Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Lucidish in topic Opportunity
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Most important articles

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

There are many long lists everywhere. Has anyone thought of the most important articles that you would want in any philosophy section? My list is below. A similar thing would apply to philosophical biographies. Lots have 'stub' on them even when the philosopher deserves exactly the amount he or she has been given. There should also be the opposite: a sign to show when inordinate amounts have been devoted to non-entities.

Some of the articles have been written (most are not very good). Some have not. That is just my list, heavily biased towards English Analytic School. But what other sort is there?

List of most important philosophical topics

Dbuckner 17:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

See List of philosophical topics (A-C) and related pages; also List of basic philosophical topics; But the main list is category:philosophy Banno 20:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Let's start from the premiss that I've seen these lists. There are lots of lists. What is the list of the most important philosophy articles? Dbuckner 20:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That would depend in part on what a given individual feels is the most important aspect of philosophy. There's no one "list of most important topics". Maybe you're getting at "list of most fundamental topics"? -Seth Mahoney 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I love lists! I've worked on or have tied together most of the philosophy lists. And the term "important" makes your list philosophical indeed. How should we interpret the word "important", and how do we measure the "importance" of any given article (to be sure that it should go on the list)? What would the purpose of your list be, exactly? That is, who do you want to reach, how do you want to affect/change/improve/influence them, what point do you want to get across, and how should your list be positioned (linked to) within the overall philosophy material? (By the way, I've taken the liberty of sorting and link-activating your list, hope you don't mind). Go for it! 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In your opinion, what is the purpose of philosophy? Go for it! 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What should the main missions/objectives of a philosopher be? Go for it! 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's my list of the philosophical terms I've found so far to be the most important/interesting:

Go for it! 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is probably out of bias, but I would also think that Theology or Theism/Deism, or at least arguments for God's existence are relevant to philosophy (especially if we have agnosticism and atheism - of which theism should be classified with). Also, if Theological noncognitivism is important, then Theology more broadly construed is relevant. Just my two cents! --FranksValli 01:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

meaning of 'important'

I meant important for developing a set of articles that other philosophers will take seriously. As far as I can see, there are no professional philosophers working on the philosophy sections. And it shows. Dbuckner 14:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Biographies

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We also need to look at the question of which philosophers get more time than others. There is the biography of Anscombe which I just noticed. This is very good. But very long. Why is the article on Geach, her husband ( which I contributed btw) much shorter? They probably deserve about the same. This is not a complaint, just an observation that what we call a "stub" is an entirely relative concept. Dbuckner 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you contributed the article on Geach, my guess as to why that article is shorter, is that you didn't write as much :-) --Trovatore 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
See my proposal for a collaboration that would seek to remedy these difficulties. Banno 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)



Philosophy in pop culture sections

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Many philosophy articles, particularly nihilism and existentialism, have sections on "X movement in popular culture", where representations of these philosophies in contemporary film, music, and literature are discussed. (Proposal 1): I think these sections are valuable, and actually should be added to more articles. It might even make a worthwhile collaboration of the month to try to get similar sections going on other articles. (Proposal 2): However, judging by the history on both nihilism and existentialism we need some guidelines for how these sections should work. I'm currently thinking, based on the "no original research" and "cite sources" guidelines, that the requirement should be that someone reputable has written on the particular band, film, book, or whatever (or the author, director, or whatever has written about it), in the given context, and that that source should be cited, with all others being deleted on sight. Any thoughts? -Seth Mahoney 19:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I enjoy the thought of finding the relations in philosophy to film and literature especially. In fact, even they may seem a bit mainstream, there have been several books on philosophy in the "Matrix", and "Harry Potter" and "Star Wars" etc. "The Matrix" is a classic example of a movie chock full of philosophical references. -Chad Boyko 17:39, 6 December 2005

Right! Now here's the trick. I do want to be able to have sections like these in lots of philosophy articles. I don't want every so-and-so's favorite movie stuck in there. (And I hope I'm not being too authoritarian in expressing my wants as if they were everybody's) What guidelines can we use to help ensure that? -Seth Mahoney 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I would object to having such sections in articles. It would be far preferable to have philosophy sections in the pop culture articles. The Matrix has no place in the metaphysics article, but metaphysics might be appropriate in The Matrix. At the least, setting up an article on philosophy in popular culture might save us from a reference to every science fiction book or film ever written in every philosophy article Banno 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
A reference to every science fiction book or film in every philosophy article is exactly what I'm trying to avoid here - what I'd like to see happen is to see more pop culture references that make sense in context, and limit it to that. I do think, however, that many of the articles could well benefit from sections like these. Philosophy is hard stuff, and if someone can say, "oh, hey, I saw that movie, I remember that scene" and then have everything click, that's fantastic. It may also be worth adding that not having pop-culture sections in articles (if we can find a way to keep it serious) would represent an anti-postmodern POV. -Seth Mahoney 00:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I could mount an argument that including references to pop culture was POV, too. What fun! The proof will be in the pudding, so go ahead and make the changes, if you wish - but I think that you are opening a can of worms, and one with little gain for us. Far simpler to put references to philosophy in pop culture articles; the fans will love it, thinking it gives their stuff more credibility, and we may attract new editors in that way. Banno 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Seth, I would be interested in doing some revamping of Baudrillard articles over my christmas holidays. In particualr I think that article of hyperreal needs some revamping. Also I would like to start an article on Symbolic Exchange. I've got a bunch of differnt ideas if you are interested. Szpak 07:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! I thought about starting symbolic exchange and adding a bit in commodity fetishism myself! I just didn't feel quite qualified to do it. I'd be glad to throw in what I can here and there though. -Seth Mahoney 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

An extended discussion of The Matrix in the metaphysics article would be inappropriate, but using summary style would not be: one could have a section on Metaphysical theses in popular culture which says that theses P, Q and R have captured the popular imagination, particularly in works X, Y and Z, and leave a {{seemain|Metaphysical theses in popular culture}} link to the appropriate article expanding on this brief comment. --- Charles Stewart 00:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. However, under what guidelines do we keep everyone from adding every movie and book and pop band and whatever they like to the list (and this is exactly what has happened on two articles I've done work on)? -Seth Mahoney 00:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Each thesis will not usually benefit from more than two or three examples, so insisting on the most notable examples should be easy to do. --- Charles Stewart 00:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe, but how might we define 'notable'? The most google hits seems arbitrary to me... -Seth Mahoney 01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
A recipe for endless edit wars, says this old vet. Banno 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You're probably right. I'd still like to think, though, that there's a way to do it while avoiding the likely problems. -Seth Mahoney 18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: I agree with Banno that it would be better to place philosophical references in the pop-culture articles rather than the other way around, or dedicate a whole article to philosophy in pop-culture. Having pop-culture sections in philosophy articles detracts from the serious subject matter. See meaning of life for and example of this.

I agree that this is a potential problem with this sort of section, but I'd like to point out again that considering pop culture treatments of philosophy to be non-serious could represent an anti-postmodernism POV. -Seth Mahoney 18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
By all means, include them where they are directly relevant or where they clarify a discussion; relevance and clarity will decide the issue. I certainly do not think that we ought seek out and include such references as a matter of policy, and take the view that to do so would be unjustifiably biased towards post modern ideas, since pop cultural treatments of philosophical ideas on occasion simplify and trivialise them ;-) Banno 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No doubt - guess it doesn't matter at this point, but what I suggested above wasn't to include such references as a matter of policy, but only where they make sense, and to have policies in place to trim them down when they get out of control. -Seth Mahoney 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A Dictionary of weird Philosophical Terms

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Would anyone be interested in helping create more definitions for abstract philosophical terms? If so could we maybe start a list under here? I'll start with one for now but I have a bunch written down somewhere that need to have articles!

  • Symbolic Exchange (Baudrillard)

Reply:Ooh, another list!!! I love lists! Are you familiar with the philosophical lists? The comprehensive List of philosophical topics lists almost every philosophy article on Wikipedia (and is intended to list them all). It even includes terms that aren't topics yet, and serves as a sort of topic request list as well, so that all one has to do to create a topic for a term missing in Wikipedia is click on a red link in this list. And they'll already be represented in the list if somebody creates an article for the listed topic on the fly. Please be sure to add your terms to that list if they are not already there. Go for it! 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There's also the List of basic philosophical topics and the List of philosophical isms. The latter list includes definitions, but is only about half complete. I've been looking for someone to help out with filling it in. Perhaps we can team up and work on each other's projects. Go for it! 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Be sure to check out this month's collaboration, the main philosophy article. Join in on revamping it, and you'll get to know the other members of this WikiProject. Go for it! 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So, you like weird terms? Here's one for you:

Go for it! 22:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, what did you mean by "weird"? Go for it! 22:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I didn't mean weird as much as I meant abstract relatively new philosophical terms. I will be keen to help out this december... but I wont be able to until about the 16th; exams and such.Szpak 14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, though some terms may not warrant an article. Maybe, in addition to creating articles wherever we can, it would be a good idea to add as many philosophical terms (and philosophical uses of everyday terms) to wikitionary. Of course, the next step there would be to actually link to wikitionary whenever those terms occur, which would be a big task (I so wish there was a way to use mouseovers to show wikitionary definitions). -Seth Mahoney 17:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Linking to Wiktionary directly is frowned upon; this is because Wiki links should link only to articles inthe same Wiki, to avoid confusing the reader. While there might be an argument for including a section at the bottom of the article with links to Wiktionary references for weird terms, I think that it would be preferable to just make new articles for each. Stubs are underrated. Banno 20:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Watching

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've moved the watching stuff to a sub-page since it is reference material rather than stuff we need to access daily. Banno 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To do or tasks?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since the template is called "Template:PhilosophyTasks", shouldn't we standardise on "Task List" rather than "to do list"? Banno 21:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me, as long as the title on the list and the references to it on the project page are the same. The title has been changed to "task list". Go for it! 22:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, I would have thought Wikiproject Philosophy was a proper name, but philosophy Wikiproject a description. Banno 01:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Important Articles

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Go for it! > I love lists! I've worked on or have tied together most of the philosophy lists.

Unfortunately there are too many lists. Why are people writing lists, when they are working on a database, by the way? My proposal was to have one list, of the most important articles, and concentrate on those.

> And the term "important" makes your list philosophical indeed. > How should we interpret the word "important", and how do we measure the "importance" of any given article (to be sure that it should go on the list)?

Important to the development of a successful internet encyclopedia.

> What would the purpose of your list be, exactly?

To ensure that Wikipedia is taken seriously by philosophers. Dbuckner 21:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Philosophy navigation issue

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Additions and subtractions to the {{Philosophy topics}} have been dominated by two users, Go for it! and Infinity0. I can find little discussion where other Wikiproject members have weighed their thoughts as to this template's features and purposes. Two TfD votes took place, yet TfD votes are for deciding whether a template should exist, not neccesarily its design. With this in mind, the specific issue I would like to address is whether or not the template should include external links, which I believe it should not. The purpose of this template seems to be to provide navigation between Wikipedia articles relevent to philosophy, yet external links do not provide navigation, they provide further reading. Similar navigational templates, such as {{Hinduism}} and {{evolution}}, do not contain external links (and templates in general do not). Futhermore, placement of these external links on the template are redundant with those listed under the external links sections of the respective articles, such as on Philosophy. I don't see any good reason why external links should be on this template, and would like the opinion of other Wikiproject members.—jiy (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The external links go to good sites, but I think these links should be put on the Philosophy page, and not on the navigation template. (The rest of the template looks pretty good though.) WhiteC 04:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
My view, stated elsewhere, is that {{Philosophy topics}} is at best superfluous if the article involved is properly categorised and has a decent See also section, that it detracts from readability, and that it is necessarily POV. That external links are included in what is supposed to be an aid to navigating the Wiki shows yet again that the template is too prone to misuse or misguided editing. Kill the whole thing, please - but at the least, delete the external links. Banno 06:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Nobody will be surprised, that I fully agree with Banno. It's a miracle, that the navigation survived two TfDs, as both ended effectively in Portalize. And my even more fundamental disagreement with putting external links in navigation templates I stated a long time ago.
The only thing that kept me silent since then, is the disappearance of the template from those article I watch. If someone inserts it there, I'll surely revert - at least while external links are included.
Pjacobi 08:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Alright, move those external links to a separate article, maybe Philosophy resources or one that exists already (I don't know if there is one) and link to it from the template? Infinity0 talk 16:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
needless to say, I hate templates as well as lists, and anything else that means you have to do two or more things whenever you do one thing. Add a philosopher, then find any number of lists and update those &c &c. Can't the system itself be fixed so that, when we add a philosopher we put one or more tags on (date of birth, date of flourish and date of death if applicable, plus any other bits and pieces?

In any case, I have a lot of stuff on spreadsheet now, and very easy to dump a textfile that has the right format, if lists and stuff are needed. Dbuckner 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

List of philosophers

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I downloaded List of philosophers into a spreadsheet. Someone had the very good idea of tabulating whether the philosophers are in one or all of three separate encyclopedias. Now I am able to rank the 1700 odd philosophers into four groups (listed in all 3, in 2, in 1 or in none). Roughly there are about 300 in top group, 300 in second, 700 in third and about 500 who are not mentioned in any of the three encyclopedias.

Looking through the top group (3 mentions) these are mostly what you would intuitively recognise as philosophers of the first rank, though there are exceptions like CS Lewis, who is not a philosopher at all (and not really a very good one at that). Generally there is good coverage in WP of these. In the second rank the coverage is much more uneven. In third, there is considerable divergence between the coverage in the encyclopedias, and in WP.

Finally the last group: those not mentioned in the encyclopedias at all, except WP. These fall into the following classes:

  1. Charlatans and self-promoters who have put themselves in.
  2. Scholars who were not philosophers pur sang (e.g. Scaliger)
  3. Journalists and hacks who wrote popular philosophy
  4. Theologians
  5. Mystics and spiritual leaders, and deities.
  6. Actual philosophers

What do we do with these? Also, there was a discussion a way back on whether philosophy = western philosophy or not. what's the view on this? my view is that philosophy is a well-defined subject that happened to develop in the west. there is no eastern philosophy, except in a sense of 'philosophy' that does not apply to the philosophy we are talking about here. Dbuckner 20:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I say cut out 1,3,4,5. 4 and 5 unless the person is a philosopher too (which most 4 and some 5 in fact are). Infinity0 talk

whoops I forgot to add class 6! dean
Delete the lot? What exactly is the point of such a list? What does it do that is not better accommodated in the categories? "I've got them on my list! There's none of 'em be missed!" Banno 20:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Generally I agree, as you know. But this list was useful.

Which Encyclopedias did you use? I can think of at least four you might have used. How do you ensure that foreign langauge names are handled correctly (eg. Averroes in one might be Ibn Rushd in another)? --- Charles Stewart 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This information was already in the List of philosophers - it says which on the page. I did not compile it. Must have been a hell of a job - dean. And to avoid any other confusion, the only point of this list, which I am now maintaining outside WP, is to identify areas where our coverage is less than perfect. This is true of the "top rank" of philosophers, where our coverage of some is pitiful, as well as the other ranks. Generally, looking through the entries they are not as bad as you might imagine. There is a lot of plagiarised material though.

On another point, I see that Irving Anellis has joined the ranks. He is a noted historian of early 20C logic and mathematics at whose feet we are not worthy &c &c. He has done good work on the Russell article and hopefully more. Welcome, Irving, if you are reading this. Why not help with the collaboration on the Logic article. DEan

If they aren't philosophers, then they don't belong on the List of Philosophers! Though don't religion and religious issues fall under philosophy? Did we ever complete a good definition of philosophy for the philosophy article? Maybe that will help. Go for it! 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, I compiled the list with the references. I did it for personal use long before I put it on wiki; I just thought others could use the same information. Some of these questions are the same questions I asked on the talk page of List of philosophers when I improved it. KSchutte 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is responsible for this project?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed most of the rubbish created since 12 December on the Philosophy page. I'm not saying that version is very good, but it minimises the reputational damage against WP of what was there this morning. I identified one culprit in the talk page. But does anyone else want to claim responsibility for this act of vandalism? It appears to be a coordinated affair, organised on this pageDbuckner 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC).

There's no need to go insulting everyone. Nobody "coordinated" the "vandalism". You make some good points in your explaination of your revert, but instead of bitching about how crap the article is, why don't you edit it to make it better?? Infinity0 talk 22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Project FAQ or overview/introduction?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I'm a new member of the project and I'd like to compliment the project members and all contributors on the vast quantity of philosophy articles on WP. I'm not aware of any larger single source of philosophy encyclopedia articles on the entire Internet. Many of the articles are already of great depth and quality. I believe this is or will soon become the best Philosophy reference on the net that all people interested in Philosophy will turn to first. On some of the philosophy forums I frequent many people are quite unaware of just how good the WP philosophy portal is. I ran onto the portal quite by chance. What kind of efforts, if any, are being made to get the word out?

Is there or should there be any effort to recruit the help of academics and scholars?

I was wondering if there is any one introductory article to Philosophy on the WP (i.e. the Project, Portal, Wikibooks, everything) for newbs like myself. I've already managed to figure out many of the basics, but it would have been a little easier and still could be for other newbs if there was a FAQ or something like it that gave an overview and answered the most common questions. The WP in general seems quite busy and confusing at first and they seem to direct you in about 20 different directions to find the information you need to get started.

For example, here are some of the basic Philosophy places on WP I've discovered that would probably help a newb to know about:

Phil. Portal - is the main entry point for Philosophy overview, searching, etc.

Phil. Wikiproject - is the main place to go if you want to help with Philosophy on the WP, if you just want to look up stuff you should go to the portal.

Phil. Wikiproject Talk pages - seems to act as the main forum for the project

Phil. categories - is basically a quick index of philosophy areas, subjects, topics

The main Philosophy WP article - appears to be the primary starting point article that all other philosophy articles branch off of.


These are some questions I think most newbs that want to hang around might have:

Is any one person or group(s) in charge, who?

Who are the philosophy administrators, if there are any?

Is anyone paid or employed to work on the Philos. project?

How do I begin helping?

What are some easy things that almost anyone can do to get started?

I think I can best help by doing X, is that ok or should I really be working the task/todo lists?

Is there a Philosophy help desk or where can I turn to for help?

Should I turn to the general forums for help or is there one primary forum that I can ask questions specific to the Philos. project?


I suspect it might be tempting to tell newbs just to read something like the Project's talk page archives and that will tell them what they need to know no doubt. Some newbs, who might have turned out to be very helpful and productive, might be discouraged by such a suggestion. The higher you set the bar the less likely you may be to get the help of busy academics and scholars. If the entry learning curve is too steep, some very knowledgeable and potentially helpful people might decide its not worth the effort. That's the primary reason I think it might be a good idea to have a single simple, concise document that tells people all the basics they need to know to begin helping. I know this information is already available, but you have to look in several different places if you even know where to look.

So, in a nutshell, does such a document already exist, if so where is it and should it be moved top, front and center of the Philos. Wikiproject page?

These are just questions and suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

Thanks, --Jim 02:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Organization is mostly ad-hoc. Nobody is really in charge (especially not me), but people who make lots of good contributions get more respect. If you DO want to look at a FAQ page, I think the general Wikipedia Help (over in the navigation bar) should, well, help with questions about how Wikipedia works in general. I think philosophy is in the process of becoming organized as we speak. Anybody can help by doing things like proof-reading (easiest), doing to-do things, contributing to pages they know something about or starting good new pages (most effort--in my opinion, anyway).
If you think you can help best by doing X, go for it. If you're worried about reaction to it, suggest the change on the article's or philosophy project discussion page first, wait a day or 2, and then do it. But whichever way you go, be prepared for criticism, which will hopefully be constructive. I'm sure other people can help with more specifics about things in philosophy that are getting organized... I tend to just plunge in and learn by making mistakes. WhiteC 04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the questions. My response is under the next heading. Go for it! 11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A make-shift philosophy FAQ

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm sorry I didn't answer sooner, I've been somewhat preoccupied with Wikipedia as a whole. I may have bitten off more than I can chew. (I'm trying to get a link to the Philosophy Portal put on the Main Page.) But I'm back now, so I'll try to answer your questions point-for-point...

  • There are no organized efforts by the Philosophy Project to get the word out. We pretty much focus our attention inwards upon Wikipedia. However, speaking of getting the word out, if the forums you wrote about have links in the reference sections of the relevant articles here, that could lead readers of Wikipedia to those forums, where they are likely to mention their discoveries at WP. If you frequent other Philosophy web-pages, you might want to provide links to the Wikipedia philosophy pages.
  • Wikipedia spreads by word-of-mouth. I suspect that the majority of Wikipedians are college students. If this is so, I'd lay a wager that their professors are well aware of Wikipedia. As for scholars, at least the encyclopedia companies and their scholars and writers are hyperaware of Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is rapidly becoming the largest encyclopedia in the world (if it isn't already), and by extension their fiercest competitor. "If you build it, they will come."
  • Where is the best place to get started? Well that depends on what you already know, and what you want to learn. Therefore perhaps the best place to start would be the List of basic philosophical topics and the List of philosophical topics. From those you can decide where to go next. The Glossary of philosophical isms might also prove useful (it sure helped me while I was building it). By the way, the Glossary isn't complete, so you may want to try your hand at filling in the missing definitions (they can almost all be found on Wikipedia, and can be cut and pasted in). The main article on Philosophy is also a very good place to start, as is the Philosophy Portal.
  • There are Wikipedia FAQs, so creating a FAQ about WP's philosophy resources isn't a bad idea! The Wikipedia provides many ways to access knowledge.
  • Your identification of the basic philosophy places on WP is pretty complete, but you missed the lists. There are lots of philosophy lists. Conveniently, almost all of them are listed in the List of Philosophical Lists.

Questions newbs might have, and their answers

Is any one person or group(s) in charge, and if so, who? The admins kind of police the WP, and are sort of in charge in that respect. Concerning newbs who need help, the WP itself is in charge of that -- the most accessible help available is written down! Currently, help for newbs is on a Wikipedia-as-a-whole level, rather than at the subject level.

Who are the philosophy administrators? I don't know of any. Though User:Banno has been nominated for adminship, and should be an admin within a few days. He will definitely have his hands full.

Is anyone paid or employed to work on the Philos. project? No. It's a labor of love.

How do I begin helping? Read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy page. It has a list of basic tasks or chores that need to be done to maintain the subject of philosophy on the Wikipedia. If you want to start out with something super simple, placing the template {{Philosophy}} at the top of the talk pages for philosophy articles is probably the easiest.

What are some easy things that almost anyone can do to get started? Some other easy things (listed on the project page) include:

  • Placing the template {{Philosophy portal}} (which is a link box that leads to the philosophy portal) in philosophy articles
  • Adding definitions to the List of philosophical isms

Another easy task would be proofreading philosophy articles for grammatical errors and typos.

I think I can best help by doing X, is that ok or should I really be working the task/todo lists? Both. Do what you enjoy, but help out with what needs to done too.

Is there a Philosophy help desk where can I turn to for help? The talk page of the philosophy project.

Should I turn to the general forums for help or is there one primary forum that I can ask questions specific to the Philosophy project? see the WikiProject Philosophy talk page

Is there a single simple, concise document that tells people all the basics they need to know to begin helping on philosophy on Wikipedia. It's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy page. You could help us make it simpler by critiquing it on its talk page.

So, in a nutshell, does such a document already exist, if so where is it and should it be moved top, front and center of the Philos. Wikiproject page? It is the Philosophy Wikiproject page.

I hope I've been of help. Where do you want to go from here?

Go for it! 11:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We made it to the Main Page!!!

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The new browsebar from the Philosophy Portal got placed on Wikipedia's Main Page (!!!), but some POV'er removed Art and Philosophy from it. He cited the discussion on Template talk:MainPageIntro#portal:art and portal:philosophy. However, that discussion was tied 2 to 2. Please go there and support Art and Philosophy. Art packs a lot of punch for being only 3 letters, while Philosophy is on the same level as Science, both of which rank above Mathematics on the hierarchy of fields. But we're almost there! See ya at that discussion! Go for it! 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Meditation is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved and could help us bring it up to featured standard, please vote for it here! --Fenice 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing article

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What about an article like Philosophizing ? In german language it's already existing, see de:Philosophieren. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 19:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Would our equivalent be the stub Philosophical analysis? Banno 03:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, might be, but the German article tells more about the human ability to reason and think about "life, universe and everything", or literary translating the meantioned proverb, "talking about god and the world". -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 20:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Proofreading and editing the project page

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I find the phrasing of recent edits to this page, together with the structure involved, quite problematic. I have refrained from comment in the hope that some one else would raise the subject, but no one has. Talk of Honours, Duties, Recognition and Requirements are, it seems to me, profoundly against the spirit of the Wiki. Am I alone in thinking that the tone of this page has become too strong? Banno 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) See also Template:Philosophy. We do not set standards - although we can make recommendations. The project does not own the philosophy pages! Banno 08:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you were right, upon rereading it, it did sound a bit authoritative for a WikiProject. And a little misleading. So I gave it a quick once over, changing "requirements" to "guidelines", "duties" to "tasks", "honors" and "recognition" to "award", etc. It reads a bit more casual now. Thanks for proofreading, it really needed it! Go for it! 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Publicity for an RFA

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I hope that the Philosophy Project participants have an interest that one of their own might have admin powers. You are invited to cast your vote at WP:RFA on Banno's candidacy. --Ancheta Wis 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#Certification gang

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

would you like to create certified articles in philosophy? -- Zondor 03:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please define "certified" -- Go for it! 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Certified is a guarantee of accuracy by some gang or interest groups on Wikipedia. Initially, they are gangs hoping to become teams then a professional league. Stable versions would most importantly be certified and are an endorsement by Wikipedia that they are reliable, otherwise they are no different to the current system we already have. So at any given time, we can demand a print edition of Wikipedia 1.0. Whereas, the wiki version serves as the playground for boldness, experimentation and to be cutting edge. Once you have made the published stable version, you can forget about it and concentrate on the wiki version. Eventually, it becomes better than the previous stable version, you then supplant it after it has been certified for accuracy. -- Zondor 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Category: Contemporary philosophers

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Category:Contemporary philosophers was deleted due to this vote. Only four people voted, none of whom (in my opinion) really had a grasp of what they were doing. I think that we should nominate the category for undeletion. — goethean ॐ 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have nominated the category for undeletion. Please vote! — goethean ॐ 16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I voted. Also, I think the task box could be put to good use by having important announcements such as this one highlighted right at the top of it. At the present time, a section called "discuss deletion" is buried in its sourcetext somewhere, and is commented out. Banno's nomination for adminship, for instance, should be placed announced on the task box. Or we could create a new box for announcements, but the task box is already on many philosophy project members' user pages. Go for it! 11:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Disquotationalism

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've added a redirect from Disquotationalism to Redundancy theory of truth, which looks the same to me. But if I've missed some subtlety (I'm not a philosopher) please let me know. --Trovatore 22:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They are not, on my understanding, quite identical, there being some redundancy theorists who are not distquotationalist... but I think the re-direct is fine. Banno 23:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I also edited the article, referencing the disquotational theory. If there's a distinction, you might want to have a look and see if it looks reasonable. --Trovatore 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. Banno 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Stub suggestion/request

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A lot of our stubs are biographical stubs (for instance, earlier, Proclus could have been a bio stub, and Abu Ya‘qub al-Sijistani is a stub), not just general philo-stubs. I mistakenly tried several times to do {{philo-bio-stub}}, which seems like a good idea to me. How about it? --maru (talk) Contribs 06:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

UC, Irvine class project

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Professor Jeff Barrett is allowing graduate student in his graduate level "Epistemology of Science" class to write/rewrite two wikipedia articles in order to receive a grade in his class. The articles will be in the area of Philosophy of Science somewhere, likely in either Philosophy of physics or Formal epistemology. At least two students have expressed some interest in doing this. I have offered to be a liason for this project, but I thought I would warn everyone in case something radically changes without warning :) If anyone has any concerns about this project, or about anyone you think might be working on an assignment, please drop me a message. Also, if you have any pages that you would like to have some TLC in these areas tell me and I'll suggest them in class. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent use of the Wikipedia, and I'm sure the contributions will be most welcome. Great! Banno 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Epistemology

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section on Gettier has been promoted. Does this decrease readability? Comments welcome. Banno 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Existential struggle

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I found Existential struggle via Special:Random; it's a pretty bad nonsense substub, and it hasn't been touched since its creation in September. Is the phrase "Existential struggle" worthy of an article? Or should we just delete/redirect it? Melchoir 20:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like meaning of life. Infinity0 talk 20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Done! Future readers, feel free to revert me if appropriate. Melchoir 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Sorry I didn't have time to look through all the old discussions, but I would just like to make everyone involved aware of this fantastic resource. I apologise if this has already been brought to the attention of everyone... Teutanic 14:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've actually used this resource myself on an occasion or two, and have found it very helpful. Eluchil 04:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you're googling for it some day, note that it uses the American English spelling encyclopedia. --Trovatore 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

asking a question here directly

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there, Would love to hear back from anyone who has a comment or theory on whether or not there is any way of determining whether there are limits beyond which human knowledge cannot go? Please respond to adster69@hotmail.com

Could someone explain to me how Adorno's opposition to totality is different from Lyotard's opposition to Meta-Narratives. (sorry if opposition wasn't the right word here, but yeah...) Thanks!--Urthogie 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Who taught whom?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think it might be neat to put one of those boxes at the bottom of the page (like they do with political offices and whatnot with the previous person and the subsequent person) with the prominent teachers and students of the philosophers. Then we'd be able to capture interesting chains like:

...Cassirer taught Reichenbach who taught Putnam who taught Field...

Anyone else think this might be a clever and/or interesting addition to this encyclopedia? KSchutte 03:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think this would be great. My undergraduate advisor claimed that every currently practicing philosopher of science could be traced (via this chain) to the Vienna Circle, Popper, or the Berlin group. I wonder if he's right. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Definantly. I've seen them before, but mostly in fictional articles. Very handy. I think we should tap the well, so to speak. Eluchil 05:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, CBDunkerson from this page was nice enough to make me a template: Academia. But it's pretty ugly (especially if you read the web in an enlarged font, like I do). Is there anybody here who understands wikicode well enough to make it look better before I start putting it in a bunch of articles? KSchutte 15:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The article on Philosophy is pretty awful. Could those interested in this project help to come to its rescue? As the term "philosophy" is notoriously difficult to define, and the activity to explain, and as there are very diffferent and inconsistent views among philosophers of different traditions, the task is a difficult one, but it needs to be tackled. At the moment, the article gives the impression of being made up of lots of scraps written independently by various people who have an interested-laity grasp of limited parts of the discipline. Articles like Philosophy, Science, mathematics, History, etc., should be the flagships of an encyclopædia, but this one's a bumboat at best. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

...Sure. Eluchil 05:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a sloop. I want a sloop. (I'll try to look at that soon.) KSchutte 17:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
More of a Clipper ship I think. Eluchil 08:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd thought that this was a project taken seriously; if it's populated by a bunch of Usenet types, I understand why the article's such a mess. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Terminology and consistency

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In looking at the atheism article, I noticed an inconsistency. In the 'Weak and strong atheism' section, there is the sentence:

Theists claim that a single deity or group of deities exists.

However, the 'Belief in God as a non-being' section states:

Even the broadest definitions of atheism often do not include belief in a conceptual or metaphysical God, categorizing this under theism instead.

where this refers to pantheism and related concepts.

When I was initially reading the article, I noted on the Talk:Atheism page, that the first sentence above did not cover pantheism. I received an answer stating that pantheism and like ideas were often considered deism rather than theism.

While I might try to make the article internally consistent using my own choice of terminology, there is no guarantee that consistency would hold for any of the related articles. I also have no reason to believe that my choices would be likely to reflect any consensus among philosophers on how these terms should be defined.

In any case, my purpose in commenting here is not to point out this minor inconsistency but rather to raise the following: has any attempt been made to provide terminology guidelines for philosophy articles? Admittedly there is something a little odd about terminology guidelines for articles intended to define terms, but while a particular page may be devoted to detailing all the possible vagaries of a given term, should there not be some definition chosen as a reference point (even if it must be chosen arbitrarily) so that related pages have a chance of reaching some level of consistency?

Is there some method used by the Wikipedia community for achieving this kind of consistency that I'm unaware of?

I'm still trying to figure out if I'm even asking the right question. After writing the above, I found the Glossary of philosophical isms, which seems like it could serve the purpose I'm describing. However, it does not appear to be being used as such. For example, the person who answered my query on Talk:Atheism did not refer to the glossary and provided an answer inconsistent with it – and said person seems to be a fairly active Wikipedian with a decent background in philosophy (though not a member of this project).

Maybe the best answer to my question is the fact that some of the more useful information I've found is in a section called 'Makeshift FAQ' hidden in the middle of a long discussion page...

Anyway, I don't mean to complain. Just file me under confused newb.

--Plover 07:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You've hit a perennial problem: in matters relating to religion, personal ideas take on the status of absolute truths, and consensus becomes almost impossible to achieve. For example, I've also seen the claim that pantheism is considered to be deism rather than theism — that is, I've seen it on Wikipedia, nowehere else. Pantheism is neither theism nor deism, of course, though it's marginally closer to the former than to the latter. The field of atheism is particularly fraught, as there's a tradition of hair-splitting definition-making and distinction-drawing on Usenet and other Internet forums that's mercifully absent from the serious literature (e.g., the strong vs weak debate, etc.) It would be nice to think that this would be sorted out, but I suspect that it never will be. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't just a problem in religion. It's kind of hard to write good articles on basic logical operators without having to re-explain what a statement is every time because I can't just stipulate it. And I can't really find a way around this problem. If you ever find a good way to stipulate, I'd love to hear it. KSchutte 02:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Philosophy improvement

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

If there's anyone here who'd like to take part in an attempt to develop a concensus on improving the Philosophy article, I've started a project to do so on its Talk page. I'm hoping for discussion, leading to consensus, leading to edits, rather than a bunch of individual unilateral edits (which has been the pattern in the past, and part of the reason for the mess it's in now). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to put on record that I've given up. Too many inflated egos, and the more inflated the less the corresponding understanding and knowledge. Perhaps this sort of article is just something that Wikipedia can't do well. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can somebody please have a look at the Talk:Cosmology page? I wrote the Cosmology article, because what was there before was all about physics (see physical cosmology) and now there seems to be some disagreement about what the hell to do with it, so I thought I'd ask some philosophers. Thanks. –Joke 01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Praxis School

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I have just started an article on Praxis school of philosophy. If anybody knows anything on the topic, or simply has comments, please contribute. --Bora Nesic 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism issues

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all, a bunch of trolls associated with www.anus.com insist on adding a link to their site in the See also section of nihilism. I've been dealing with it for a couple months now, deleting the links, talking to User:Prozak, ignoring User:Iconoclast, and trying to deal with the various anons that keep popping up. But, I'm getting sick of it, and I have more interesting things to do. If anyone is interested in trying to mediate this issue, or just get these users banned (my preference), you might review Talk:Nihilism and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Seth Mahoney and Nihilism to get up to speed on what the dialogue looks like (warning: It isn't pretty) and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anus.com, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Nihilist Underground Society for some history regarding this site's relationship with Wikipedia. I'd appreciate any help anyone has to offer. Thanks. -Seth Mahoney 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Solipsism

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recent major edits of Solipsism could really use more eyes. Another editor and I have come to a disagreement, and rather than have it get out of hand, I would prefer if others would get their fingers into this worthy topic. Thanks. -Harmil 07:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Split of List of philosophers

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article List of philosophers has gotten too big to load properly. I would like recommendations on how to split it up into a series of smaller articles. One way I'm considering is the way List of philosophical topics is split up (A-C, D-F, or whatever). Another way that might be more useful is something like the following: {List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy, List of philosophers born in the 20th century, List of philosophers born in the 19th century, and so on). Any feedback or other recommendations would be helpful. KSchutte 19:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose another way to do it (a way that I recommend against) might be to split it up by tradition, somehow figuring out how to separate Eastern philosophers from Continental philosophers from Analytic philosophers from whatever else there is. This would be sloppy and controversial, but still a possibility, I suppose. KSchutte 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with A-C, D-F, ... etc; relatively uncontroversial. I vote against the living, 20th, 19th century categorization; we already have a list in those particular articles e.g. 19th century philosophy. I'm also against the split by tradition as reason given. (sloppy and controversial). Poor Yorick 20:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's surely true that the alphabetical option would be more orderly, but I think the chronological division would actually have some substantial utility. A person whose major area of emphasis is Ancient Greek philosophy would automatically have a very handy and extensive list of the major and minor figures (and an occasional Eastern ancient that can be easily ignored if the scholar so desires). Furthermore, the benefit of a List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy will allow us to avoid making judgement calls: "Is Anthony Brueckner a philosopher (and thus a valuable addition to the list), or is he just an academic of philosophy (and thus maybe doesn't belong on the list)?" Furthermore, that list might have much more useful information added to it than birthdate (i.e., institution, area of emphasis, maybe even google hits) that might be useful to someone looking into graduate schools, and trying to figure out whom he or she would like to learn from and study with. (We might even get some help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics). I guess basically what I'm saying is that we want to attract academics to wikipedia, and the only way we can really do that is by making it useful. KSchutte 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think it's necessary then by all means. Look at List_of_countries#Other_listings, there are so many "lists of countries by", such as by GDP, by Population, by Area, by Continent by Size, etc. We can have list of philosophers by alphabet and by era. Poor Yorick 05:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Academia Template

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Here's this thing: Template:Academia. It meets the minimum standards for attractiveness to put in articles. Hopefully, someone can make it look pretty. Here's Quine's box:

Academic Genealogy
Notable teachers Notable students
Alfred North Whitehead Donald Davidson
David Lewis
Daniel Dennett

Hope you guys like it. KSchutte 05:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'd still like some feedback on that splitting List of philosophers thing. KSchutte 05:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem of evil

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Problem of evil has a backlog of two "things to do". Specifically, Talk:Problem_of_evil#Some_extra_content.3F and Talk:Problem_of_evil#.22Moral_argument.22. I don't know the details or the specifics, but someone who does, could they please do something about it? Thanks :) -- infinity0 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please go vote against deletion on Paul Boghossian. KSchutte 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What first drew me into Wikipedia (for better or for worse!) was: whenever I encountered a philosophical concept I didn't understand, I'd always come to Wikipedia and know I could find not only a sharp explanation, but also hours of fascinating tangential reading... From my perspective, you guys must be doing something right. I think WP's philosophy articles are among its best. --Hyphen5 05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Slavoj Zizek article getting unbalanced

Latest comment: 18 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion

I reckon a lot of editors here are at least passingly familiar with Zizek. I'm having a bit of a problem over at the Zizek article; minor as such things go, but I think some intervention from some experienced editors here couldn't hurt.

Basically, a few anonymous editors (and a couple named ones) have written a much-too-long "Critiques" section. This section lists rather impressionistic criticisms by rather unimportant (or maybe of minor importance) thinkers. None of the stuff in the "Critique" section is really wrong per se. Some people really did write a few criticisms. But it bumps up against a rather strong "undue weight" problem—both in the number of words in that section as a raw fact, and in the general "who-cares"-ness of the critics and criticisms chosen.

In the past, I've found a similar problem in both the Lacan and Freud articles. A little bit in Adorno too, FWIW. Way too much of biographies of difficult academics get filled up with facile comments by other thinkers whose comments seem to amount to little more than "I don't understand Lacan (Freud/Adorno/Zizek/etc)." For a while there was something in the Lacan article where Chomsky made basically that comment... which is actually fine on Chomsky's part, and was not even a badly phrased comment, but it's hardly of encyclopedic interest when reading about Lacan. Or anti-semite Kevin MacDonald criticizing Adorno as "too Jewish" (which I finally killed from the article). The Zizek critiques are also at a similarly trite level. It's one thing if Negri, or Butler, or Laclau want to take serious issue with Zizek: let's definitely report on that in the bio (albeit concisely); but someone padding their resume after skimming a Zizek book isn't notable for the biography (which basically would include a couple articles by me, in full disclosure mode... but I sure don't want "Mertz" cited in the Zizek bio either).

Please help! All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability of criticism

I'm afraid that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters here has some extremely subjective ideas about what constitutes "notability". I have attempted to enter into a dialogue with him, but he has abjectly refused to go into detail about exactly why the critiques listed on the Zizek page are invalid. Thus far his argument amounts to "these scholars are unimportant because I've never heard of them, and/or disagree with them" and flowing from that: "Zizek must be right because he is more famous". One of the things I've tried to tackle generally on Wikipedia is the horrible spectacle of fawning, fanboyish articles on certain people (unfortunately this happens as much, if not more, with famous academics as it does with movie stars) which is why I have helped contribute to a critiques section on the Zizek page. Surely criticism and the response to it is a vital element of academic discourse, and should therefore play a significant part in any article about an academic. Ramanpotential 08:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that this imperative to present criticisms within academic bios seems to be the sole province of thinkers in a Marxist or psychoanalytic tradition. It probably has to do with some bias in Anglo-American analytic philosophy departments. Just looking at a couple contemporary analytic thinkers of fairly major stature, I notice a complete absence of "Critique" sections. For example, take a look at the articles on John Rawls or Robert Nozick (neither of whom lack critics, of course). Let alone more "traditional" thinkers like Kant, Hume, Hegel, J.S. Mill, or the like.
Additional data points (and people roughly the same age as Zizek) might be Daniel Dennett, who is somewhat controversial, but lacks a "criticism" section in his article. Peter Singer has a shorter criticism section, in a much longer article than Zizek; but there most of the criticism has to do with popular use/reception of Singer's opinions. The "criticial imperative" by (some) WP editors is definitely slanted towards a very specific type of philosophical thinking.
The articles on analytic philosophers are much more encyclopedic in focus, of course. Wikipedia isn't the right place for original research, and actively engaging in contemporary debates. Professional journals exist for that purpose. An academic biography really isn't an appropriate place for "criticism" sections; and if they must have them, the sections should be constrained to concise descriptions of genuinely notable critics.... i.e. exactly what is done for (nearly) every article on an analytic philosopher. Anyway, some help over at the Zizek article would be great; especially given Ramanpotential's increasing prediliction for more-and-more aggressive personal attacks on me over there (and a little bit up above). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing in the Critiques section is original research. As for the hysterical "personal attacks" accusations, they constitute far more of an attack than anything I've said about you. Saying it over and over won't make it so. Ramanpotential 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Special pleadings

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters rejection of David Bordwell as either a "rather unimportant" or "minor important thinker" condemns his judgement of the entire critique section. Lulu may not be aware, but Bordwell has written extensively in the field of cinema studies. The fact Slavoj Žižek constantly presents himself as someone who knows something about film makes David Bordwell more than qualified to to engage Žižek in academic debate. Pretending that Bordwell's criticisms are invalid because someone is unfamiliar with (or doesn't understand!) them does not make them so. Assuming that Bordwell is automatically wrong because he does not need to derive his rejections from from Freud, via Lacan, amounts to nothing more than an academic pissing contest. It is a debating trick, designed to protect Žižek from any criticism based on methods of logical reasoning that Žižek does not ascribe to.ShowsOn 12:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC) ("first edit": by editor apparently intimately familiar with both me and with Wikipedia) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I am aware that you are on record as saying you wish you had written what is in most of Žižek's (english) books, hence I don't consider you qualified to determine what is and what is not legitimate criticism of Žižek's work.ShowsOn 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Really?! I'm "on record" as saying that? I've written a few essays that touch on Zizek (none exclusively about him, but maybe three or four academic papers in which he's a major source). I don't actually recall that specific comment, but it doesn't sound so terribly different from my style of writing. I guess it's flattering that someone bothered to read any papers by a third-rate philosopher like myself. FWIW: I'll hereby go on record as also wishing I had written most of what is in W. V. O. Quine's books too; or in Michel Foucault's books. If I could understand anything in any of Theodor Adorno's books, I might wish I wrote those too :-). There are lots of philosophers (and other theorists) I have a great admiration for... Zizek is indeed among them. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It is in your own dissertation (pp. 131 - 132), the one that references ten Žižek books, while simultaneously only 'touching' on Žižek (75 touches by my count). I would like to think you could remember it, or maybe it is easily forgotten because it was written by a 3rd (?) rate philosopher? (You said so yourself...) Specifically, you wrote that Žižek "snatched away three-fourths and half written words" that you "wished to use in my own essays and chapters".
Tee hee. I had almost forgotten what a clever writer I was when I got to write philosophy. I'm still pretty good writing about technical topics, but I miss the degree of literary license and creative word play that philosophy allows. Thanks for reminding me of that really nice phrase. I know you're trying to insult me, but it puts a big smile on my face (though likewise any insults "falling stillborn from the keyboard"; moreover, I offer to send you a million lire if you find enough erudition to recognize the allusion). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
When I first read "three-fourths and half written" I thought of the Gettysburg address, but I must have been freely associating. I am aware that punning, or as you put it, being a "clever writer" who uses "creative word play" counts as well reasoned argument in some university faculties. I am concerned that you are letting it cloud your judgement of what is acceptable in an encyclopaedia article. Apart from that, I found the free associative film interpretations in your dissertation ‘interesting’. I'll have to watch Thelma & Louise again and get back to you, after all, I can use the term 'feminine jouissance' as well... ShowsOn 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a weird tangle of jealousy, admiration, potential plagiarism (by Žižek, or you, who can say?), and of course hero-worshiping. Your statement that you wish you had written something that you do not understand is both funny and a terrifying prospect for the future of the Humanities, so let us both try to forget about it. I am waiting for you to explain why the critiques of Žižek are wrong, but given your worship of him, it seems that any criticism of Žižek (or amendment of the Žižek page) is taken as a personal attack on you. After all, you came up with those 'ideas' first, Žižek just managed to publish faster. (Drats!) ShowsOn 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If you like, you can add Susan Sontag to folks whose books I wish I had written. Do the youth today still read her rather delighful Against Interpretation? Or just echo third generation knock offs? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
In the interest of being constructive, I invite you to re-write most of the Žižek page, the fanboy stuff relies too much on highly disputed interpretations. You may not be aware, but the entire practice of 'reading' films as an analytical method is disputed in cinema studies. So, let us set aside that Žižek himself has trouble explaining terms without interpreting (often) Hitchcock's films (so little time, so many Hitchcock films...). I propose that the page should be informative even for people who have no interest in Hitchcock's films, or for those that have no idea what "MacGuffin" means, or alternatively, unlike Žižek, understand it is an ambiguous term. Lastly, some readers understand that the operation of horror films is a topic open to significant debate in both philosophy and cinema studies, currently the page assumes that Žižek's laughably simplistic interpretation is the only valid explanation.ShowsOn 06:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Certainly this indicates that you are probably not a good candidate to work on the article.
Wow, the old "you can't criticise Žižek because you don't understand Žižek" argument, that arrived a bit later than expected.ShowsOn 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty weird to fail to notice the majority of the current article that isn't about film.
Yeah that is weird, what would Lacan say about me!? However, I do think the article makes several disputable references to film and film makers. There are references to directors Alfred Hitchcock and David Lynch as if Žižek is an authority on both. Interpretations of parts of The Truman Show and The Full Monty, an analogy between Objet Petit a, and Alfred Hitchcock's application of the MacGuffin story as an analogy for a narrative principle. (yes, an explanation of narrative form that is an analogy derived from interpreting another narrative) Lastly, the (entire!?) Horror film genre is mentioned as if the effects of horror films are unitary (how under-grad can one get)... Of course, most of the film references are employed to 'explain' terms, but they are just interpretations open to dispute. ShowsOn 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Or for that matter, the fact that Zizek doesn't "read" films in the sense you're referencing (I know what that school of film studies is about, of course, but Zizek doesn't belong to it).
He uses films as free associated metaphors (or analogies) to amusingly explain concepts that he is unable to clearly define in words. The film is the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine (Theory) go down. (Oh crap, now I sound like Žižek). I understand how he operates, I think someone should be able to explain his terms using 'basic' principles, instead of using film interpretations as if they are facts. If someone interprets the films differently, does that change the meaning of Žižek's terms?. ShowsOn 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the current Zizek article is all that great; I didn't write much anything in it, FWIW.
I am not here to blame. I propose that you, or someone else, go forth and edit the main Žižek page. You seem to have a rough idea what his major 'points' are. Just take out the stuff that is controversial (i.e. all the interpretations) so that can be left for the criticism page. If that is too hard, or impossible, then I guess that is Žižek's problem, or should that be 'symptom'? ShowsOn 10:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Mostly I've just tried to stop it from getting worse through efforts of misguided POV-mongers. Not sure if I'll get around to any substantial improvement of the article... fighting the brush fires is hard enough, especially the atmosphere of flaming sophomoric "critics" productive work seems to attract. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Still with the unearned condescention at every turn, I see. It really doesn't help your case in the least. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 08:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop with the WP:PA. Don't you have anything else to do on WP other than such attacks. If not, maybe your time could be better spent in some other activity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
For as long as you refuse to apologise for and retract your false accusations against me, and for as long as you mock me on your user page, you would not have a leg to stand on even if I HAD personally attacked you. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If or when I come to believe that Ramanpotential, ShowsOn and 58.160.223.124 are "virtual" names of distinct physical human individuals, I will be happy to state that such is my belief. I cannot do so in good faith currently (which means I cannot do so, I never act in bad faith); however, FWIW, my personal appraisal of the identity has shifted slightly from "almost certainly" to "most probably", which is a bit in the direction of skepticism. Obviously, as I've always stated, should such identity pertain, it's not a violation of sockpuppet rules, since these accounts were not used for any voting, nor to evade any block.
I find your prior comment rather too delightfully charming not to use on my "wish I had said" quotes. However, if you really feel that terrible about what you yourself wrote, I guess I could change the diff link into something like (identity redacted) in the quote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, skepticism would be not believing something unless you can prove it. If there's anything more I can do to prove that I'm not operating a sock puppet account, then by all means tell me, and I'll do it. I certainly know that there's nothing more you can do to prove that your accusations are correct (simply because they are not), so an apology and retraction from you is quite clearly in order.
As for the quote, that's not good enough either. It was and remains a personal attack, whether attributed or not. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinions from the project

My $.02: I don't think biographies should have "criticism" sections since the criticisms are not of the article subject. For example, we do not include criticism of evolutionary biology in the article on Charles Darwin. --causa sui talk 09:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the article in question is not purely biographical, it is substantially devoted to explaining Zizek's theoretical frameworks. This clearly opens the door for a section alleging flaws in those frameworks. The article wouldn't be NPOV without a section indicating that there is significant criticism of Zizek's work. The only legitimate question here is one of weighting, since Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has failed to demonstrate either that the criticisms are illegitimate or that the critics cited are not "notable" enough. Ramanpotential 11:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about contemporary continental philosophy (nor do I want to know), but my intuitions lean towards supporting Dr. Mertz on this one. The only two (contemporary) philosophers (that I can think of) criticism of whom is notable enough for an entire article are Noam Chomsky and Jacques Derrida, yet only one of these has such an article. Slavoj Whoever meets the notability criteria, but he by far doesn't meet any "criticism of me is itself notable" criteria. His article should include 2-3 normal-sized sentences of criticism, max. KSchutte 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you direct me toward Wikipedia's policy on "criticism of me is itself notable" criteria? -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 08:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course. Ultimately, WP:V is satisfied by this article. But, probably, WP:NPOV isn't. Someone needs to edit that article to ensure that readers don't misjudge the amount or prestige of this criticism. As near as I can tell, this guy gets no more criticism than any other continental philosopher of equal repute, and his criticism article should reflect that. KSchutte 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Opportunity

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This is probably not the correct place to put this request, but oh well. User:LoveMonkey is a new user who needs babysitting in philosophy articles. His edits almost invariably contain unsubstantiated and sometimes downright false claims as well as nonstandard English. I have already clashed with him at Talk:Plotinus, so I'm not a good candidate for diplomacy. — goethean ॐ 18:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Can somebody put a 24-hour block on him so we can clean up his messes? KSchutte 17:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Has she broken any wikipedia policies that would warrent a block? Usually users ought to be warned when they have broken a policy before their first block. I would be happy to be of any administrative assistance, but I'd need a little more info. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that was more just an expression of frustration than it was a genuine solicitation for help. I think author's intent seems good in this case, he's just really sloppy with words. It's good to know you're keeping an eye on things for us, though. KSchutte 02:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure, I understand how frustrating these folks can be. Anytime you need anything administrative, please drop me a line. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The user in question has begun making accusative emails to the professors of another user (VisualError). That seems like a serious thing, and falls under the heading of "no personal attacks", a blockworthy offence. This is outlined in the text on the talk page of Plotinus. Lucidish 03:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/Archive_5&oldid=1137369558"