fix. Matchups 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It looked like an unclosed parenthesis was the source of the trouble. I closed it and it seems OK now. --RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Throffer/archive1
Hi there- I've just nominated throffer, an article on a fun little topic in political philosophy, at FAC. Any thoughts you may have would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Civilization
Civilization is noted as an important article but is in terrible condition. The only project it is in is sociology. Do others agree with me that it should also be watched by this project? Anyway, if anyone has a moment or two maybe come and make an edit or three?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured
I have proposed merging with sensus communis. It remains me of some other cases, and it strikes me that philosophical material is often split out of articles too quickly (for example when both are poor articles) creating questionable FORKs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I have improved the article. It may be time to call in other editors to give some feedback. The final section concerning Arendt, Lyotard, Habermas etc is still embryonic and not really my thing, but they clearly all use either Kant or Vico's sensus communis as one of the conceptual tools. I am thinking also Dilthey?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)