Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 19

Phaedrus: Self-contradictions in article still there: Divine inspiration or Divine madness
Hello,

I'd appreciate your help in resolving an editor conflict at Phaedrus. I reverted the latest edit by new editor Fountains-of-Paris twice. He insists that he is correcting inconsistent wording and put the edit back a third time. He sent me a note and I replied both at my and his talk pages.

The problems I see are that 1) from his comments and his reference to a complete collection of Plato's dialogues, it is clear that he has not looked at either the dialogue Phaedrus nor the secondary literature; 2) the Wikipedia article is a good one and the heading and the text were correct as they stood before being mangled; 3) he is rewriting a technical Platonic doctrine of definition by wholes and parts, in this case madness and its kinds, similar to Aristotle's genus and species. His new heading is analogous to 'Animals and cats'; 4) to over-ride my revert he needs either editor support or a legitimate reference.

Thanks for whatever you're willing to do! BlueMist (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted and told him to go to the talk page Snowded  TALK 04:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help! BlueMist (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Current section on Themes does not agree with earlier section in Phaedrus article on Divine Madness still inconsistent
Your comment on Phaedrus was: "Madness, divine madness, and divine inspiration are all different. Your personal preference is not Wikipedia acceptable."

This is not my personal preference, but the wording currently used in by a previous editor in the Themes section of the article in its current form at Phaedrus, which you may not have seen. The wording in the section you keep reverting is not consistent with the wording used in the Themes section which was written by a separate editor wnad which I am quoting here. Correct it with your own words if you like but the current version of the article is inconsistent between the wording used in these separate sections. Here is the Themes section version as written by the previous editor in the current version of the article:

Madness and divine inspiration
In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do", Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all.


 * That is the Themes section which is inconsistent with the section which you both (Snowed and BlueMist) seem to keep reverting. The section title used by some previous editor is explicit and contradicting you edit.Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fountains-of-Paris,
 * In my opinion, you have it backwards. Divine madness is more correct for the Phaedrus, and divine inspiration is a more modern, less Platonic term. To quote from your quote,
 * Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life
 * BlueMist (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Please see my comment here. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied there. BlueMist (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Help an article?
Hey, I'm going to post this on multiple WikiProjects so there will be some cut/paste - my apologies for that. I was recently going through the articles at Category:Proposed deletion and came across Effects of genocide on youth. The article was written by AMWilkinson, who created the article as an assignment for Wiki Ed/Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Fall 2015). It's currently up for PROD as WP:OR, but I do think that there's merit in covering this specific part of the topic. Now whether or not it could merit an article outside of the main topic is a good question.

A quick, offhand look at the page does show that it's written like a student paper, which is a frequent issue with student assignments but not one that can't be overcome. I need someone to help salvage the article, which will likely require some searching for sources. I tried doing some very quick and dirty searching but it wasn't exactly easy, since a lot comes up with a general search without limiting anything, even when I search an academic database like JSTOR. This will likely be a massive undertaking.

I can help out some, but it really won't be until after my school is done for the quarter, which won't be for another week at least, and this needs some urgent help. I could move it to the draftspace, but I'm afraid of it getting neglected. Anyone willing to help? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow Science
Slow Science has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Slow Science -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

New article of questionable notability
I just noticed the existence of the new article System philosophy when a summary of it was added to the article on Modern philosophy. It seems to have only one, brand new, editor contributing it so far. It smells non-notable and possibly of self-promotion to me. Would be good to get some other eyes over there seeing if anyone's ever heard of this anywhere reputable and if it belongs here on WP. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Major Problems with the article Argument from authority
It cites unreliable sources (including a HEMA practitioner) and the contents flatly contradict the sources in places. The issue seems to be the question of whether or not it is a fallacy to appeal to a legitimate authority in a subject as part of an argument about that subject. It is not, according to virtually every reliable source I can find, in print or on the web. Even many of the sources cited by the article plainly state that it is not. However, the article seems to be written to refute this, to the point that every single example given is one in which a legitimate authority was incorrect about something. It needs serious work, and while I'm not above doing it alone, I would greatly appreciate any support, as I have found none on the article talk page, and I don't want to start an edit war. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Infinity article could use a philosophers' hand
Couldn't infinity be improved by a philosophical analysis of the arguments for and against its logical possibiliy? This seems to have been a very interesting debate for a very long time but the article as it stands is almost entirely about mathematics. 97.106.144.198 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem of other minds
The article "Problem of other minds" currently lacks in-line citations. The article is designated "high importance" for this WikiProject. While the "External links" section lists a few web pages that could be considered references, the article desperately needs formal in-line citations. Could someone from the WikiProject add these please? Axl ¤  [Talk]  13:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing and spamming of Metamodernism
Hello, some eyes on Metamodernism would be good: (1) article is mostly sourced from the own webzine of the two promoters or their interviews; (2) it's spamming/overwriting in other articles to insert links to their own. 62.147.9.62 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Greater Romania (political concept)
Would you please tell us your opinion on this matter? All comments are welcome. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Philosophy At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You know it sounds like a wonderful offer, and I appreciate it. However, I think our recruitment efforts would be more valuable among philosophy academics and scholars, then it would among existing Wikipedians.Greg Bard (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Stefan Molyneux
An RfC has been opened at Talk:Stefan Molyneux - The RfC question is "Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article?" – S. Rich (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Constructor theory
Does this WikiProject concern itself with the philosophical ideas behind modern physics? Constructor theory is a new attempt at rebuilding our conceptual view of quantum mechanics, information theory and the like. To date, only the philosophical basis has been documented adequately for a Wikipedia article, so I am wondering whether it is within the scope of this Project? There is a discussion on the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New article: "Draconian constitution"
Hello I have recently established the article Draconian constitution and am going to need help in acquiring collaboration and expansion. Thank you for your consideration and your thought of contributing your expertise into the topic's field.

Adzuck (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher
Could editors please have a look at the Philosopher article and recent changes there? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  15:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a talk page section as to whether that article, which is listed as high importance but is currently weakly sourced should be merged with Philosophy. Please have a look. SPECIFICO talk  18:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epistemological Certainty - Knowledge
Here's an old Afc draft that was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is there anything here that should be kept and improved? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As foundation for Cartessian dualism and Oliver Sacks Hallucinations for mind body,, Ideasthesia and Synesthesia are emerging; tested as neurological phenomena in the natural evolution of instinct, sensation, emotion, and mentation; observed as our means for meaning through their inducements, interactions and transformations...Arnlodg (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Accidentalism
I recently converted the Accidentalism article into a redirect to Tychism. I know very little about philosophy, but concluded that the two terms were somewhat synonymous based on the following text, which used to be on the Accidentalism page and I think came largely from Britannica: "In philosophy, it is used for any system of thought which denies the causal nexus and maintains that events succeed one another haphazardly or by chance (not in the mathematical but in the popular sense). In metaphysics, accidentalism denies the doctrine that everything occurs or results from a definite cause. In this connection it is synonymous with Tychism (τύχη, chance), a term used by Charles Sanders Peirce for the theories which make chance an objective factor in the process of the Universe."

Unfortunately, the Tychism article makes no mention of its relation to accidentalism (although it has the same Britannica source text in a box at the bottom). Would someone knowledgeable on the subject be able to add a bit to the Tychism page that explains the relationship of these two terms? Or, if I've concluded incorrectly about this relationship, please let me know. Thanks! &#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Peirce's Tychism is metaphysics whereas Accidentalism is less specific. The old Accidentalism page was more of a WP:CONCEPTDAB than an article, but I disagree that it should be made into a Tychism redirect.—Machine Elf 1735  02:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

is proposed to be renamed to Mao Zedong Thought, for the discussion, see Talk:Maoism -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

More eyes/voices requested at metamodernism
Title says it all. I believe I summarized the core concerns on the talk page here: Talk:Metamodernism. Lots of strong opinions, COI allegations flying around, ad hominems, and so on, but I think the core problem is that the subject needs to be better nailed down and the different sources weighted properly. For that I think we could use some help. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  02:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Natural and legal rights RM
Opinions at Talk:Natural and legal rights would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarchy and Stateless society
FYI, the scope and purpose of these articles are under discussion, see talk:Anarchy -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

New article: William Henry Chamberlin (philosopher)
Hi all,

I've recently started an article on William Henry Chamberlin (philosopher), an LDS (Mormon) philosopher and theologian involved in a controversial period of the history of Brigham Young University. However, I am not very familiar with theology, philosophy, or even the LDS movement, and would welcome any additions or improvements in the aim of creating a comprehensive biography that clearly explains the philosophy of Chamberlin (ideally with minimal or at least clearly defined academic jargon) and fairly describes the controversy. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism FAR
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Janice Dowell
To be notable or not? -- that is the question! Bearian (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Help dig for sources?
I'm here to ask for some help with the article Tao: The Watercourse Way. I was surprised to see it PRODed, but I have to admit that I'm even more surprised at how difficult it is to search for sources for this. I've found enough to keep it, but I need more sources to help flesh it out more. It's certainly notable enough- I know it's used pretty regularly in college courses and I remember using it in one of my classes. It's been a while since I took said class and I don't have my copy anymore- does anyone here have a fresher memory of the book and/or has a copy so they can add more information? I believe that it's safe from deletion, but more work would definitely be appreciated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename discussion of high profile topic
Please see Talk:Freedom Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Help! Metamodernism Has Become a Vanity Page
I have moved this across to the article talk page, here, because carrying out a discussion in two places does my head in. Please, please, reply over there and not here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steelpillow! And I beg others to check out the "Talk" page also and draw your own conclusions based on the current article, a Google search for "metamodernism," and the fact that the last 100 edits were made by a single user claiming his work is the product of an illusory "consensus." This article desperately needs a neutral eye--or, better yet, a whole gaggle of them. The Group has been rightly complaining about this article since January 2013 (see Group log), and I think it's time something was done. ClaphamSix (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the above user is plainly cross-posting and trying to be disruptive as per Festal's sockpuppetry. Esmeme (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I intend no disruption. I've only asked members of this Group to review metamodernism to see if it meets their standards for a non-vanity WP article. ClaphamSix (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Galaxy-like and gradual correspondence theory
Is this a recognised theory, badly explained, or is it nonsense? I can't make head or tail of what galaxies have to do with any of it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article on Hamid Rajaei suggests that it is probably a real thing, but I'm dubious that the article ought to exist, given that the current version has no WP:RS-compatible sources. Looie496 (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just reverted Mahtabshadi's edits to Creativity . The edits were in patent violation of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. "Galaxy-like and gradual correspondence theory" is a mess; no third-party sourcing, just OR. Mahtabshadi (an obvious sockpuppet of blocked editor Hhrqsh) has been promoting Hamid Rajaei's non-notable work since January. Mahtabshadi wrote the whole article about Rajaei. Someone should nominate for deletion both articles. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Huon has AfDed both of them. See the first article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the biographical article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) Hamid Rajaei was eventually deleted but User:Mahtabshadi recreated it as Hamid Rajaei Rizi. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Religious Thought of Edmund Burke
Dear philosophers: Wikipedia already has an article Edmund Burke. Should this draft be merged with the mainspace article, made into a standalone article, or deleted as a stale draft? If standing alone it would need improvement in referencing. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I cleaned it up, made a bibliography, posted it to article space, then connected the main Edmund Burke article to this one. It is useful that you brought this here. The article is saved.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

John Rawls
A dispute has recently arisen over the inclusion of material critical of John Rawls's philosophy at the article on Rawls. User:HiLo48 has argued against including the criticism, but his talk page behavior has become frustrating. I'd be grateful if project members could visit the talk page and offer their comments. ImprovingWiki (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cutural movements and philosohpy
A number of articles on cultural movements, such as Postmodernism, Post-postmodernism, New Sincerity, Metamodernism (at this point I got bored checking) include philosophy in their scope, along with the more obvious arts, literature, etc. Are they right to do so? Are they right to be categorised in Category:Philosophical movements? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica classifies postmodernism as a philosophical movement. Given that Pomo is skeptical of structure and reason and emphasizes ideological biases, philosophy certainly seems a part of it. I'd put the other derivative movements in the same boat. --Mark viking (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nayef Al-Rodhan Rewrite
The biography is copied verbatim from his website: sustainablehistory.com. Should be up for deletion, suggested whole rewrite. It's within your interests so I thought I'd let you know. I'll have a gander at it. amosabo''t@lk; 09:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A 'New' Philosophy for the 21st Century and Beyond, by Nicky Stoddart, Thinker, artist, single-mother and life-long lover of Earth and all in it and on it.
OK folks, as a 54-year-old woman and a Philosophy graduate of 1982, I believe it's high time to clear up a few(!) things.

1. I hope you will all accept that the major Philosophical thinkers/writers of the last 2000 years have been male (for a whole variety of reasons which, forgive me, could perhaps be lumped under Patriarchy, and possibly fear).

2. Throughout the B.C. years there were, world-wide, wise men and wise women, who understood and FELT that, as hominids, we were not SEPERATE from the Earth but a part of it alongside all other life on Earth. Yes, they recognized that the planet we call the Sun had a crucial role to play in all life on Earth, and that everything was interconnected and inter-dependent: alter one tiny or large part and the reverberations take place throughout the whole. Communities/tribes were small, and individuals would no more contemplate adverse actions against Earth than they would contemplate adversity towards their tribal members, or any other living thing in their environment. (If there was adverse action, it would be quickly dealt with by communally agreed action depending upon the severity of the action in question.)

3. Hominids living BC had no concept of themselves having DOMINANCE or GOVERNANCE over the Earth (as, in contrast, is described in, for example, the Old Testament). Their survival REQUIRED respect for everything around them. As hunter-gatherers they 'gathered' nuts, fruit etc, and also took other living creatures when their survival depended on it.

BUT when they took an animal's life, they begged for forgiveness and made all reparations that they could with the animal, recognizing it as an equal spirit to themselves. And, for the vegans and vegetarians amongst you, plants, animals etc have their own level of feelings towards other living things - their survival may depend on them taking the lives of other living beings on an equal par with them. I would argue that morality amongst hominids/homo sapiens predates any religious/philosophical tenets, it arose from empathy and implicit understanding of their place within Earth's life-cycles in all their forms.

To live in Sartre's 'Good Faith' is to acknowledge that we all have a choice regarding our actions, a choice about who we ARE, the person we want/choose to be. However, I want to add something to Sartre's ideas as expressed in 'Being and Nothingness': I have every respect for vegans and vegetarians, but I believe our heritage is 'omnivore' rather than 'herbivore' (NOT that humans HAVE to be one or the other - to some extent our consciousnesses have, perhaps, made a qualitative difference between ourselves and other living organisms.  (I had been a veggie for years prior to the birth of my son. But after a few weeks he simply did not want to eat my lovingly prepared veggie meals. What was I to do? Let him starve to death because of my conscious/conscience beliefs? As soon as I introduced some meat into his diet, he began eating in earnest. Sorry, but it was a no-brainer, and I was not going to starve the most precious thing in my life for the sake of principles from the rational side of my brain.)

4. So, my first main point perhaps, is that the trajectory of rational thought/science for the past few centuries has been overly dominated by male systems of thought. Fine in so far as this goes, but vast areas of other human and particularly female knowledge, gained through emotions and experience, have unfortunately been left out of the equation. Again, with more time, I would attempt to argue that these are equally valid truths.

Sorry men, but while you provide the spark/sperm that joins with our eggs to begin life, you do not CREATE and GROW life inside you.

Given space and time I would argue in more detail than here that just maybe this began to be felt by male humans as some sort of lack, and thus perceived ultimately as a threat to male supremacy (in Christian theology, both God and Jesus are/were, respectively, male), just as the wise women/herbalists/'witches' became a threat too. Prior to this rise of male dominance, both males and females were valued EQUALLY for their strengths - co-operation not confrontation was the prevailing model, since this was the only route to continued survival of our species. See, for example, some of the wonderful descriptions of this mutual respect in Rae Beth's 'Hedgewitch', ISBN 0-7090-4851-3.

As I write this, on Wednesday 24 September 2014, Obama has already initiated action against the supposed threat from insurgents in the Middle East, and Cameron's string-pullers are flexing their muscles for the UK to join in. I hesitate to include this, but as women from locations and recent decades the world over have said, if they were in charge, or at least equal charge, we would try EVERY avenue to avoid any of our children being killed in the cause of 'my toy gun/pocket money/dad/ideology etc is bigger and better than yours'.

There are no citations to this article. I am not in academia, I am on ESA and DLA, and all I want is for all us humans to just 'GET REAL', wake up and understand what is at stake.

31.54.92.139 (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You may wish to create your own blog, somewhere else, and post this and similar material there. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In particular, these Talk pages are for the purpose of collaborative discussion about Wikipedia's content and not anything else. A blog or discussion forum somewhere does sound more suitable for your needs. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Eyes requested at Brian Leiter again
Hi, an editor recently submitted some content at Brian Leiter regarding some controversies that he might be embroiled in. Would appreciate some learned editors to weigh in about the suitability of this content. I know nothing of the subject. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche and free will
Friedrich Nietzsche and free will &mdash; no references to secondary sources, entire article sourced to Nietzsche's works. The article is 100% original research. Additionally, it uses outdated translations. To me, the options are: 1. reduce to a stub. 2. nominate for deletion. Thoughts? &mdash; goethean 17:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting subject, but unfortunately, from the way you describe the article, I suspect deletion is the only option. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking around, there are secondary sources out there on Nietzsche and free will in the context of his moral philosophy, e.g., SEP's entry on Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy. But I agree that the article is full of synth and original research. WP:TNT may apply. --Mark viking (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Project members may want to take note of the behavior of Piotrniz, who is making aggressive, repeated reverts at Friedrich Nietzsche, for example here, here here, and now once more here. It would help if Goethean or other users could make suggestions about what to do about this ongoing situation. Should the user be taken to ANI? ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC in progress on Artificial intelligence
There is a Request for Comments in progress at Talk: Artificial intelligence concerning the wording of the lede of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A new RFC has replaced the old one, please see Talk:Artificial intelligence - 83.104.46.71 (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ( having login problems)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Critical Theory articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. See also Category:Philosophy/Continental articles needing expert attention, which might be populated in the future. Iceblock (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category:Philosophy/Ancient articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category:Philosophy/Eastern articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

updating instrumentalism
Please give me feedback on my suggestions to update instrumentalism--with relevance to Popper, Dewey, inductive reasoning, theory of value, and technology. See talk sections 20 and 21.TBR-qed (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Vijayanagara literature in Kannada considered for Main Page
There is an ongoing discussion on whether to feature the WP:FA quality article Vijayanagara literature in Kannada on the Main Page.

You may participate at Today's featured article/requests/Vijayanagara literature in Kannada.

Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination
In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Today's featured article/requests. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Law of graduality
Another editor and I have been working on a brand new article: Law of graduality. It is coming along nicely, but I am certainly no expert, and thought it could use some help from some of you. Hope you can join us there. --Briancua (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dispositional beliefs
This category has been nominated for deletion. Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_9. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Postmodern terminology
This category is to be deleted shortly. Please would members of this project review the current members in case any should be moved into a sibling category such as Category:Postmodern theory? – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

David Hume GA review - second opinion
A second opinion has been requested for the GA review of David Hume. I am the nominator, and the reviewer and myself are at loggerheads about three outstanding criticisms. The details are on the talk pages for the article. Any help would be appreciated. Myrvin (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Begging the question
I have nominated the above named article as needing expert attention and request some of the members may take a look at it. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Philosophy/Epistemology articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category:Philosophy/Logic articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category:Philosophy/Philosophers articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category:Philosophy/Social and political philosophy articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to get another philosopher to address inconsistencies in a section? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender#Gender_identity There seems to be a problem with some posters and/or editors, seemingly, trying to advocate, albeit inconsistently, regarding choice in self identifying gender. There are a few examples, such as quoting Butler's stance that there is a limited choice while denying there is a choice. Another being that there is a choice, but only for certain individuals (clearly a position of advocacy and not one of explaining the subject matter to readers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See here; Maxxx12345 is interpreting matters differently than what they actually are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on conveying concepts and expanding some Feminism entries
I wondering if I could get some advice on how to best detail the general categorical differentiation between gender realism (traditional essentialism) and non-realism in regards to gender. Particularly, how to do so in a way that casual readers can easily grasp the concepts quickly who more than likely haven't had any in-depth exposure to metaphysics. I'm seeing errors from wikipedians that aren't aware of the metaphysical distinctions and thus making some eyebrow raising miscategorizations. This is so to the point of even taking John Money's classic socialisation approach completely out of category of realism and positing it within the non-realist category somewhere in the vicinity of the particularity vein of non-realism. Another would be say the use of Butler's non-realist normativity argument critiquing essentialism, thinking said critique is successful but then concluding it illustrates that major elements of particularity and normativity theories are incorrect. This is resulting, in some entries, in paragraphs moving from supporting realist socialization in one sentence, non-realist particularity in the next sentence, non-realist normativiy in the third, and then concluding this is a coherent and consistent view on the subject matter. This is doing a disservice to readers, I think. Another, more general, example I've been seeing is that even though the move from traditional essentialism, realism and modernity towards non-realism, postmodernism and post-structuralism was a significant paradigmatic shift in ethics, epistemology and so on, and also being a major cause for the shift from second wave feminism to third wave feminism, here too the categorizations are sometimes miscategorized or just completely missing. Feminist ethics, for example, contains an entry for care focused approaches but no entry at all for status focused approaches, much less a further categorical distinction between materialist and existential approaches. I think one of the outcomes is we see status focused approaches cropping up sort of hodge-podge through-out the article, causing some consistency tensions, at a minimum, when the problem could be easily solved by moving all the scattered about status oriented approaches into a status oriented category. Even at face value it's a bit surprising that the half of the care-status oriented division is just missing from the page. The section for feminist epistemology is real shame. The opening description just completely brushes aside feminist epistemology in regards to philosophy of science and places all of feminist epistemology under the category of social epistemology. Even if Wikipedia were to just abandon, or not yet get to, including feminist epistemology in regards to philosophy of science, the entry that exists is in dire need of attention. What's really depressing is that there is, basically, nothing even on the talk pages of either of these sections. The feminist epistemology talk page literally has no entries at all. I have decided to take the analytic feminism page as a project and am currently working on expanding and refining it to more closely resemble the analytic philosophy entry. Here are my big questions. Would it be better to start with entries such as feminist ethics and feminist epistemology, then at a later time move to popular issues more people are concerned about (and engage in editing), such as gender and gender identity? Would a more robust and academically sound series of feminist entries (ethics, epistemology, analytic) be useful in referring wikipedians back to when dealing with more popular issues considering most wikipedians have not spent that much time studying and reading the philosophical underpinnings for these topical, popular and dare I say 'more interesting' issues? (I didn't want that to come out wrong, but I think it's fair to say most wikipedians have probably not spent much time reading about feminist empiricists replies to value-neutral critiques by employing Quine's theory of underdetermination, call me crazy.) Any thoughts, here or on my talk page, would be appreciated, thank you. Maxxx12345 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Trustworthiness to Trust (social sciences)
Some time ago I proposed merging Trustworthiness to Trust (social sciences). There was some discussion of it, but not a large response. It's probably safe to merge them, and I will if no one else responds soon, but I figured I would bring it to the attention of anyone who is interested, so I am posting notices on the related WikiProject talk pages. Cheers, &#160; Discant X  21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy of medicine - help needed please
This recently created page regards a highly-relevant and wide-ranging topic that is of interest both to this project and to the Medicine project (help also requested here). Cheers, 109.157.87.122 (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Universal mind
I've done a bit of work cleaning up the article Universal mind though the last conclusions are still dodgy and i can't reference them at present.I would appreciate some review and classification as to the importance of this page.Darwinerasmus (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War GAR
Spanish Civil War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Who can usefully be labeled a "philosopher"?
There are some entries (Zoltan Istvan and Stefan Molyneux come to mind) where the subject has called themselves a "philosopher" and got that into media bios, but in general other philosophers don't accept them as anything of the sort. I feel that if the word "philosopher" has four mass-media cites which are obviously subject-sourced to back it up and nothing third-party, it's a bit tenuous. But I might be wrong. Does the project tend to take a narrower (you're a philosopher if other philosophers accept you're someone who does philosophy) or broader (anyone can call themselves a philosopher for intro sentence purposes) view? - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: A philosopher is not like say an architect or medical doctor, where in most countries you cannot call yourself one unless you have a professional qualification. On the other hand, any nutter can proclaim a new religion and call themselves a minister, or write rhyming drivel and call themselves a poet. I would allow that a self-styled philosopher is still a philosopher, even though their quality of thought may be rubbish. But if they are self-styled and work on the fringe, then we should say so. Perhaps we need a Category:Crank philosophy. The usual criteria of notability also apply: if the sources are minimal, then WP:UNDUE means we should ignore the claim anyway. Just my opinion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Istvan case it's media coverage, in things that would be RSes for most BLP purposes. I'm thinking of how to discuss the point with ardent fans here - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Around the time that one editor was actively attempting to insert promotional, primary-sourced, and undue content into the Stefan Molyneux article, there was an RfC at which it was decided not to call that individual a "Philosopher" in WP's voice. There was also a bit of activity at the Philosopher article and I recall having asked on this page for assistance with the Philosopher article.  That one is still in poor shape and if it could be improved, that would at the least clarify the current thinking of editors on the subject.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

FAR Rabindranath Tagore
I have nominated Rabindranath Tagore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy of language wrt Shitburger
Where, if anywhere, would this article fit? TIA. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 02:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nowhere, per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Free will again
We could do with some extra eyes over at Free will again if anyone cares to join the discussion there. I am concerned about the edits of another well-meaning but very bold and philosophically inexperienced editor, but I'm extremely preoccupied with real-life problems, and rather than abandon the article or get mired in another unending debate there, I would really appreciate having some other philosophically educated people participate in the discussion. Thanks. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Homunculus"
The usage and primary topic of " Homunculus " is under discussion, see Talk:Homunculus patagonicus -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

John E. Toews
Are there 2x John E. Toews? Presumably the Christian scholar and the Hegel scholar are the same person? http://www.directionjournal.org/38/2/john-e-toews-bibliography.html In ictu oculi (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Large scale changes to multiple articles
There have been recent massive refactorings of articles egocentrism, obedience (human behavior) and minority influence, at least some of which are in this project's scope. Similar changes to another article, egocentric bias, were reverted by JorisvS with an edit summary of "rv: too many poor-quality edits". I'm therefore drawing attention to these other edits as well, so that you can ensure quality of these articles is not compromised. Regards, Samsara 02:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Socrates
This article is being totally rewritten by one user. It desperately needs wikifying and checking for factual accuracy and needs to brought back to a manageable size. I do not have the expertise to respond to this myself - I was just reading the article today but could not do so as it now has a highly complex structure and layout and is full of unnecessary quotes and content that suggests OR. Can someone familiar with the life and times of Socrates please look at the article? Alternatively, can we go back to the version as at 24 February 2015? Thanks --Chewings72 (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you, Chewings72. These additions go way beyond what little is known of the historical Socrates. Much of the new material is unsupportable speculation from varied sources with an aura of credibility. There is little attempt to separate Plato's use of the Socrates character in Plato's dialogues from Socrates the person. I would also suggest drastically reverting all additions until consensus can be reached for individual additions. BlueMist (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * the issue is entirely stable now in that reversion occurred at 15:54, 11 April 2015‎ via Myrvin. Just thought i'd mention, your absolutely categorically wrong/incorrect to presume "unsupportable speculation from varied sources with an aura of credibility" since every source is from a university without fail, i mean every source, added by myself Whalestate.  if you would like to take the time to verify this for yourself you would v.easily see this with your own eyes. Please just go look at the last edit prior to reversion, the references list. Thanks Whalestate (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC) i have to say : it has made me rather irate that you should presume such a thing, when there is clear and v.obvious evidence to the contrary, with regards to  unsupportable speculation. But thank you for the comment never-the-less Whalestate (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC): here is a clue to find me in the ref. list. all info i've  ever added is linked to an online publication i.e. verifiable. happy hunting. Whalestate (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Whalestate, You are missing my point. I am not questioning your veracity. I always assumed that each and every one of your references is correct and legitimate. The problem is that those sources can only be based on what was written by either Plato or Xenophon. There are no other legitimate sources about the real Socrates. Everyone else is unsupportable speculation. They are just making up tall tales. BlueMist (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oswald Bastable
Hi, I have added your project to Talk:Oswald Bastable as I think it may be relevent to you. If not please feel free to remove. thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Free will
WikiProject participants:

You might be interested to participate in this Request for Comment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Subject-object problem
It seems there is little participation from the project members in the deletion discussion of the major article subject-object problem. Is this just one more indication that there are no active members of this group? Brews ohare (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hay Festival of Philosophy and Music
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place, but if anyone is going to the Philosophy & Music OR the Book Festival at Hay and fancies a meet up on one of the days I'm happy to organise it. Snowded TALK 04:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Outline of philosophy
I'm trying to clean up the outline of philosophy page. The problem is that it's not easy to simply list various different philosophies in a linear fasion when many are subsets of others. Is it possible to structure the page some other way, like listing pairs of opposing views like nominalism vs. platonism, dualism vs. materialism, classical theism vs. naturalism, compatibilism vs. libertarianism vs. fatalism and so on? This might make the page a lot clearer. Also I wonder if the page should be split into analytic and continental sections since having philosophies of both kinds together in the same sections is potentially confusing. Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sam Harris (author) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sam Harris (author) to be moved to Sam Harris. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration
Eyes are needed here, in regard to NPOV, OR and appropriate sourcing. This has been the subject of a recent Arbitration Request, where ArbCom remanded the issue to the community. BMK (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wittgenstein biography RfC
See Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Restructure Aesthetics?
I have made a proposal to restructure (and by that means clean up) the article on aesthetics. I would be grateful for comments on the Talk page before starting any such changes. AeAnBr (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission
Could you kindly have a look at Draft:Revision Theory? Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Marion
I've been reading Jean-Luc Marion for the last 6-8 months and would like to update the biography page. I'm finding wikipedia quite bewildering from the administrator point of view, so looking for any helpful hints on where to begin. I've joined the WikiProject Philosophy for guidance.

Ynappddhs (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Laudato si' and Climate ethics
I'm hoping some participants of this project, familiar with the basic approach of covering other topics of this sort, might pop over to help improve Climate ethics. With release of the pope's eco-encyclical, Laudato si', there's a buzz of media reporting on the pope linking climate change (see global warming) and morality. Certainly the pope isn't the first moral leader to do so, but this one is generating more US press than others in the past. Thinking there may be increased traffic, that article could use help from the wiki-philosophers. Any takers? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are personal pronouns (including "who") to be avoided for fictional characters?
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest. --Lucas559 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Visiting Scholars
Hi WikiProject Philosophy,

There are two Visiting Scholars positions open that may be of interest to participants: McMaster University is looking for someone to improve articles related to Bertrand Russell and the University of Pittsburgh would like someone to improve articles relevant to philosophy of science.

Through the Visiting Scholars program, educational institutions provide experienced Wikipedians with remote access to their libraries' research resources. The Wikipedian is given an official university login and agrees to create/improve articles on Wikipedia in a subject area of mutual interest. The positions are unpaid, remote, and usually go for 6 or 12 months. If you have at least 1000 edits, an account at least 1 year old, and experience improving content, you're eligible.

If the open positions do not overlap with your interests but you like the idea of a Visiting Scholarship, you're welcome to apply any time. The program is administered in the United States and Canada by the Wiki Education Foundation. We talk to a whole lot of professors and librarians and would like to start trying to connect good candidates with institutions directly, without waiting for the institution to issue an open call. In other words, if you're interested in a particular subject, fill out an application, describe the subject you're interested in, and we'll try to make it happen. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Thus"
The usage and primary topic of is under discussion, see talk:Thus (company) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

request on being religious or philosophic of an argument
there is a challenge on the talk page[], on the subject that does the seddiqin Argument is philosophical or religious. I know this argument as philosophical argument because it is deal with philosophical concepts such as contingency, necessary and existence. though this argument used by those who are theistic, it does not follow that it is religious. we need urgently to someone who can judge about this problem.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of categories

 * Category:Concepts_by_field

Three categories under the responsibility of this project are proposed for deletion. Concepts by field, Philosophical concepts and Concepts in ethics.Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Merging science and technology categories
FYI, there is a suggestion to merge the history of science and history of technology category trees, see WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_12 -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Legalism (Chinese philosophy)
FYI, Legalism (Chinese philosophy) has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Legalism (Chinese philosophy) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is rapidly changing, for the ongoing discussion and dispute, see the talk page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Isaac Newton
I seem to have bitten off a bit more than I can chew in creating Isaac Newton. Are there any experts on the relevant subjects that could help to sensibly organize the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have cobbled together what I can for this template. It would help to have eyes on it. It would likely benefit from rearranging by an expert.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Zeno's paradoxes
If anyone wants a challenge, they can address this mess of an article. Maybe there is an earlier version that is less confusing, cluttered and more clear. Liz Read! Talk! 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to revert the recent tag-bombing of that article, but wasn't sure how other editors felt. I've now done so. The article still needs work to clean up the sourcing, but we can do that without dozens of redundant tags. KateWishing (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, KateWishing. I've never seen a lead section of an article so overloaded with tags. I'm sure there is work that needs to be done to tighten up the article but the tagging was clearly out-of-proportion to the article's problems. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Concept of toil
We have no article on the philosophy of work, dignity of labour? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently, coexistence is a redirect to a communist topic. I find that rather odd, as coexistence should be significant enough for its own article, and not be a redirect. I noticed this because of a discussion at talk:Coexist (album). What do you guys think? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What sort of coexistence did you have in mind for an article? Fustbariclation (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Dilemma of determinism
Dilemma of determinism has been recreated after it was previously deleted: see Articles for deletion/Dilemma of determinism. The CSD G4 tag I added was removed with the claim it was improved but it still has the problems that got it deleted in the first place.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 05:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One time IP - maybe Brews is on holiday in Warsaw :-)  I've nominated it again  Snowded  TALK 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Formal nomination now up for those interested.   Snowded  TALK 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Phaedrus: Self-contradictions in article still there: Divine inspiration or Divine madness
Hello,

I'd appreciate your help in resolving an editor conflict at Phaedrus. I reverted the latest edit by new editor Fountains-of-Paris twice. He insists that he is correcting inconsistent wording and put the edit back a third time. He sent me a note and I replied both at my and his talk pages.

The problems I see are that 1) from his comments and his reference to a complete collection of Plato's dialogues, it is clear that he has not looked at either the dialogue Phaedrus nor the secondary literature; 2) the Wikipedia article is a good one and the heading and the text were correct as they stood before being mangled; 3) he is rewriting a technical Platonic doctrine of definition by wholes and parts, in this case madness and its kinds, similar to Aristotle's genus and species. His new heading is analogous to 'Animals and cats'; 4) to over-ride my revert he needs either editor support or a legitimate reference.

Thanks for whatever you're willing to do! BlueMist (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted and told him to go to the talk page Snowded  TALK 04:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help! BlueMist (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Current section on Themes does not agree with earlier section in Phaedrus article on Divine Madness still inconsistent
Your comment on Phaedrus was: "Madness, divine madness, and divine inspiration are all different. Your personal preference is not Wikipedia acceptable."

This is not my personal preference, but the wording currently used in by a previous editor in the Themes section of the article in its current form at Phaedrus, which you may not have seen. The wording in the section you keep reverting is not consistent with the wording used in the Themes section which was written by a separate editor wnad which I am quoting here. Correct it with your own words if you like but the current version of the article is inconsistent between the wording used in these separate sections. Here is the Themes section version as written by the previous editor in the current version of the article:

Madness and divine inspiration
In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do", Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all.


 * That is the Themes section which is inconsistent with the section which you both (Snowed and BlueMist) seem to keep reverting. The section title used by some previous editor is explicit and contradicting you edit.Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fountains-of-Paris,
 * In my opinion, you have it backwards. Divine madness is more correct for the Phaedrus, and divine inspiration is a more modern, less Platonic term. To quote from your quote,
 * Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life
 * BlueMist (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Please see my comment here. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied there. BlueMist (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Help an article?
Hey, I'm going to post this on multiple WikiProjects so there will be some cut/paste - my apologies for that. I was recently going through the articles at Category:Proposed deletion and came across Effects of genocide on youth. The article was written by AMWilkinson, who created the article as an assignment for Wiki Ed/Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Fall 2015). It's currently up for PROD as WP:OR, but I do think that there's merit in covering this specific part of the topic. Now whether or not it could merit an article outside of the main topic is a good question.

A quick, offhand look at the page does show that it's written like a student paper, which is a frequent issue with student assignments but not one that can't be overcome. I need someone to help salvage the article, which will likely require some searching for sources. I tried doing some very quick and dirty searching but it wasn't exactly easy, since a lot comes up with a general search without limiting anything, even when I search an academic database like JSTOR. This will likely be a massive undertaking.

I can help out some, but it really won't be until after my school is done for the quarter, which won't be for another week at least, and this needs some urgent help. I could move it to the draftspace, but I'm afraid of it getting neglected. Anyone willing to help? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow Science
Slow Science has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Slow Science -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

New article of questionable notability
I just noticed the existence of the new article System philosophy when a summary of it was added to the article on Modern philosophy. It seems to have only one, brand new, editor contributing it so far. It smells non-notable and possibly of self-promotion to me. Would be good to get some other eyes over there seeing if anyone's ever heard of this anywhere reputable and if it belongs here on WP. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Infinity article could use a philosophers' hand
Couldn't infinity be improved by a philosophical analysis of the arguments for and against its logical possibiliy? This seems to have been a very interesting debate for a very long time but the article as it stands is almost entirely about mathematics. 97.106.144.198 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission: Pharmakon
See Draft:Pharmakon (philosophy). Thanks, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I created that article, you posted here faster :-) Arided (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any help, particularly adding relevant categories to the article. Arided (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that much more work could be done to bring other terms in the Simondon/Stiegler lexicon into this encyclopedia. E.g. "transindividuation" is not dealt with here as far as I can see. Maybe another project for me once this one is finished. Arided (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Hero", "Heroine" and "Heroism"
The usage and naming for Hero and and Heroine is under discussion, see talk:hero -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Slow Science"
The naming of Slow Science is under discussion, see Talk:Slow Science -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum
There is an edit conflict at Reductio ad absurdum. Outside opinions are needed to reach consensus. Please go to Talk:Reductio ad absurdum. Thanks. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 07:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Occam's razor
I am wondering if someone from this Wikiproject would mind taking a look at Talk:Occam's razor. The lead of the article seems a little too detailed (per MOS:LEAD), but I am not very familiar with philosophy related article so not sure if that's the norm. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

✅ BlueMist (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Deductive and Formal Fallacy
We currently have a page for both Formal fallacy and Deductive fallacy. My understanding was that these were more or less synonymous, but the page differentiates them by pointing out that there are formal aspects to non-deductive fallacies as well. This is a fair point, but it is unsourced and goes against how these terms are typically used. Furthermore, the definition of deductive fallacy used on the page is the same as the definition for invalidity and comes from a single self-published pamphlet by a professional philosopher. I propose that we blank and redirect the Deductive Fallacy page to the Formal Fallacy page. Original Position (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * SEP has a good section on this issue at 3.4 The formal approach to informal fallacies. The basic idea is that some philosophers, like John Woods (logician), advocate for formal methods to be applied to non-deductive fallacies, thus converting them from informal to formal fallacies. So this seems a real distinction. I don't know if it is important enough to warrant separate formal and deductive articles. But if there is a merge, it would be worthwhile to note this exception. --Mark viking (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A page focusing on the typical deductive fallacies (eg undistributed middle, affirming the consequent etc) would maybe be fine. However, that page already exists (formal fallacy). Furthermore, I've not seen anyone in the literature, including John Woods or Douglas Walton, advocate that we reclassify the informal fallacies as formal fallacies due to the analysis of their faults being due to formal aspects of the arguments.


 * Two other problems, the deductive fallacy page doesn't really define fallacy in a typical way. The standard definition of a fallacy (although it has been challenged and rejected by most contemporary theorists) is of an argument that appears to be valid, but isn't so. However, the deductive fallacy page (based on its single source) defines a deductive fallacy as simply an invalid deductive argument--there is no mention of it appearing to be valid.


 * And finally and most important, I have not been able to find any reliable sources that clearly distinguish between formal and deductive fallacies. I haven't looked very hard, but I did find one which used "deductive fallacy" as synonymous with "formal fallacy" (but frustratingly have lost the reference).


 * SEP says that the division into formal and informal fallacies is based on Copi's mid-twentieth century logic textbook, and if you look at some older logic books such as Mill and Arthur Davies, they do use the term "deductive fallacies" although not to mean just invalidity. Original Position (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * These are all good points. converting them from informal to formal fallacies could be synthesis on my part. You've convinced me; a redirect is a reasonable approach here. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry
I was clicking around and found myself on the Anti-psychiatry page and... it's a mess. I didn't know much of anything about antipsychiatry, but the blatant character attacks and POV pushing were red huge flags, so I started checking sources and none that I've checked so far have anything to do with antipsychiatry. I got the sense from the talkpage that there's a lot of poorly sourced information backing up ideas about psychiatry that stem from Scientology. Their beliefs do have a place in the article... but with proper sourcing and NPOV. There are other POVs being pushed as well. Apparently it's a very contentious topic. Now that I've read up a bit about it, it's actually quite interesting. But cleaning up the article will be a lot to tackle... so I'm posting this on the relevant wikiprojects in the hopes that others might find it interesting too and want to help. :) I've started a discussion about it at Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 8. I'd love input from people on WP:PHILO about a clear, succinct way to define "antipsychiatry" b/c the term is a bit of a linguistic nightmare. Thanks! Permstrump (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Social justice warrior - move discussion

 * Notifying this WikiProject talk page as article is relevant to the topic

There is a move discussion ongoing related to this WikiProject.


 * 1) Article = Social justice warrior
 * 2) Move discussion at Talk:Social_justice_warrior.

Feel free to comment however you wish.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Major Problems with the article Argument from authority
It cites unreliable sources (including a HEMA practitioner) and the contents flatly contradict the sources in places. The issue seems to be the question of whether or not it is a fallacy to appeal to a legitimate authority in a subject as part of an argument about that subject. It is not, according to virtually every reliable source I can find, in print or on the web. Even many of the sources cited by the article plainly state that it is not. However, the article seems to be written to refute this, to the point that every single example given is one in which a legitimate authority was incorrect about something. It needs serious work, and while I'm not above doing it alone, I would greatly appreciate any support, as I have found none on the article talk page, and I don't want to start an edit war. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I answered you at the article here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"Misfortune"
The usage and topic and primary topic of Misfortune is under discussion, see talk:Misfortune (disambiguation) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Self-disorder article
This article about a mental phenomenon associated with schizophrenia deals with phenomenology. Because of this, I am looking for comments and advice on the self-disorder article. There is a thread on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Beneficii (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Philosophical phenomenology is not a clinical psychiatric condition. The 'phenomena' that schizophrenics experience is private and subjective.
 * Nevertheless, I suggest a good look at the article History of the Concept of Disconnectivity in Schizophrenia in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry (March/April 2016) by Coyle, Joseph T. MD; Balu, Darrick T. PhD; Puhl, Matthew D. PhD; Konopaske, Glenn T. MD. They say that 60 years of clinical research shows that "widespread loss of cortical synaptic connectivity appears to be the primary pathology in schizophrenia that is driven by multiple risk genes that adversely affect synaptogenesis and synapse maintenance". BlueMist (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to correct the article according to your recommendation, so I ask that you WP:BE_BOLD. --Beneficii (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a few things and tried to steer the page away from the philosophical sense of phenomenon. The problem, as I see it now, does not appear to be in the page, but in the nature of the progression of the science of psychology. A hundred years ago there was a movement away from philosophical and purely subjective symptomatic classification ('stamp collecting') to objective behavioral testing. More recently, great leaps in imaging and other technologies has shifted emphasis to biochemical and to in vivo structural studies, and then to even more fundamental genetics. However, subjective methods are still helpful. BlueMist (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that utilizing all these approaches and integrating them is a good idea, and I think psychiatry can make real advances doing this, but as some of the review articles quoted on the self-disorder article have said, the subjective element of mental disorders has been somewhat neglected lately, especially in the U.S. I think an integrated approach would provide the multiple lines of evidence needed to come up with models for mental disorders and test them. If you look at the pathogenesis section, there is already some attempt at doing that by, for example, looking at the connection between self-disorders and perceptual incoherence and coming up with a model (the Postmes 2014 article). --Beneficii (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a (primary source) article that discusses Schizophrenia and phenomenological philosophy. There is a phenomenological psychology article that touches on the philosophical aspects. Self-awareness also discusses some of these issues and there is a Self-awareness section, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 200%; line-height: 1; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif; font-weight: bold;"> The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! 06:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Surface"
The usage and topic of surface is under discussion, see Talk:Surface -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Any opinions?
The Christian apologist William Lane Craig, notable for his vigorous and single-minded polemical defence of Wesleyan Christianity, is also a theologian who has been employed as a "professor of philosophy" by a succession of Wesleyan theological colleges. An insistent group of Christian apologists are claiming on his talk page that he should be primarily identified as a philosopher, and specifically as an analytic philosopher rather than as a Christian philosopher or apologist. They have tagged his article as being within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy task force for Analytic Philosophy. Any opinions? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)