| Revision as of 01:10, 31 August 2010 editCRGreathouse (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators12,956 edits →Actual infinity: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:57, 3 September 2010 edit undoFaust~enwiki (talk | contribs)492 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| ]<small> (] | ])</small> 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | ]<small> (] | ])</small> 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == 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) | |||
Revision as of 07:57, 3 September 2010
| |||||||||
Proposed Changes to Atheism Article
Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated.
Three marks of existence
Anyone want to try and rewrite this? It's shocking in it's current state, as far away from NPOV as you could get. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
RfC on Christ myth theory page name
Comments would be appreciated at an RfC about the best title for the Christ myth theory. See the discussion here. 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 Christ myth theory to, for example, Jesus myth theory? SlimVirgin 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Italics permissible in titles of articles on books?
See the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment:Use_of_italics_in_article_titles. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit war Jacques Derrida lead section
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 --Artiquities (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Wittgenstein
I've created a template for Wittgenstein, which can be seen at here if anyone would like to contribute.
The Rhymesmith (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Max Weber - Featured article review
I have nominated Max Weber for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
RfC on Logos
An editor has proposed a complete rewrite of Logos, an article of interest to this project. Please see Talk:Logos#Proposed Re-Write. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
RfC on in-text attribution
Fresh eyes would be appreciated on an RfC about whether, in using in-text attribution for sources on the Historicity of Jesus, we should include whether that source is an ordained minister or similar. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#RfC_on_in-text_attribution. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Intelligent design
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! SlimVirgin 15:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Actual infinity
The article Actual infinity could use some help... a lot of help, really. I'm not even sure where to classify it within Category:Metaphysics. It's also in Category:Philosophy of mathematics which is probably fine, though I don't think this is a particularly mathematical topic.
Actually, even a good philosophical (not historical!) reference would be great.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
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. --Faust (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Category: