Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Paul Ziff

I don't know if this is the right place, but the Paul Ziff article is completely plagiarized from a tribute on the UNC website. I'm not competent to rewrite the article myself, but Ziff is a good philosopher and he deserves a real (legal) page. (Iolasov 05:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, it does looks a bit too close to the original to me. Some people really need to learn how to paraphrase ideas and sentences in their own words, at least? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a template to warn people about this sort of thing, but I don't remember the syntax.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment

We have been asked several times to join in with Version 1[[1]]. Since this gradation for article quality already exists, should the Philosophy Wikiproject simply adopt it? Banno 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Support - I think we should adopt it as soon as possible, and if used well it could really contribute to distinguishing which articles are truly in dire need of fixing, and which articles are simply lacking content, syle, or some other issue. At least it would be a simple and easy start (adopting it as is), and if it proved to be be cumbersome, or improvable, it could be discussed then and there. -Sam 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - from what I've seen, the whole thing is way too subjective. There's no real process behind it, as their is for FA and there is starting to be for GA. Incidentally, I'm planning to get involved in GA evaluation as a way of lifting up the quality of ALL articles. It nees to get a strict and discimplined as the FAC process has become. That's the only way to imrove articles here. Extremely thorough and unrelenting criticism. I've finally leaerned to appreciate that.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thorough and unrelenting criticism helps decent articles become really good, but hurts articles that aren't already pretty good, by alienating those who might work to improve them. Taking a stub to a start IS an improvement, and has little to do with criticism. I don't think harsh criticism helps move a start to B either. If you want to focus your considerable energies on helping B articles up to GA, by tightening GA process, great! Good idea, but that doesn't mean that subjective, process-low approaches might not help pages in worse trouble. Bmorton3 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the good article process and criteria. It would be a simple mater to arrange a cabal of philosophers to sort a list of good articles, by listing candidates in the philosophy Wikiproject task box. Banno 22:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see why the Philosophy article shouldn't be bumped up to A-class. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bumped up? Has it reached GA?? --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't. GA is before A-class. Put it through GA, if you are that confident of it.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought A-class was a generic that was supposed to include both GAs and Non GAs "Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class." Still going through the GA process is a good way of pushing for A class.Bmorton3 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure about what the ranking system is exactly. It's clearly not Featured Article material right now -- there are barely any citations -- but it's somewhat better than what it was a year ago. More than anything else, I'd like fresh eyes to look at that page to give a dispassionate verdict. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kemerling's list

Lucidish, did you ask permission before you 'borrowed' Garth Kemerling's entire timeline?[[2]]. I noticed that he has no credit on any of those pages. How many others have his information without any citation? How many dictionary entries have you 'borrowed'? I think the man has worked hard enough to get some credit. 65.193.226.2 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Sarah 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only does Kemerling deserve credit, but is (and has long been) given credit as a source, explicitly by name. See the "See also" section of Western philosophers. Also, the timeline has been extensively worked upon with dates added, summaries of each philosopher's tradition, and the elimination and addition of relevant names. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To make this more clear, I'll change the "external links" section to "references". Will also add some of the other references used. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Kemerling has given permission, in the form of assent to fair use. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 22:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC) He has also given his personal blessing. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish

Category:Metaphysics

Growing out of a discussion at the Talk:Crystal power page, I started a discussion at Category_talk:Metaphysics about the utility of the category, and the possibility of splitting the category into better recognized areas. On one hand, the metaphysics article seems to make a distinction between the popular def. of metaphysics (in a new age realm) and a more limited definition in the academic philosophy. Since category talk pages are pretty far off the beaten track, I am posting a message here to attract some further discussion from folks better versed than I. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

FAR input needed

Very interesting talk page: I was hoping some regulars here would follow up on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox: we need more votes and input on FARC for consensus. Thanks, Sandy 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Athens discrimination

This Athens account nonsesne is beginning to make me think that there really is an orchestarted plan to keep information away from the 99.5% of the species which does not reside in the US. What the HELL!! I'm expected to pay for access to every single article or travel to Rome to find a modern library!! Give me a break. How can I break into these damned systems?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you looking for? Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's a very big question, indeed!! Perhaps it is to be able to leave something behind me to demonstarte that my existence and all of my sufferings have not been completely meaningless. No, that would be absurd since there can be no meaning in the acts of a single, finite phylogentically developmentally retarded chimpazee in an infinitely expanding universe which is probably one among an infinite number of infinitely expanding universes qithout end. Rather, I wish to try to defy the absurdity by trying to create a sort of provisional illusion of meaning out of nothing, in the existentialist sense. But I seem to not be able to even create this illusion of purpose. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean, what articles are you looking for? It doesn't look as though I have access to Athens, either (nor, evidently, do most Canadian institutions). But I might be able to access some other resources, assuming my university hasn't shut me out yet. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 16:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it has nothing to do with wikipedia. I have been studying the Lewis-Stalnaker interpretation of counterfactuals and I like to get different views, so I ran into this and got aggravated. I paid E30 for the Lewis book and it took about three weeks to arrive. I go on line and they ask me to pay $30 for to view a single article. Give me a break. Pain in the ass living in a rural part of Italy. All publications should be freely accessible to all people on the planet. What's the point of the Internet, if I have to go to the library. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that nobody in the academy actually wants anyone to ever understand what they have to say. It keeps up one's sense of awe and soforth.

Anyway, I can help you in this particular matter. Send me your email address at my talk page and I'll email you the article. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. We all tend to take for granted what works well in our own country. Inter-library loan works remarkably well in the U.S. I live in Seattle. Our public library system has a little under a million volumes (including copies), not a bad collection, but it's remarkable sometimes what they lack. Still, I'm consistently impressed how often they can track down and borrow a book on my behalf if it is to be had anywhere in the U.S. I take it from what you say that this doesn't work similarly in Italy. - Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning software freedom philosophy

A modern philosopher called Richard Stallman has been developing questions and answers which are raised by societies increasing use and reliance on software. He argues that everyone should be free to use, modify, and redistribute the software they use - and he argues that these are fundamental human rights. Being also a very practical philosophy, the underpinning ethics are often missed. Many look at his work as technical, like the GNU/Linux operating system, but it is not a technical project it is an ethical one, and it is one which started in 1983. 23 years isn't long in terms of many of Philosophy's greats, but it's not a new thing and it's not dwindling away. My question is, where should I note this philosphy? It is already being described in free software movement, but what philosophy pages should link there and on what overview page should I put a 1 paragraph description? Gronky 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would add a discussion of this to the Philosophy of information page, which doesn't have much ethics on it yet, privacy ethics and information is another great topic to add to it. Bmorton3 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BM3. Much better answer than I was about to give: applied ethics or philosophy of law. I hadn't even heard of philosophy of information, but that definitely would be the right place for it. It reminds me of David Chalmers' comment on his website: "if I'm interested in X, I just tell people I'm studying the philosophy of X."

So, you still insist on sticking around, eh?? (;--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, glad I asked. I've started a sectoion at: Philosophy_of_information#Software_freedom_philosophy which I'll do some more work on soon. Gronky 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Even better, one of my students asked me if there was such thing as Philosophy of Information the other day, and I rambled about Informatics briefly and then directed him to the WP articles on Informatics and Philosophy of Information for a beginning start. This is where WP, even WP Philosophy really shines, on looking up bare bones beginnings of something you know very little about, for clues on where to look further. Bmorton3 16:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Figures. The founder (or co-founder) of this field, Luciano Floridi, is another extremely talented researcher and knowldegable fellow who had to leave Italy because of the anti-science, anti-research attitudes of the politicians over here. Latin, Greek, poetry and art. Everything else is just technè for the inferior gents. Bizarre. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

user:Dbuckner has suggested using a category to locate poor pages. This will cause some difficulty with the categories (see our talk pages). Does anyone know of a suitable template we could pilfer to use for marking pages needing attention? Banno 21:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the cleanup template? Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 03:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole slew of them: attention, cleanup (ranging from broad to more speficic kinds of cleanup), verify, expert-attention (or whatever it is) and so on.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be intending to to something like "philosophy attention", in which case I would just take one of the current ones and modify it a bit. This should be easily done.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the big deal? Just tell me the EXACT wording you have decided on and I can create a modified template. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand as a Philopsopher

There is an RFC currently open at Talk:List of political philosophers about whether Ayn Rand should be included on that list. There was also an RFC this summer at Talk:List of major philosophers about whether she should be included on that list that did not truly resolve the matter and is being actively debated. I can't think of a better group of editors to opine on these matters than those who participate in this WikiProject. Discussion on those talk pages will, of course, be most helpful than discussion here. GRBerry 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates and Categories

I copied a conversation started between Banno and I on Talk:List_of_major_philosophers#templates to Category_talk:Philosophy#templates about attaching a category to the philosophy banner template. If anyone can check it out and comment, that would be great. - Sam 14:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

not a priority - but still.

I couldn't sleep last night, so I made a bunch of userboxes for the WikiProject. I have no idea if the group here wants to even concern itself with adpoting an "official" one, but I thought it would be nice to be able to have something we could advertise a little more uniformly, and at the very least, its fun. Check them out at user:Sdorrance/box and user:Sdorrance/box2 - there's very little difficulty to tweaking them and putting your favorite philosopher as the picture... - Sam 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ontological argument needs help

A large portion of the Ontological argument page was blanked due to sourcing issues. I was wondering if anyone at this project had the time and resources to perhaps restore some of the content, or write new similar content, this time using reliable sources. What was removed and I believe needs to exist in some form or another is a section on "Philosophical assumptions underlying the argument" and perhaps more critical commentary on Anselm. Any other attention that could be given to this article on other matters would also be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What does hexis mean?

I can't understand the article at all. I've read hexis 5 times, and I feel like it was purposely written as a word game puzzle. Will someone take a look at it and give a concrete example of what a hexis is? Also, what is its significance to philosophy? This context is not explained well either. The Transhumanist 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good article, agreed. Hexis is often translated 'habit', although that probably doesn't do justice to what Aristotle means. The context is his virtue-based account of morality: the good person is one with the right set of settled dispositions to act rightly (rather than being the one who always acts in accordance with the moral law, or who always brings about the best consequences she can). This article is fairly helpful. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And as for significance to philosophy: on the other side from Aristotle, Plato (and later, even more clearly, Kant) would hold that an action is moral only insofar as it is consciously based on moral principles. - Jmabel | Talk 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Philosophy of Mind

The section on the Philosphy of Mind in the article Mind is, in my opinion, particularly poor and one-sided. I think a significant rewrite is in order. Before I wade in, would others like to take a look and perhaps make suggestions.Davkal 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Debate involving Philosophy of mathematics and Philosophy of science

Please take a look to the discussion pages of these articles because there is a little edit war.--Pokipsy76 13:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is still ongoing. Would someone here be willing to say whether it is acceptable to say "Philosophy of mathematics is a branch of philosophy"? Is "Philosophy of mathematics is a branch of analytic philosophy" more correct? Is this distinction made in any published literature? CMummert 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not "Philosophy of science studies" rather than "Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy that studies"? While most works in philosophy of science are analytic in approach, a text I studied for a grad. class included Feyerabend, stuff on the Strong programme and other social issues in sciences, Kuhn, alongside the usual Hempel, Putnam, van Fraasen, etc. Would you classify Feyerabend as analytic? (my professor simply labeled him a wacko) What about Kuhn? Kuhn's work has been of interest to so-called analytic and non-analytic philosophers alike. Is there anything in his style that classifies him as analytic? Zeusnoos 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Optimism

The article on optimism is in a sorry state right now. Although maybe not directly in the scope of the project, it would be greatly appreciated if someone could spare a little time to help out. --Ybbor ^T 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC for a Russell book

Hello WikPhils. I've just finished a precis of Bertrand Russell's Power: A New Social Analysis. I think it's not too shabby, and is relatively comprehensive, so I listed nominated it for Featured Article status. I just wanted to invite people from WikiPhilosophy to go over there and leave their thoughts. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FAR?? Why is it in review if you just finished it? I think you mean FAC? I'll take a look if I have the time and, more importantly, the energy (and hopefully my brain is still functioning well enough to be helpful to some extent). --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Either I am really, REALLY far gone or you haven't actually listed this as a FAC on the candidate list. I don't see it. What you have to do is click on "this is a Featrured Article Candidate" and the follow ALL of the instructions on that page. In particular, you have to list it on THAT page at the very top. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my brain slipped. Yeah, FAC, not FAR. Thanks for changing that. Anyway, yeah, it is up on the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Power:_A_New_Social_Analysis { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The nomination has failed. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 03:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah well!! Sorry I couldnìt help out on that. That was exactly one day before I was ruthlesslessy cut off from the rest of the fucking planet outside of this desolate, cultural, tehcnological and imtellectual black hole called Cervinara, Avellino, Italy. No, no Intenret Cafes, no library, no bookstores. NOTHING!!!!!!!!! Message folks: the Net is an extraordinary instrument of education, information, enetrtainament, communication, etc..which, like most things in this world, we all take for granted until we don't have it anymore. And with that said, I must move quickly before they cut me off on this absurdly unstable 56k connection!! Good heavens, I've been on for nearly 10 minutes!! It's a record!!

Frank Edward Franco aka Lacatosiais

Godspeed. Tell Padre Pio I said "whassup". { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Francisco de Vitoria

Someone who might be more familiar than I with the School of Salamanca and, in particular, the history of the publication of their views might want to look in on my question at Talk:Francisco de Vitoria. - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

standards for inclusion for lists

we need to standardize our lists. we have many lists of philosophers, etc. and they all vary along every line possible. specifically, most of them are full of cruft, pop philosophy, and people who are not usually considered philosophy. i suggest we come up with a common criteria for all portal related lists of philosophers. it should not be overly inclusive, or exclusive. one problem we have is that the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge; 2000 seems to be overly inclusive, it has bourdieu in it, and while trained as a philosopher, he published anthropology and sociology. there are other issues with that text. so I'd encourage us to drop it and come up with a standard for all lists, one for contemporary philosophy post 1900 and one for classics in philosophy. the list should be based on recognized, cross-cultural publications in philosophy, which are highly cited. --Buridan

Lets be honest here. Buridan wants to set the "standards for inclusion" in any fashion that will exclude Rand from the lists. For whatever reason, he detests her and/or her work AND wants to impose that POV on all philosophy pages. Please have a look at the talk pages behind every single philosophy page and you will see that this is the case. That is not how standards should be set. It is always hard to find the right balance for an encyclopedia - a balance that attempts to deal with the natural biases of the academy but without opening a flood-gate to the less well-formed thoughts of the untrained. That balance is a hard enough goal without dealing with manipulation of standards to suit personal POV. Giving in to that kind of manipulation diminishes the entire processes integrity. Steve 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, i do not dislike rand, I just do not see how she compares say to a Quine or a Wittgenstein or a Confucius. One clear set of standards either way will work for me, as I have said in the past. However, where there are not clear standards, or the standards seem to be biased toward inclusion of non-philosophers, then people on the edge, or over the edge should not be on the list. I'm not pushing any POV, I'm trying to remove it. The POV that is being pushed is that Rand is a philosopher, and it is weakly supportable via some standards of inclusion, but not supportable under others. I support standards of inclusion for post 1900 philosopher's based on citations in philosophy with a minimum standard that excludes literature, because philosopher's generally cite literature, but includes philosophy. For instance, if I was teaching a philosophy class, which I am not right now, would I want to be able to send my students to wikipedia to learn about philosophy? yes, can I do it now, not without quite a bit of warnings about what you find there might not be philosophical. --Buridan 03:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a clear set of standards. It is the WP policy - it built this incredible structure, which despite its flaws, never fails to amaze me. An enormous encyclopedia instantly available around the globe in many languages and built by unpaid, non-professional editors! The WP policies work. I understand that you compare Rand to other philosophers and then don't want her to be there. But that's your personal POV. She is there because the evidence that she is a philosopher is overwhelming. Despite a general dislike of her and/or her work in academic circles, there are still many valid sources that can be cited. You lose credibility when you try to say that because she wrote novels she can not be a philosopher. You also lose credibility when you attempt to manipulate criteria so as to bias the list one way or another. I'm in favor of deleting non-philosophers from lists intended for philosophers. But I believe that the greatest good comes from including all the philosophers, not just those I like. The boundry of the universe of philosophy is a ragged line encompassing such diverse material as to ensure we each can find material we abhor - but that is a reflection of our civilization's current intellectual reality and isn't improved by wishing away or censoring the bits we see as untidy. Steve 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, one of the guidelines is that lists should have clear critiera of inclusion too. most of these do not, and are more or less 'list cruft'. they need to be cleaned up. if you are concerned that cleaning them up might exclude people. i am not censoring anyone, stop making outrageous claims. people can find rand in any of 40 or so lists and categories. We've had long discussions about the articles and merits of your evidence and you've never been successful in defending it. Here is one final point, when you are not on wikipedia, and rand is removed. no one else adds her back, or if someone does, it is quite some time. --Buridan 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Buridan you continue to dance away from a simple fact: I (and others) have supplied valid, verifable sources for list entries that you then delete, again and again - violating primary policy. Period. Steve 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't delete when the verification is from competent sources. However, what we have is usually 3 biased sources published by objectivists promoting rand's status and one online and one offline exhuberant encyclopedia. if you go to normal sources, you find very little if anything about rand and philosophy, in fact, you find none. perhaps we should use lulu to publish a few hundred pamphlets-cum-books that say mork from ork is a great philosopher and add it to all lists too. sources are sources are sources, use standard, quality sources, and your outcome is far different than your perspective. --Buridan 17:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are 3 more sources you can ignore. Bmorton pulled these from his shelf one day - Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options 2006, 10e 4 authors; Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, 2007, 6e 3 editors; Voices of Wisdom: A Multicultural Philosophy reader 2007, 6e Gary Kessler - all of which mention Rand as a philosopher. But I'm certain you won't accept any source as adequate if Rand is the issue. Steve 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! undergraduate philosophy texts by peripheral philosophers are clearly reliable sources... perhaps, do these texts have other material in them by non-philosophers? i'm just wondering....--Buridan 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've only read fragments of Rand, and what I have read suggests she is not a philosopher at all. But here are some links to one who has read her more carefully, and whose judgment I trust. Rand's misunderstanding of Kant. Why she is not a good philosopher. Dbuckner 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to comment because I despise Rand's philosophy and find her argumentative acumen to be somewhere at the sixth grade level. Nevertheless, in fairness, she has been included in philosophical anthologies: i.e., Louis Pojman's "Moral Philosophy: A Reader". And even in the latter of Dean's links she is admitted as a philosopher, albeit a poor one. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then why are we not including all philosophers better than Rand? E.g. Brian Morton, Franco Francesco, all members of Oxford faculty, all the 3,000 philosophers who attend APA etcetera. I imagine these have been excluded because they have made no notable, recognised contribution of value to philosophy to date. Then exclude Rand. She is of course notable for writing romantic fiction and Hollywood screenplays. Then put her under that category, but not 'philosopher'. Please, Dbuckner 07:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But Pojman did note her (to use one example), by publishing one of her screeds on selfishness as an essay. But I honestly don't know whether or not he's an exception to the rule. If he is an exceptional case, then the case for her inclusion is weak. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorin Cerin

Once again, an article has been created on Sorin Cerin; once again, we need to discuss whether to keep or deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorin Cerin (Dec 2006). - Jmabel | Talk 17:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now deleted and seeded against future re-creation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sign

This edit by 83.168.10.180 seems to add profound text to the Sign article. As philosophy is not currently my strong point (I plan on studying it when I have the time), I can not tell if the information added is actually useful, an interpretation of signs from the viewpoint of a specific philosophy, or mindless babbling. Whichever it is, it's unsourced, and reads a bit like ancient Greek writing about India. Could someone fluent in philosophy please review which bits of it are suitable for Wikipedia, if at all? Gracenotes ^T § 21:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It looked more or less legit, though not very grammatical. I tried to clean it up. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 16:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fallacy navigational templates

Hi, I've created the following three navigational templates for the bottom of Fallacy articles. Please comment on them and edit them before they go live. The taxonomy roughly follows that already presented in Wikipedia Categories and the Fallacy Files website. They are intended to cover all the major fallacies but are not meant to be entirely comprehensive. That said, if you think I've missed anything important out, then please add it.:

Thanks Andeggs 23:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice job! Frédérick Lacasse 18:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jan Cox (philosopher)

If any of you know Jan Cox (philosopher) and feel that he was a philosopher, I would highly encourage you to go and make his article better. The article is written poorly and I feel like nominating it for deletion. There has been a battle between an avid follower of Jan and a person who thinks he was a cult and not a philosopher. I know nothing about the man and have been trying to keep encouraging a better article. My concern is that anyone searching for him (via Google, Yahoo, etc) will end up here and see a ridiculously written article. Anyway, if you all could take a look and improve, that would make me happy. I will not be watching this article, so if you drop a note at my talk page and let me know you responded here, I would appreciate it. Thanks a bunch! --Maniwar (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is of no apparent interest to anyone, please comment on the deletion request [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for input

For all and sundry:

For the improvement of the treatment of philosophy on Wikipedia, I have tried to spotlight the weakness of the page on Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy. Please comment on it, or on its deletion page. Thank you. 271828182 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On Nothing

I posted a comment on the WPPL talk page in regarding the article on Nothing. I figure this concept is pretty important in philosophy, especially to the existentialists and many eastern religious philosophies. The article has survived an AfD, but I believe the purpose of the AfD was to delete it to get a complete rewrite. Now it's just sitting, a magnet for unsourced rambling. I think if some action could be taken on it from someone who knows the concept pretty well, it could help to weed out the bad, unsourced information that is regularly added. Thanks!--Psyphics_ΨΦ 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

List of publications in philosophy deleted

A user who didn't want Rand's work on epistemology on that list said "provide a source" or it would be deleted. I provided a source but it wasn't adequate as stated. I replied give me a few minutes. I expanded the citation with extensive quotes and had it up in just minutes. Next thing I notice is that user Simoes had wiped the entire list - deleted every single entry (it has since been reverted). That is not as an act of boldness, but arrogance. How in the world can that kind of behavior serve Wikipedia? I can't believe that I'm the only one tired of the endless edit wars by those who willing to delete sourced material. Those who insist that only entries they approve of will get on lists. It is sad, but true, that Wikipedia will never attain the quality it could - not until there are many, many more people who find the integrity to stand up and say "enough!" It doesn't matter if you hate Rand and her works. Every one has the right to believe she 'wrote crap' as I once read in these pages. But only idiots will seriously believe what she was writing wasn't philosophy. Yet look at how few serious devotees of the 'love of wisdom' uttered one single peep when Buridan claimed that Objectivism killed tens of millions of people? Or when he ignored literally dozens of sources? Or, when he compared her to Snoopy? Where are the legions who protect the right to their entries being kept when other entries are deleted as part of a POV campaign?

I honestly don't see a common ground or possiblity for compromise in the conflict with Buridan. I initiated a mediation last summer but it was no help. I redoubled my efforts to show high quality sources. I attempt to maintain civility and do less one-on-one arguing. I have reduced the frequency of my reverts. But still nothing appears to be changing. Do we, as personal policy, give in to those who are blatent in violating the rules?

The energy that arises from the edit war attracts unhelpful acts - like IP Users swooping in to make changes without any contribution to the dialog - and people becoming more strident then they normally would. Wikipedia begins to feel like two suspicious armed camps than people joined in a common effort. The warring sucks up energy, at least some of which would otherwise be adding good things to articles and creating new articles. Wikipedia would be a more pleasant place to be (unless one is the kind of person that likes conflict - some are - I'm not).

There is another bad thing for Wikipedia. Lets assume that one side or the other in this edit war at least marginally more correct than the other. If that is the case, then it benefits Wikipedia to make that judgment and end the war with all of its ill effects. To not do so is like leaving a patient sick when a treatment is available. It also seems to me, to be bad for people, good people, to not act in this kind of circumstance. Integrity is a moral muscle that requires the occasional assertive act.

I would love to see either of the following happen: (1) a large number of people come out the quiet and voice an opinion - in demanding voices. And the voices show enough of a solid majority to forever silence either Buridan or me in this conflict. Or, (2) to have the administration speak in a forceful way. Either Buridan or I (and a few others) should be told, "Do not ever make edits involving the addition/deletion of Rand or Objectivism again - otherwise be banned from Wikipedia."

For anyone that perservered and read this far into my rant, thank you for your patience. Obviously I feel very frustrated. I believe that these lists are useful to Wikipedia's users - it is for them. And one by one the lists get deleted because of these 'exclusionary' approaches to what are really navigation lists. It makes me sad... all of the time of all of the people that built them is wasted. I am open to suggestions. Steve 09:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

steve, i said neoliberalism allowed millions to die, as a rhetorical response to the 'marxism killed millions' please try to do justice to oether people's statements when you represent them. your only issue seems to be that you want to promote rand to be a philosopher, though we have clearly provided evidence that most of philosophy does not see her like that. you continually return to support a minor, biased viewpoint, promoting rand as a philosophy without recognizing the majority, the problem is that you aren't respecting npov. if you go around and always call rand a philosopher, you are stating something that for most people is not true or correct in this day and age, but if you put that in wikipedia,, in future generations people will come to see her status as philosopher settled. we cannot go on promoting rand as a philosopher when people do not agree. it is not respecting the facts. I think your sole frustration is your willingness to promote something that is objectively not true, the willingness to build your position on a set of biased positions instead of considering, deeply, the counter arguments. Personally, i'd prefer deleting a list to having the list provide misleading or wrong information. it is a better outcome to encourage a student to look into a paper encyclopedia, none of which discuss rand as a philosopher as best as i can tell, than to have them be mislead into thinking that her philosophy is basic, major, important, or otherwise anything other than ideology. that said, i've granted the position that where the list is inclusive of non-philosophers already, she should be on it, but this continual attempt to put her and her theories in the core of philosophy, that is just not right, as it is not true. my position is that i want rand's position in the history of philosophy to be accurately represented, nor represented from the minoritarian view, i want it to be neutral, and because of that, she doesn't belong on most philosophy lists. --Buridan 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Buridan, here is what exactly what you said - "it is not clear that objectivist philosophy through the guise of friedman and greenspan's neoliberalism has not killed tens of millions of poor around the world." - I'll let everyone here decide if I 'did justice to other people's statements' and who is biased and neutral. And, yes, I go around calling Rand a philosopher - and I provide sources. Steve 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

and you are going to argue that millions of people have not died in wars and famine during the greenspan regime? i'm just checking here, i'm not an economic determinist or anything, but it very much seems that neoliberalism plays a strong role in other policy. --Buridan 15:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

There are two AfDs up for articles that may require a philosopher's expertise, list of publications in philosophy and 20th-century philosophy. Interested parties should register a vote at those pages. KSchutte 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of mind FAR

Philosophy of mind has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A favor to ask

A project I started awhile back (as an anon IP), which I've been working on ever since (as Go for it!, and now under my current nym), is the Glossary of philosophical isms. I'm very excited about it, because thanks to the occasional contributor, its completion is within view. I was wondering, if you wouldn't mind helping complete it. It doesn't have to be done all at once; adding one definition per Wikipedia session, or so, would be a great help and would speed things up immensely.

The help needed is to fill in missing definitions. The method I've been using is to follow the link of each term, and cut and paste its definition from the lead section of its article. I then edit it down (or even rewrite it) to be less wordy and easier to follow, and I make a judgment as to the size of the entry based on the understanding it presents. For major and difficult terms, I try to keep them down to six lines. Others down to 3 or 4.

We're almost there! Please take a look, to see if this is something you could help out with: Glossary of philosophical isms.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of Religion

I'm not sure if this has been suggested yet but shouldn't there be a philosophy of religion sub wiki project? I'd be up for helping or seeing one started --Mjangle 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think most disciplines of philosophy will ideally end up in a wikiproject. It seems like the best way to keep track of articles; philosophy is just too big. I'm all for it. KSchutte 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I proposed, and started developing, this idea along while back. I doesn't seem to working out as planned, but I still think the basic principle is sound. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

necessity

should we propose this legal article be made a disambiguation? should someone write a draft beforehand? trespassers william 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly plenty of notions to consider (natural necessity, logical necessity, etc.). I think if someone were to write up something worthwhile on these concepts, the current article could be moved to necessity defense and replaced with a disambig, sure. KSchutte 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

20th-century philosophy

I intend to write a real article (probably Start-class, but much better than what is there now) for 20th-century philosophy (and what I hope to become a redirect, Contemporary philosophy. I would like recommendations on what people think is the best way to structure such an article. To my mind, geographic traditions might be the easiest to delineate. I feel competent writing briefs of American, English, and Australian philosophy in the twentieth-century, but could probably benefit from anyone who has done work in French, German, African, or other traditions. I know, of course, that not only French persons have contributed to the French philosophical tradition (and so also for other languages/traditions) and I would be sure to make this clear in the article. Thoughts? KSchutte 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me for the first half of the century, but as communication got much easier towards the end of the century, my impression is that geography began to matter progressively less, at least within the analytic tradition. Where you used to have American and British traditions, for example, I'm not sure that an American analytic philosopher of the 1990s sees himself as consciously in an "American tradition" distinct from the British one. By the end of the century, fields of specialization (epistemology, philosophy of mind, etc.) seem like the more coherent traditions, and probably the sort of organization an encyclopedia reader would be expecting for an overview of 1960-2000 philosophy. --Delirium 09:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought. That might work. Anyone else have any recommendations? KSchutte 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Template

Can we get a ratings system on our Template:philosophy like those on Template:WPBooks or Template:WPBiography, or better still, one with a nice pull-down project menu like Template:wpa? Would this, for some reason unbeknownst to me, be unadvisable? I just would like the ability to go to Category:FA-Class philosophy articles instead of having to stumble through Category:FA-Class articles looking for them. KSchutte 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Need Help Please

Hi people. I've been looking for a while for an article about the school of thought (or whatever) that develops the idea of self as a group of identities (as in controlled schizophrenia). Anyone has any idea where to look? Thanks in advance.--SidiLemine 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the literature on this arose out of Thomas Nagel's paper, Brain Bisection and the Unity of Consciousness. There's a good survey of the topic over at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. KSchutte 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PROD of philosophy-stub contested after the fact, original prodder gone, please review

The article I'm entitled to my opinion is a philosophy-stub. It was prodded in December as "Ill-conceived hypostatization of a common phrase into a logical fallacy; it gets some ghits, but I think the elevation of this statement that one is no longer interested in justifying his beliefs to another into an epistemic crime is very much a minority view among logicians." The prod has been contested after the fact, and the original prodder appears to no longer be active. Please review and take whatever actions are appropriate (destub, improve otherwise, or AFD nominate). Thanks GRBerry 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently missing topics

I don't consider myself an expert but I have collected a short list of missing topics related to philosophy. I have tried to find any potential redirects and similar articles. However, I would appreciate if somebody more proficient could have a look at the list. Thank you. - Skysmith 11:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Several of these are just misspellings or unconventional spellings and I'll be glad to provide the redirects. KSchutte 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment unit

Acting on the wikipedia principle, Be an arrogant, self-righteous dweeb, I have created the new assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment, and have started assessing articles. John Carter 20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, John! If I want to add a couple more "types" (like, say, "List" or "Category"), should I come to you or try to edit the thing myself? KSchutte 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your call there. I think we do have the Template, Disambig, and Category classes already, though. I'm not really sure how to create one like "List", except maybe by copying the existing types already included. And I'm fairly sure the Portal image should be moved on the template, but couldn't figure out how to do that right off. Maybe someone who actually knows what they're doing there could help with that. John Carter 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I'm sure someone who knows how to fix things will come along and help us. Not all of the categories (e.g., stub) seem to be doing what they are supposed to do either. KSchutte 23:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Infinite monkey theorem

Please help improve Infinite monkey theorem! It's a Featured Article currently undergoing review, and most of the participants are specialists in mathematics. There's a placeholder section on "Literary theory", and I don't even know if that's the right term, much less how to fill it. In the "Further reading" section I've added the following potential starter references:

Gracia, Jorge (1996). Texts: Ontological Status, Identity, Author, Audience. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-2901-6.
In Chapter 3, Author, Gracia deals with several proposed solutions to the question: If we find Hamlet among the monkey's output, then who is the author?
John, Eileen and Dominic Lopes, editors (2004). The Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings: An Anthology. Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-1208-5. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
On pp.96-97, Nelson Goodman and Catherine Elgin argue that if monkeys reproduce Don Quixote, then the replica would be as much an instance of the work as the original.
Schollmeier, Paul (2006). Human Goodness: Pragmatic Variations on Platonic Themes. Cambridge UP. ISBN 0-521-86384-8.
In the section on Moral freedoms, the author is led to the monkeys by questioning human freedom.

Based on what little I can tell from Google Books, Gracia appears to cite opinions by other authors as well. So I'm sure there are plenty more sources waiting. Help! Melchoir 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've got the section going, but I'd still like someone to have a look at it. Melchoir 07:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Added A-class articles

I added the articles that have been assessed A-class to the Project page, but now I'm not sure if I should have. Is it right that A-class and GA-class are supposed to be roughly equivalent but the latter is official and "peer-reviewed" while the former isn't? Or am I misunderstanding the ranking system? KSchutte 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Task Forces

I suspect it might be a good idea to identify and create task forces for this WikiProject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history for an example of a WikiProject with a large number of task forces). I'd be willing to find someone who could help create them (or, if I can't find such a person, I'd be willing take the time to learn how to code them myself) if the members of this project agree that it would be a good idea. Please comment here if you support or fail to support the idea. KSchutte 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add here any task force ideas that you would like to see (keep in mind that an article can be within the scope of multiple task forces and more task forces can always be added later):

Aesthetics task force
Ancient philosophy task force
Buddhist philosophy task force
Christian religious philosophy task force
Confucian philosophy task force
Early modern philosophy task force
Epistemology task force
History of philosophy task force
Logic task force
Medieval philosophy task force
Metaphysics task force
Moral philosophy task force (This could replace Template:moral.)
Philosopher biography task force
Philosophy of language task force
Philosophy of law task force
Philosophy of mind task force
Philosophy of religion task force
Philosophy of science task force
Political philosophy task force
Philosophy of task forces task force
Philosophy of philosophy of task forces task force
Philosophy of philosophy of philosophy of task forces of task forces of task forces
P of..............P of TF...............................TF

Sounds like a good idea to an outsider like me. I would just point out that separate WikiProjects already exist for Aesthetics, Moral Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Mind, and maybe a few others. John Carter 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but they get as little action as this project does (and mostly from the same people). One template can probably do the job more efficiently. KSchutte 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement there. Like I said, just pointing out that those four already exist. It might be possible to ask them if they would want to incorporate their projects into a single project banner, like all the projects of Australia already have with Template:WP Australia. John Carter 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If so requested, I could add one or more of these proposals (preferably the ones which might have the most obvious appeal) to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page and see if enough interest is generated. Also, if the prospect of task forces is realized, we might want to have someone adjust the banner to take the task forces into account. Regarding the proposals page, just let me know which to add and I'll add them, and try to create at least a basic proposal page for them as well. John Carter 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful site

As at least some of the articles will be relevant - the Tertullian page at www.tertullian.org/fathers. Jackiespeel 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm kind of new to all this - but I noticed that The Parable Of The Invisible Gardener isn't part of the philosophy project and I wondered (a) if it should be and (b) if so, how do I add it to the project so it can be refined/assesed? Thanks ...adam... 19:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To add articles to WikiProject Philosophy, put {{philosophy}} on the talk page. Eventually, someone will stop by to assess them. If any of them don't belong, the Project members will remove the template. - KSchutte 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for others. ...adam... 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Crank at philosophy of mind

The accuracy of the term will be obvious if you take a look at the recent edit history. He's taken to my talk page now. Any help would be appeciated.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The ends justify the means

Could somebody from this project please examine this article. In particular... the section regarding "Other examples" and the resulting "Considering all outcomes of the means". There is a modern day example involing torture and terrorsim. My big question is.. is it encyclopedic to have such an example? Maybe a member of this group should rewrite this article more apropriatly. The article's discussion page should maybe receive the { { philosophy } } template too.--Dr who1975 01:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to consequentialism? --Trovatore 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I would need somebody bold enough to do it. Maybe there should be more discussion here first.--Dr who1975 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK... Ive put in a merge request on the page itself and the merge request page.--Dr who1975 17:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Consequentialism is the same thing as "The Ends Justofy the Means".--Dr who1975 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Support Redirect. - KSchutte 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD debate

Any interested parties may contribute to the AfD debate for List of publications in philosophy. - KSchutte 21:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of life

Would it upset any ProjectPhilosophy people if a new entry 'Meaning of life (philosophy)'was started, and the content under 'philosophy' on the 'Meaning of life' page was moved there, improved and linked to the current page? Anarchia 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. John Carter 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes/no. It would not be a bother if you worked on the topic. However, "meaning of life" is already an article. Feel free to improve it though. :o) Vassyana 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new page. Reasons as follows: Much of the material on the main page is just plain bad, the page is constantly vandalised and people often suggest deleting it altogether. The meaning of life is a serious topic within philosophy and having a few disconnected paragraphs within a larger messy page does not allow anyone to do justice to the philosophers who have worked in this area. There are plenty of precedents within Wikipedia for the Topic (area) categorisation. For example, having a Pain (philosophy) topic separate form the 'Pain' page makes sense. TRegular encyclopedias also engage in this kind of categorisation. I have begun redirecting the links that should point to the Meaning of life (philosophy) page, and will continue to work on this. I think that the additional material on the page should also be grouped according to category and believe this will reduce vandalism and inappropriate ideas being incorporated in each page. A disambiguation page would be good too. Anarchia 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nous

If anyone knows the first thing about nous, especially in Neoplatonism, your help with this article would be greatly appreciated. It has recently experienced a big expansion with a lot of poorly-edited material that bears just enough relation to good information that one can't delete it in good conscience (especially given that the article was hopeless before the growth). I can't figure out whether or where to begin reshaping it. Wareh 20:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Look What I just made

Hey there, I made this user box the other day... User:Dr who1975/SecularHumanist

Should I make others like it? Maybe one for "Humanists" and one for "Religous Humanists" and just one for "people who are interested in Humanism? Would anyone use them?--Dr who1975 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Help Principle

I'm sorry if there's a better way to bring the project's attention to this, but The Help Principle seemed to be an article that could be deleted/merged with the Iain King page, since the Iain King page essentially contains the same information, and there's no need to have a stub about a topic (especially one that is not likely to be expanded upon...). Do what you see fit.--Blingice 06:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2007

Who would like to participate in a debate/discussion/workshop about the philosophy of philosophy on wikipedia at the wikimania conference? I think it's worth meeting to debate the role of this project and also have a workshop on presentation. I think we can go some way to finding a more uniform presentation of theories and criticisms that makes them easier to compare, weigh and evaluate by the student (and all of us are students until such time we know everything ;-) ) I've put a suggestion on the Program Ideas for wikimania. Oliver Low 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Epicurus on physics

Hello,

I'm not an expert, but the article Epicurus contains a section entitled "Early Physics: Epicurean Physics" that seems wrong to me. It emphasizes forms throughout, which Epicurus must have despised as a Platonian fiction, and then it says "So therefore all living things on Earth are unlimited, and the Earth on which they live and the universe around it, is limited." It is my understanding that Epicurus postulated an infinite universe with infinitely many atoms in it that form infintely many worlds like ours; living things being finite compositions of atoms. This is almost the exact opposite of the quoted statement. Also, the statement "thus when one smells something one has the ability to see it too" is surprising to me. The whole section was contributed by user:LCecere [4], so maybe he should be consulted.

Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Idea article getting junked up

Look at the recent edits to Idea by Doug Coldwell. A lot of material is badly sourced and of questionable relevance. Any credible philosophy editors could do much good by noticing these recent changes and watching & participating in the article. Wareh 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

New project proposal

There is now a proposal for a WikiProject (or, I think more likely, task force) related to the Philosophy of religion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory#Philosophy of religion. Any parties interested in perhaps joining an effort to address articles relating to this subject should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I would like some fresh talent to cast an eye over these NPOV disputes. Image talk:John Quiggin enumerative induction.png, Image talk:False dichotomy public transport.png, Image talk:Anonymous Lefty excluded middle.png. Many thanks, Grumpyyoungman01 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD Physical phenomenon

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical phenomenon. What seemed to be an easy decision to delete may be just a very bad article in need of a philosopher, User:Uncle G argues. --Pjacobi 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism and Spontanious order

I don't mean to start an argument here, but since anarchism is in the scope of this project I will utter my question here. Does the template of anarchism belong on the page Spontaneous_order(along with the template of libertarianism)? I believe it does, since it is a key principe to libertarianism and anarchism. I have discussed this on the Talk page of the article but seem to be denied. It is suggested there that spontanious order is only a key principe to anarcho-capitatism. Could somebody with knowledge on this topic (preferably on both anarchism and libertarianism) supply some key references please? Also Proudhon one of the key thinkers of spontanious order is a self proclaimed anarchist. Please see the Talk:Spontaneous_order for the entire discussion. Teardrop onthefire 12:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell GA/R

I have nominated Bertrand Russell for WP:GA/R due to inadequate referencing. I hope the article gets the attention it deserves during this process to retain its quality rating. Please see discussions at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Bertrand_Russell. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Revealed Religion

revealed religion finds itself on the delete page of project Judaism. It is not the place that it belongs. Can some of the philosophers give an opinion or help fix up the article? --Jayrav 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism#Revealed_religion