Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Philosophy: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:02, 6 September 2010 editAnna Frodesiak (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users117,217 edits Legalist vs. legalist: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:01, 18 January 2025 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators30,448 edits Good article reassessment for Periyar: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{/header}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive #|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes|template=}}
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-25/WikiProject report|writer= ] ||day =25|month=July|year=2011}}
<!----
{| width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" valign="top"
|
|-
| style="background-color:#FFFFFF" valign="top" |

{| width="100%" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; padding:5px;" cellspacing="5" valign="top"|
|-
| style="background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:0px" valign="top" |
<div align="center">
<p style="clear:both; margin:0 3px .8em 3px; font-variant: small-caps; text-align: center; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom:.2em; font-size: 105%;"><!-- These should be most useful links for philosophy editors
] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] </p>
</div>
{| class="plainlinks"
| colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 100%; border: 1px silver solid; background-color:#FFD699; padding: 1em;" |
{{Shortcut|WT:PHILO|WT:PHIL}}
<center><big>'''Philosophy Noticeboard'''</big></center>
This is the central discussion area for ]. Feel free to discuss any topics relating to philosophy here. It is recommended that members this page.
|-
|}
--->
<includeonly>]</includeonly>
<noinclude>{{oldmfd | date = 21 January 2013 | result = Withdrawn by nominator | votepage = Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/header}}</noinclude>
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 12 |counter = 24
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archives|root=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy|search=yes|auto=short}}
{{Philosophy/Nav}}
== Looking for epistemiologist ] ==

The notability of ] is being discussed in its talk page. If somebody has some evidence of the notability of her work in philosophy (epistemiology) please consider joining the conservation. ] (]) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

== Peer review of ] ==

I was hoping to get some feedback on the article ] to prepare it for a ]. The peer review can found at ]. ] (]) 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

== Seeking for a consensus regarding the "philosophical pessimism" template ==

Greetings, all.

The user "Paranakyaa" has recently argued against me in these edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Philosophical_pessimism&action=history) that many of the links to the template "philosophical pessimism" should be in red merely because they do not have a Misplaced Pages article still existing for them.

I, on the other hand, tried to argue against them by stating that such red links are unnecessary and make the template look aesthetically unpleasant.

After that, he appealed to the supposed fact there is a "consensus" that such links should be red (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates).

I still maintain my original position, but have no further intent nor energy to engage in any kind of "edit war" with them. If there is still no Misplaced Pages article existing for these works, the fact that they are not dyed in the color blue already indicates this; there is no need to make so many works in the template dyed in the color red.

I am curious as to other users think about this. Please do share your opinion so that we might, in fact, reach a "consensus". ] (]) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
== Proposed Changes to Atheism Article ==
<blockquote>'''Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Spam bucket. Vandal bait. Not enough information to merge, and no obvious targets for a redirect. Delete and salt, please.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at ], comments would be appreciated.


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
== ] ==


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) ] (]) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyone want to try and rewrite this? It's shocking in it's current state, as far away from NPOV as you could get. --] (]) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
== RfC on ] page name ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span>&#32;to the article ] has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#You lose}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


== Notability of ] ==
Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the ]. See ]. The article is about the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did not, or probably did not, exist as an historical being. Should it be moved from ] to, for example, ]? <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Was he notable enough that he should have a separate page on his works at ], which was recently created by ]. I have seen these for nobel laureates, but I feel as part of ] this question should be asked. I will also post to psychology. ] (]) 14:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
== Italics permissible in titles of articles on books? ==


== Requested move at ] ==
See the ongoing RfC at ]. ] (]) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Merge proposal for discussion ==
== Edit war ] lead section ==


There is an ongoing ] for ] into ] that may concern collaborators of this WikiProject. ] (]) 05:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a yawning impasse with several editors warring over this inevitably vexed issue. As if JD were reminding us all of the ''impossibility of the text''. Could any neutral editor with an interest in post structuralist thought help here, it is just revert after revert and this warring is discouraging otherwise competent editors from contributing. N.B. Please do not post below if you are one of the warring editors as it will simply extend the same arguments into a diferent arena --<b>] (])</b> 06:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


== Need help disambiguating several "Mental object"-esque articles ==
== Wittgenstein ==


Currently "Mental object" redirects to ], which seems to be a philosophy-related stub. However, there are several articles that seem to be talking about roughly the same concept, and I'm not sure why these are all seperate:
I've created a template for Wittgenstein, which can be seen at ] if anyone would like to contribute.


* ]
] (]) 09:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


* ]
== Max Weber - Featured article review ==


* ]
{{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


and possibly
== RfC on ] ==


* ]
An editor has proposed a complete rewrite of ], an article of interest to this project. Please see ]. -- ]] (]) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
* ]
* ]


"Mental world" seems like It should be more about a representation of reality, rather than an individual object.
== RfC on in-text attribution ==


So, for a start, I think "Mental object" redirect should be changed to "Object of the mind", which I can go ahead and do. But other than that, I think there needs to be some discussion about clarifying what these articles are about, adding {{Template link|About}}/{{Template link|For}} hatnotes to each of the articles to clarify their distinction, and possibly merging some.
Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the ], we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See ]. Many thanks, <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


Sidenote: It seems reasonable that ] might be interested in this discussion. I might make a post there directing here. ] (]) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
I've just started to work on this featured article to try to bring it up to current FA standards, and to try to present the philosophical arguments for and against ID, preferably using uninvolved academic sources. It is an article with a troubled history because of the strong POVs involved. I'm looking for any editors who might be willing to help with the writing and with finding philosophy sources, in particular editors with formal training in academic philosophy who are able and willing to write up arguments and counter-arguments carefully and neutrally. Anyone willing to help, please let me know on the article's talk page or on mine. Many thanks! <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Actual infinity ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
The article ] could use some help... a lot of help, really. I'm not even sure where to classify it within ]. It's also in ] which is probably fine, though I don't think this is a particularly mathematical topic.


Hello! Is there anyone willing to help me improve the article '']''? Thank you! ] (]) 08:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, even a good philosophical (not historical!) reference would be great.


== ] ==
]<small> (] | ])</small> 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello! Is there anyone willing to help me improve the article '']''? Thank you! ] (]) 16:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] is incoherent ==
== Morality and teleology ==
Hello everybody, I am trying to add two things that are (in my opinion) unjustly withheld by two editors. On the morality page it is only a reference, that I have had to reference, but still seems not enough and on the teleology page it is a general explanation of teleological ethics as opposed to deontological ethics, which I have severely referenced but is also not accepted by these users. In both articles a retracing of our steps is being undertaken. The request for references is continuously being restated while I have already done so. Perhaps more voices can solve this issue without letting it escalate even further. So, I would like to ask for some help in this. --] (]) 07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


This category seems to contain a large number of items that don't belong, or should be directly in ]. In particular, it is part of the cateogry loop {{nowrap|] → ] → ]}}, with an alternative loop through ] between "Intimate relationships" and "Love". –] (]]) 03:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Legalist vs. legalist ==


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Any views on would be appreciated. Thanks. ] (]) 11:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 00:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:01, 18 January 2025

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPhilosophy
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
WikiProject Philosophy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 25 July 2011.
Miscellany for deletionThis page was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2013. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24



This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Looking for epistemiologist Mioara Mugur-Schächter

The notability of Mioara Mugur-Schächter is being discussed in its talk page. If somebody has some evidence of the notability of her work in philosophy (epistemiology) please consider joining the conservation. ReyHahn (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Peer review of Mind

I was hoping to get some feedback on the article Mind to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. The peer review can found at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Mind/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Seeking for a consensus regarding the "philosophical pessimism" template

Greetings, all.

The user "Paranakyaa" has recently argued against me in these edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Philosophical_pessimism&action=history) that many of the links to the template "philosophical pessimism" should be in red merely because they do not have a Misplaced Pages article still existing for them.

I, on the other hand, tried to argue against them by stating that such red links are unnecessary and make the template look aesthetically unpleasant.

After that, he appealed to the supposed fact there is a "consensus" that such links should be red (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates).

I still maintain my original position, but have no further intent nor energy to engage in any kind of "edit war" with them. If there is still no Misplaced Pages article existing for these works, the fact that they are not dyed in the color blue already indicates this; there is no need to make so many works in the template dyed in the color red.

I am curious as to other users think about this. Please do share your opinion so that we might, in fact, reach a "consensus". Alice793 (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Universal dialectic

Notice

The article Universal dialectic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Spam bucket. Vandal bait. Not enough information to merge, and no obvious targets for a redirect. Delete and salt, please.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) Bearian (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"You lose" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect You lose to the article Godwin's law has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14 § You lose until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Jean Laplanche

Was he notable enough that he should have a separate page on his works at Jean Laplanche bibliography, which was recently created by Honigfrau. I have seen these for nobel laureates, but I feel as part of WP:NPP this question should be asked. I will also post to psychology. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)#Requested move 7 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal for discussion

There is an ongoing merge proposal for Statement (logic) into Proposition that may concern collaborators of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Need help disambiguating several "Mental object"-esque articles

Currently "Mental object" redirects to Mental world, which seems to be a philosophy-related stub. However, there are several articles that seem to be talking about roughly the same concept, and I'm not sure why these are all seperate:

and possibly

"Mental world" seems like It should be more about a representation of reality, rather than an individual object.

So, for a start, I think "Mental object" redirect should be changed to "Object of the mind", which I can go ahead and do. But other than that, I think there needs to be some discussion about clarifying what these articles are about, adding {{About}}/{{For}} hatnotes to each of the articles to clarify their distinction, and possibly merging some.

Sidenote: It seems reasonable that WikiProject Psychology might be interested in this discussion. I might make a post there directing here. Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Teleological argument

Teleological argument has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Alfred North Whitehead

Alfred North Whitehead has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic

Hello! Is there anyone willing to help me improve the article An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic? Thank you! MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Science and Sanity

Hello! Is there anyone willing to help me improve the article Science and Sanity? Thank you! MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy of love is incoherent

This category seems to contain a large number of items that don't belong, or should be directly in Category:Love. In particular, it is part of the cateogry loop Category:Philosophy of loveCategory:Intimate relationshipsCategory:Love, with an alternative loop through Category:Human sexuality between "Intimate relationships" and "Love". –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Periyar

Periyar has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy: Difference between revisions Add topic