Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 24
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
Wikiphilosophers: a new Wikimedia project
Dear thinkers and philosophers, this evening I submitted a proposal for a new project within Wikimedia called Wikiphilosophers. Wikiphilosophers is really nothing more than a place to express philosophical ideas, engage in dialogue about them, and thus arrive at new insights. It is the place to learn about new or reintroduced philosophical concepts from others. I'm curious what you guys think of the idea and I'd love to hear from you! Kind regards, 
S. Perquin (talk) (discover the power of thankfulness!) – 00:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Instant crank magnet. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I had this idea of a "philosopedia" for a long time, but I've just discovered since last week that apparently you can submit proposals for new Wikimedia projects! Why do you think it would not work or be a good idea?
S. Perquin (talk) (discover the power of thankfulness!) – 11:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What you are proposing is essentially a philosophy forum. And given the tendency of existing Wikimedia projects to attract all sorts of eccentrics trying to publicise their (generally uninformed and ill-thought-out) all-encompassing 'philosophical' solutions to the worlds problems (real or imaginary), it would, I suggest, rapidly become overrun with such material, to the detriment of anything relevant to the pursuit of actual knowledge. Furthermore, any forum run by the WMF would, of necessity, require moderation (for legal reasons, if no other), and since the WMF doesn't provide such moderation, this would fall to volunteers. Even if such volunteers could be found, I doubt they'd stick around for long. I speak from personal experience, having had multiple encounters with self-proclaimed 'philosophers' who have mistakenly taken Wikipedia for the ideal place to promote their wild ideas. Almost without exception, such 'philosophers' have proven to be largely devoid of critical thinking, or worse, and almost entirely devoid of any communication skills that don't involve expounding on why they are right about everything, all the time.
- Feel free to disagree with the above, if you like. But can I ask that in doing so you provide sufficient detail as to how you intent to keep the signal-to-noise ratio under control, and to prevent your project from becoming overrun with fixers-of-the-world promoting their perpetual-motion solutions to the energy crisis, cures for imaginary diseases, and routes to world peace through the compulsory consumption of broccoli soup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response! Indeed, there are still many things to consider regarding Wikiphilosophers, such as what quality standards a philosophical idea, concept or theory should meet. My idea is that every philosophical idea should meet a number of requirements yet to be determined. I would like to think about this with others. One aspect is that it must be a serious idea, which according to the writer could really bring about a change or innovation in philosophical thinking. Another idea is that all philosophical ideas, for example, should be substantiated with references to research or studies. There may be room for philosophical ideas that lean more towards the alternative side, but they should not become too wild or exaggerated. Those are also things that should be determined with the community. It's complex, but I believe Wikiphilosophers could have serious potential within the Wikimedia Foundation. That's why I'd like to brainstorm with others about it. S. Perquin (talk) (discover the power of thankfulness!) – 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Another idea that comes to mind, for example, is for users to give each other substantive reviews about their philosophical ideas, and that the overall rating is displayed at the top of the article. It really needs to be thought about together, I think, so I hope there are people who also see potential in my idea for Wikiphilosophers. The wiki offers many possibilities and opportunities, but there are also many drawbacks and things to think about. Rome wasn't built in a day. S. Perquin (talk) (discover the power of thankfulness!) – 16:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- We could also allow ideas to be challenged by people by giving them labels, for example, "Perpetual motion", "Imaginary cure" or "Idealistic solution". This would be displayed at the top of the page. It could then be discussed on the dialogue page (talk page). I think solutions could be devised for everything! But, as I said before, there are still many things to think about... S. Perquin (talk) (discover the power of thankfulness!) – 16:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- We could also allow ideas to be challenged by people by giving them labels, for example, "Perpetual motion", "Imaginary cure" or "Idealistic solution". This would be displayed at the top of the page. It could then be discussed on the dialogue page (talk page). I think solutions could be devised for everything! But, as I said before, there are still many things to think about...
- Another idea that comes to mind, for example, is for users to give each other substantive reviews about their philosophical ideas, and that the overall rating is displayed at the top of the article. It really needs to be thought about together, I think, so I hope there are people who also see potential in my idea for Wikiphilosophers. The wiki offers many possibilities and opportunities, but there are also many drawbacks and things to think about. Rome wasn't built in a day.
- Thank you for your response! Indeed, there are still many things to consider regarding Wikiphilosophers, such as what quality standards a philosophical idea, concept or theory should meet. My idea is that every philosophical idea should meet a number of requirements yet to be determined. I would like to think about this with others. One aspect is that it must be a serious idea, which according to the writer could really bring about a change or innovation in philosophical thinking. Another idea is that all philosophical ideas, for example, should be substantiated with references to research or studies. There may be room for philosophical ideas that lean more towards the alternative side, but they should not become too wild or exaggerated. Those are also things that should be determined with the community. It's complex, but I believe Wikiphilosophers could have serious potential within the Wikimedia Foundation. That's why I'd like to brainstorm with others about it.
- What you are proposing is essentially a philosophy forum. And given the tendency of existing Wikimedia projects to attract all sorts of eccentrics trying to publicise their (generally uninformed and ill-thought-out) all-encompassing 'philosophical' solutions to the worlds problems (real or imaginary), it would, I suggest, rapidly become overrun with such material, to the detriment of anything relevant to the pursuit of actual knowledge. Furthermore, any forum run by the WMF would, of necessity, require moderation (for legal reasons, if no other), and since the WMF doesn't provide such moderation, this would fall to volunteers. Even if such volunteers could be found, I doubt they'd stick around for long. I speak from personal experience, having had multiple encounters with self-proclaimed 'philosophers' who have mistakenly taken Wikipedia for the ideal place to promote their wild ideas. Almost without exception, such 'philosophers' have proven to be largely devoid of critical thinking, or worse, and almost entirely devoid of any communication skills that don't involve expounding on why they are right about everything, all the time.
- What do you mean? I had this idea of a "philosopedia" for a long time, but I've just discovered since last week that apparently you can submit proposals for new Wikimedia projects! Why do you think it would not work or be a good idea?
Bloomsbury Encyclopaedia of Philosophers?
Does anybody have access to the Bloomsbury Encyclopaedia of Philosophers -- specifically, the article below? If so, I would be most grateful for a copy to help with an article I'm working on about its subject.
- Gill, David. "Heurtley, Walter Abel (1882–1955)". Bloomsbury Encyclopaedia of Philosophers. Bloomsbury Philosophical Library. doi:10.5040/9781350052536-0298. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
Thanks, UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Leucippus FAC
Leucippus is currently a candidate for featured article status. Reviews and other feedback are appreciated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
FAC of Knowledge
Hello, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated the article Knowledge for featured article status. So far, there has been little to no response from reviewers and I was wondering whether some of the editors here are inclined to have a look. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowledge/archive1. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
BCE/CE vs. BC/AD in Ancient Philosophy
Hey all,
If any of you have views on BC/AD vs. BCE/CE, would you consider weighing in at Talk:Plato#Era and Talk:Aristotle#Era?
I trust someone will correct me if my read on this is wrong, but the latter seem to be standard in the recent academic literature that articles are supposed to reflect. There’s no chance of confusion, but I think it makes our coverage look unnecessarily out-of-sync with current norms.
More generally, departing from best scholarly practices in order to use less inclusive, religious terminology just makes no sense to me. Another editor, however, has very strong feelings to the contrary and requests an explicit discussion on the talk page.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I vote against anyone with strong feelings on this topic. (smile) I have no big problems with either option, but for form's sake I'll give you a counter argument which is specifically for articles like Plato and Aristotle. First, culturally and linguistically the two systems are just the same system. It is purely a name change. Most general readers can't really even follow the reasoning, so the point of principle is not really a biggy. Secondly and more importantly, I think that these two articles are ones that we want to avoid becoming inaccessible to non-specialist readers. Whatever we think "in principle", BC/AD is better known to general non-academic readers, and such readers can and should be readers of this type of article. So it all comes down to how much evil can come from a name. Academics use both systems and give us no simple guidance. Classicists do perhaps tend to use old fashioned systems a bit more? I tend to think BCE is more used in our specialized history articles, rather than in articles like these but it is just a feeling.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the more recent set of terms actually is confusing to readers, that would be an excellent reason to prefer the older. My own sense, however, is folks know the meaning, whatever terms they use themselves.
- And yes, the only reason the change works is because the actual dates are preserved. I find it inappropriate to speak of events happening "in the year of our Lord" (unless one's audience is known to be Christian), but it's an intellectual annoyance, not at all a personal harm.
- If, as you suggest, it emerges that there is not a clear consensus on best practices, I'll have no problem dropping the issue.
- But, if there is a best practice, let's follow it! The change is quick and easy to make.
- Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- While this isn't the place to re-litigate the general merits of the two systems, given that Patrick has brought up "in the year of our Lord", I feel somewhat justified mentioning that AD means "in the year of our Lord" in roughly the same way that Wednesday means "the day of Odin". --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with you Trovatore, and I made the exact same type of statement at the Talk:Plato#Era and Talk:Aristotle#Era pages in response to the "Christian bias" argument, a talking point that has been through the ringer many times in debates such as Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate. If anything, I see it as more inappropriate to selectively neutralize the Christian element of the calendar but not the pre-christian pagan polytheistic elements of the same calendar in a bid for "religious neutrality", which in effect results in targeting one religious belief system but not others, which itself is religiously biased. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- That was not really my point. My point was that there is really no religious content here in the first place. Very few people (except perhaps those already sensitized to the issue) even notice the origin of the term AD. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The difference that I see is that Christianity is a living and sometimes highly charged cultural and political phenomenon. (I speak from a U.S. perspective, but this is not unique to my country.) Although I've not done any research on the origin of the newer terms, I am assuming that this is no small part of the reason they were coined and, against the odds, have won widespread acceptance, particularly in scholarly writing. Factoids about Odin, Saturn, and co. are located at a considerable historical remove. But imagine, by contrast, a dating system that expressly declares us to all be the children of Allah, or all subjects of the one true Catholic Church, or all hopelessly lost together in a world without god. I would venture to say that large segments of the population would strenuously object to (entirely unnecessarily, mind you!) building those kinds of universal religious claims into a calendar that is supposed to work for everyone just to organize historical material and keep track of dates.
- What is relevant in this context, however, is just that there is broad acceptance of BCE/CE as a replacement for BC/AD. Or am I wrong about this? I would think the question we should be trying to answer is whether or not there is a strong enough consensus in the relevant literature in this particular area of scholarship to warrant implementing my proposed change. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Christianity is living and highly charged, but AD is just not associated with Christianity to any significant extent. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Putting all other aspects of the discussion aside I agree with Torvatore and Crumpled Fire that the terms are not ones which imply religion to the general reader, who is not being silly. I think it is important to include that qualification. I suppose what PatrickJWelsh is referring to is the well-known "culture war" dynamic where people become polarized and look for things to be annoyed about (war on Christmas, cultural appropriation, ...whatever). I don't think WP can spend too much time worrying about that type of dynamic because it will continue to seek new things to be upset about no matter what we do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, I gladly concede that this is silly. I am genuinely embarrassed to have taken the bait. My own (entirely anecdotal) experience, however, is that even folks who don't know the Latin know the sectarian bias. (AD: After [Christ's] Death? Why not, makes sense in English! — just per a dinner conversation last night.)
- Also, it should not be relevant, but I feel the need to state that I would have been totally cool with someone who had done basically any work improving Wikipedia's coverage of ancient philosophy, or anything at all related, making these changes in the course of a general edit. I would not have given it hardly a second thought. But that does not appear to be what is going on here. The editor insisting upon an individual, contextually specific assessment has so far demonstrated zero interest in anything remotely connected to Aristotle scholarship, and declines to engage on these terms.
- Please also note that I have closed out the discussion at the Plato talk page. Discussion, I suggest, should take place at the Aristotle talk page. My intention posting here was only to alert other more knowledgeable editors of the discussion, not to relocate it to this more general forum.
- As always, all best, cheers, etc. — Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Putting all other aspects of the discussion aside I agree with Torvatore and Crumpled Fire that the terms are not ones which imply religion to the general reader, who is not being silly. I think it is important to include that qualification. I suppose what PatrickJWelsh is referring to is the well-known "culture war" dynamic where people become polarized and look for things to be annoyed about (war on Christmas, cultural appropriation, ...whatever). I don't think WP can spend too much time worrying about that type of dynamic because it will continue to seek new things to be upset about no matter what we do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Christianity is living and highly charged, but AD is just not associated with Christianity to any significant extent. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with you Trovatore, and I made the exact same type of statement at the Talk:Plato#Era and Talk:Aristotle#Era pages in response to the "Christian bias" argument, a talking point that has been through the ringer many times in debates such as Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate. If anything, I see it as more inappropriate to selectively neutralize the Christian element of the calendar but not the pre-christian pagan polytheistic elements of the same calendar in a bid for "religious neutrality", which in effect results in targeting one religious belief system but not others, which itself is religiously biased. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- While this isn't the place to re-litigate the general merits of the two systems, given that Patrick has brought up "in the year of our Lord", I feel somewhat justified mentioning that AD means "in the year of our Lord" in roughly the same way that Wednesday means "the day of Odin". --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- There have been various contentious, failed requests to cater to BCE/CE site-wide on Wikipedia in the past (e.g. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate), so a request which would impose a standard of BCE/CE to the limited scope of a specific topic subset is never a good idea. If you feel this strongly about using BCE/CE, you can make a request to change the Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers. In terms of characterizing me as having very strong feelings about it, I will say that I was not the one who arbitrarily changed the era to suit my preference on Aristotle and Essence without first attaining consensus (as per the guideline at WP:ERA), I simply reverted the changes per the guideline. I have never imposed an era change to any article other than to revert other users' undiscussed, non-consensus changes of one era to the other. My arguments for why I disagree that it's appropriate to favor BCE/CE have been added to the Talk:Plato#Era and Talk:Aristotle#Era pages mentioned by User:PatrickJWelsh. Just to stress my view, I am not arguing that we should change all established uses of BCE/CE to BC/Ad on Philosophy-related articles, only that we shouldn't change the established uses of BC/AD to BCE/CE. It is only the OP who is suggesting we change existing established uses of one era notation in favor of another.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, although I do happen to think the MOS should be changed, I lack the patience to argue that case against institutional inertia.
- For now, let's just follow what it currently says, which is to work towards consensus on articles where there is a proposed change to prefer either of two acceptable options. And, as always, follow the best sources available.
- Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
What was a poor article[1] is now an odd article[2] mainly about Hinduism. Some decent sources although I don't know if they are being used properly, some not so good sources such as letter from an ISKCON leader.[3]. I'm not familiar with the subject so hope others can look at at. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Not seeing the “mainly about Hinduism” aspect. Seems to be just one short section of the page. More JudeoChristian coverage would help, up to experts in that area. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess so but sadly I’m not sure about the sources used although the one that is a copy of a letter is bad. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Limitarianism (ethical)#Requested move 4 April 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Limitarianism (ethical)#Requested move 4 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |
Requested move at Talk:Absolute Infinite#Requested move 1 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Absolute Infinite#Requested move 1 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Request for input on political philosophy topic: Splitting 'separation of powers'
Dear friends—
Your input would be much appreciated at Talk:Separation of powers#Splitting off 'branches of government': The solution to finally advancing past 'start class'?, particularly if you think of yourself as a member of the social and political philosophy task force.
Separation of powers is a central concept in normative and descriptive political theory, and a widely-known concept among the general public, generally through participation in high school civics. As such, its perennial status as a start class article is a real shame.
I put its disorganization, lack of concision, and many POV problems mostly down to editors' confusion about what the article should focus on. This confusion is, of course, common to many broad-concept and academically challenging articles.
In my opinion, separation of powers is best described as a (multi-faceted) normative proposal about how to organize political power in political philosophy discourse and in constitution-making; and the application side of this principle is primarily a matter of constitutional theory and law.
Yet, in the article, there is an enormous amount of (unsystematic) content pertaining to individual countries' branches of government (belonging, I think, to the academic discipline of descriptive political science; comparative government, specifically). I have just proposed that these sections be split off into an article called 'branches of government' (or similar).
If you would like to see a rigorous approach to political philosophy concepts like 'separation of powers', I am convinced that adopting my proposal is the crucial first step. But I wish to hear your perspectives; my perspective may be too close, or I may not be considering all the options.
I thank you for your help. §§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Physical paradoxes
Is Category:Physical paradoxes correctly classified as being "within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy"? The talk page of the article Physical paradox gives it as of interest to solely WikiProject Physics. --Lambiam 06:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Carnap
Need to find a free image of Rudolf Carnap. Where is this one from? Cake (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- If here is to be believed, it is under copyright :( Shapeyness (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, at least it's only until 2026 for some of them... Psychastes (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Psychastes: how did you figure out 2026? Shapeyness (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily that specific picture (though I suspect it's one of the earlier ones), but the pictures in that archive are dated "1932,1930,1935" so some of them (and yes, I suppose we'd have to do additional research to figure out which ones...) will enter the public domain in the US in 2026, or 95 years after creation. Psychastes (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well shoot. Nice try and nice find though. Cake (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MisterCake, Psychastes: I happened to be looking in the same place again and there is this one. I believe the back of the photo is shown here dated 1922, not sure how to fully verify that though. Shapeyness (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- It does appear that way. He looks a bit like Randall Rauser there. If you are at all seasoned with Austrian sources I'd love to know one other than Dummett's for Austria and Analytic philosophy. Seeing Ramsey there too is nice. Cake (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, not at all seasoned with Austrian realism sadly. Shapeyness (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- It does appear that way. He looks a bit like Randall Rauser there. If you are at all seasoned with Austrian sources I'd love to know one other than Dummett's for Austria and Analytic philosophy. Seeing Ramsey there too is nice. Cake (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- @MisterCake, Psychastes: I happened to be looking in the same place again and there is this one. I believe the back of the photo is shown here dated 1922, not sure how to fully verify that though. Shapeyness (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well shoot. Nice try and nice find though. Cake (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily that specific picture (though I suspect it's one of the earlier ones), but the pictures in that archive are dated "1932,1930,1935" so some of them (and yes, I suppose we'd have to do additional research to figure out which ones...) will enter the public domain in the US in 2026, or 95 years after creation. Psychastes (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Psychastes: how did you figure out 2026? Shapeyness (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, at least it's only until 2026 for some of them... Psychastes (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Page Philosophy of geography needs some attention.
The page Philosophy of geography is tremendously lacking. I'm a geographer and mostly work in geography related projects, but I thought it could be worthwhile to post here as well. Currently, the page only goes back to the 1930s, and is mostly focused on Western/English/American traditions. I'm digging into the literature a bit to work on this, but it's a bit daunting with how much work I think it needs. Anyone with broad background in philosophy of science would be a welcome contributor! GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Evolutionary_philosophy#Original_research
There is a discussion at Talk:Evolutionary_philosophy#Original_research that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
FAC of Ethics
The article Ethics is currently a candidate for featured article status. I was hoping to get some more feedback from reviewers. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ethics/archive1. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see here. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |
Requested move at Talk:Calls for the destruction of Israel#Requested move 31 July 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Calls for the destruction of Israel#Requested move 31 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Independent review of the discussion in Existential Risk Studies
Hello,
I would like to invite the participants of this project to review the current discussion around existential risk studies. The article was created by me, and since its publication in the mainspace it has been subject to the criticism of some editors. I am having a difficult time engaging with this discussion, as I have exhausted my energy to explain and quote sources while the contesting side hasnt provide a single source contradicting the current presentation or even indicated a single sentence that deserves reformulation, still, the NPOV mark has been added and have been feeling less and less capable to reach any consensus with the current quorum of the debate. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Contemplating GAR for Pandeism
Anything to do last-minute first? Hyperbolick (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Batman: Anarky
Batman: Anarky 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) 02:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes 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) 02:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Request for opinions regarding Dasein article
The dispute resolution process suggests that I post here to request opinions on a current dispute at Talk:Dasein#Removal of wording about earlier usage. The question is whether or not the Dasein article (which is listed as "high-importance" in this Project) should include a brief mention that the term "Dasein" had been used in philosophical contexts prior to Heidegger. -- HLachman (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm posting here again to renew my request for additional opinions, as we seem to be at an impasse. The discussion has become quite lengthy, however, a key sticking point can be identified by looking for the sentence in red ("it is prohibited to..."). If interested, please take a look and let us know your opinion, thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Move discussion for The Void (philosophy)
An editor has requested that The Void (philosophy) be moved to The Void, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Skyerise (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello philosophy wikiproject, just popping by because as a user came past this article and you're one of the two wikiprojects listed for it (alongside psychology) but appear the more correct forum. This article, which has been labelled for OR for about six years just read to me as wrong. Like factually wrong. It does have sources and references but even its opening paragraph statement feels like an OR statement and not reflective of the social understanding and usage of being sentimental. If anything it reads extremely callously and narrowly. I cannot check most of the sourcing due to being books but from the talk page, where posts are several years old, some have stated the references are taken out of context to benefit the articles perception and comments dating back 15 years that the whole thing seems to be a solo perspective diatribe. Could someone give this a gander and see if the whole thing needs an overhaul? Looking at its history this direction of the article dates back all the way to its creation and just no ones cared enough to go in depth on either the changing perception of the phrase and term, or that the article was written more as a thesis rather than a neutral philosophical document. –– Lid(Talk) 11:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sentimentalism (philosophy) is well-defined thing, as is the sentimental novel (it's not clear to me whether sentimentalism (literature) is an encyclopedic topic beyond what's covered there). The article also mentions a sentimental tradition in sociology, but that is not something I know about.
- This article, however, does not appear to have a unified topic. My inclination would be to merge its contents out into those more focused articles as appropriate and turn Sentimentality into a redirect or disambiguation page. As an ordinary word, it's unlikely to meet notability criteria.
- Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's kind of my point, it's all over the place but far and away its mostly "sentimentality is dumb and stupid" from different perspectives without really covering well as you said the ordinary word definition. Its contents neither match the philosophical argument, the novel, or the literature. I wouldn't even know where to merge the content into because the content seems more a think piece rant if anything. This may be an issue with the difference in written discourse between sentimental and sentimentality which despite both words in the dictionary linking to each other one is treated positive and the other is treated negative. Ah language. –– Lid(Talk) 09:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- The article appears to have been largely abandoned for several years, although it might still have active watchers. You should post to its talk page outlining your proposed overhaul. Feel free to copy your exchange here with me to that venue, which is where more detailed discussion should take place.
- Cheers, Patrick (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's kind of my point, it's all over the place but far and away its mostly "sentimentality is dumb and stupid" from different perspectives without really covering well as you said the ordinary word definition. Its contents neither match the philosophical argument, the novel, or the literature. I wouldn't even know where to merge the content into because the content seems more a think piece rant if anything. This may be an issue with the difference in written discourse between sentimental and sentimentality which despite both words in the dictionary linking to each other one is treated positive and the other is treated negative. Ah language. –– Lid(Talk) 09:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Scope of the articles Value theory and Axiology
I was thinking about overhauling the articles Value theory and Axiology. Before I get started, I wanted to hear what others think about the scope of these articles. Most sources seem to agree that "value theory" and "axiology" are synonyms for the same project: the study of values. For example:
- Oxford Handbook on Value theory, p. 1: Value theory, or axiology, concerns which things are good or bad, how good or bad they are, and, most fundamentally, what it is for a thing to be good or bad.
- Problems in Value Theory, p. 17: Axiology (or Value Theory) is the branch of philosophy that studies value.
- Value Theory: A Research into Subjectivity, pp.1, 3: the theory of value, or Axiology, ... the formation of axiology, or value theory...
If we follow this idea, there should be only one article, not two. Some sources distinguish different senses and say that the two terms are synonyms in one sense but not in another, for example:
- Value Theory, p. 6: In this sense, often synonymous with axiology (from the Greek ‘axía’, ‘value’), value theory is usually contrasted with at least two different kinds of inquiries.
- Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry "Value Theory" (lead section): In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”.
If one tried to dig into these sources, it might be possible to justify two separate articles by focusing Value theory on the broad sense and Axiology on the narrow sense (limited to "classifying what things are good, and how good they are"). However, there would still be significant overlap and it wouldn't be clear what to do with the sources that simply treat the two terms as synonyms. An additional difficulty is that some sources reverse these characterizations and see axiology as the wider term ([4]). It would probably be better to have only one article and explain these difficulties in one paragraph in a definition section. For a short discussion on this some years ago without consensus, see Talk:Value_theory#Axiology and Talk:Axiology#Merge_Axiology_and_"value_theory"_entries.
If we decide to have only one article, the next question would be whether the title should be "Value theory" or "Axiology". I would slightly favor "Value theory" but both terms are common. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support a merge into one article. Although I believe "value theory" is the more common term today, "axiology" might be the more common search term—just because it's harder to guess its meaning. As long as there's a redirect, however, and the lead directly mentions the equivalence, I would be entirely fine with either one. Patrick (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the term "value theory" is more common today. This is also true for interdisciplinary works that apply the philosophical idea to other domains. I'm currently reworking the article "value theory", see Talk:Value_theory#Changes_to_the_article. My idea is to include all the main points of the article "Axiology" into the article "Value theory" before converting it to a redirect. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Common Era has an RfC
Common Era, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Do these two articles not have the same subject? Milquetea (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)