| Revision as of 00:46, 18 August 2014 editClaphamSix (talk | contribs)89 edits →Help! Metamodernism Has Become a Vanity Page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:33, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 24) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{/header}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Philosophy}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-25/WikiProject report|writer= ] ||day =25|month=July|year=2011}} | |||
| <!---- | |||
| {| width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" valign="top" | |||
| | | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="background-color:#FFFFFF" valign="top" | | |||
| {| width="100%" style="background-color:#FFFFFF; padding:5px;" cellspacing="5" valign="top"| | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:0px" valign="top" | | |||
| <div align="center"> | |||
| <p style="clear:both; margin:0 3px .8em 3px; font-variant: small-caps; text-align: center; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom:.2em; font-size: 105%;"><!-- These should be most useful links for philosophy editors | |||
| ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] | ] </p> | |||
| </div> | |||
| {| class="plainlinks" | |||
| | colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 100%; border: 1px silver solid; background-color:#FFD699; padding: 1em;" | | |||
| {{Shortcut|WT:PHILO|WT:PHIL}} | |||
| <center><big>'''Philosophy Noticeboard'''</big></center> | |||
| This is the central discussion area for ]. Feel free to discuss any topics relating to philosophy here. It is recommended that members this page. | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| ---> | |||
| <includeonly>]</includeonly> | |||
| <noinclude>{{oldmfd | date = 21 January 2013 | result = Withdrawn by nominator | votepage = Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/header}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 24 | ||
| |algo = old(60d) | |algo = old(60d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|root=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy|search=yes|auto=short}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-07-25/WikiProject report|writer= ] ||day =25|month=July|year=2011}} | |||
| == FAC of Metaphysics == | |||
| The article ] is currently a candidate for featured article status. So far, there has been little response, so I was wondering whether some of the editors here are inclined to review the article or comment on it. The nomination page can be found at ]. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see ]. ] (]) 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Addition of link to ] to the article ] == | |||
| Ciao fellow editors in the Philosophy Project! I have initiated a discussion on a proposed addition of text referring to the work of the modern philosopher ] | |||
| within the article ] --specifically in reference to his contributions to the field of ] and the search for ] through the use and misuse of ]. Several reliable and credible sources have been provided from various international journals, Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR=-- all of which review his work in considerable technical detail within a specialized philosophical niche. Perhaps a participant in the Philosophy Project could participate in the discussion to delete the proposed text since it references several technical ] themes which might require the insights of an expert. | |||
| :You can add your contribution to the discussion on the talk page ] Thanks in advance for your help. Respectfully ] (]) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)GCL | |||
| ::O.K. Thanks for the tip.] (]) 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)PWL | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 16:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Looking for epistemiologist ] == | |||
| The notability of ] is being discussed in its talk page. If somebody has some evidence of the notability of her work in philosophy (epistemiology) please consider joining the conservation. ] (]) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Peer review of ] == | |||
| I was hoping to get some feedback on the article ] to prepare it for a ]. The peer review can found at ]. ] (]) 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Seeking for a consensus regarding the "philosophical pessimism" template == | |||
| Greetings, all. | |||
| The user "Paranakyaa" has recently argued against me in these edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Philosophical_pessimism&action=history) that many of the links to the template "philosophical pessimism" should be in red merely because they do not have a Misplaced Pages article still existing for them. | |||
| I, on the other hand, tried to argue against them by stating that such red links are unnecessary and make the template look aesthetically unpleasant. | |||
| =={{noredirect|Maoism}}== | |||
| {{la|Maoism}} is proposed to be renamed to ], for the discussion, see ] -- ] (]) 04:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| After that, he appealed to the supposed fact there is a "consensus" that such links should be red (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates). | |||
| == More eyes/voices requested at ] == | |||
| I still maintain my original position, but have no further intent nor energy to engage in any kind of "edit war" with them. If there is still no Misplaced Pages article existing for these works, the fact that they are not dyed in the color blue already indicates this; there is no need to make so many works in the template dyed in the color red. | |||
| Title says it all. I believe I summarized the core concerns on the talk page here: ]. Lots of strong opinions, COI allegations flying around, ad hominems, and so on, but I think the core problem is that the subject needs to be better nailed down and the different sources weighted properly. For that I think we could use some help. --— <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> | 02:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am curious as to other users think about this. Please do share your opinion so that we might, in fact, reach a "consensus". ] (]) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Natural and legal rights RM == | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| Opinions at ] would be appreciated. Cheers, ] (]) 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| ==] and ]== | |||
| <blockquote>'''Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Spam bucket. Vandal bait. Not enough information to merge, and no obvious targets for a redirect. Delete and salt, please.'''</blockquote> | |||
| FYI, the scope and purpose of these articles are under discussion, see ] -- ] (]) 02:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| == New article: ] == | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| Hi all, | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) ] (]) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I've recently started an article on ], an LDS (Mormon) philosopher and theologian involved in a controversial period of the history of Brigham Young University. However, I am not very familiar with theology, philosophy, or even the LDS movement, and would welcome any additions or improvements in the aim of creating a comprehensive biography that clearly explains the philosophy of Chamberlin (ideally with minimal or at least clearly defined academic jargon) and fairly describes the controversy. Cheers, ] (]) 01:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| == Anarcho-capitalism FAR == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> to the article ] has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#You lose}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Notability of ] == | |||
| I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Was he notable enough that he should have a separate page on his works at ], which was recently created by ]. I have seen these for nobel laureates, but I feel as part of ] this question should be asked. I will also post to psychology. ] (]) 14:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| To be notable or not? -- that is the question! ] (]) 17:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Merge proposal for discussion == | ||
| There is an ongoing ] for ] into ] that may concern collaborators of this WikiProject. ] (]) 05:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm here to ask for some help with the article ]. I was surprised to see it PRODed, but I have to admit that I'm even more surprised at how difficult it is to search for sources for this. I've found enough to keep it, but I need more sources to help flesh it out more. It's certainly notable enough- I know it's used pretty regularly in college courses and I remember using it in one of my classes. It's been a while since I took said class and I don't have my copy anymore- does anyone here have a fresher memory of the book and/or has a copy so they can add more information? I believe that it's safe from deletion, but more work would definitely be appreciated. ]] 05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Need help disambiguating several "Mental object"-esque articles == | |||
| == Rename discussion of high profile topic == | |||
| Currently "Mental object" redirects to ], which seems to be a philosophy-related stub. However, there are several articles that seem to be talking about roughly the same concept, and I'm not sure why these are all seperate: | |||
| Please see ] ] (]) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| == Help! Metamodernism Has Become a Vanity Page == | |||
| * ] | |||
| Above, ] (]) begged for assistance with the ] page, and unfortunately since that request things have gone downhill grievously. | |||
| * ] | |||
| First, some background: When the article was created back in January of 2013, members of this Group flooded the page to complain that it was a vanity project. A sampling of comments from three different editors: (1) "The term metamodernism was not, in fact, introduced by the hacks mentioned in the article ("Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker") and the date ("2009") is wrong also. Any search of the term in Google Books will reveal that it was coined in the 1970s and already in use--in the academy--in the 1980s. I cannot help but wonder if Timotheus Vermeulen, Robin van den Akker, or one of their students wrote this inaccurate rubbish." (2) "I agree. The article should be rewritten." (3) "I am aware of at least two earlier--coined in the academic and in the sociopolitical world--definitions of the term. The article, as it is, is biased towards one definition of metamodernism, the one by Vermeulen and van der Akker. It should be rewritten to give all uses and definitions a proper representation, and list them chronologically." | |||
| and possibly | |||
| In 2014, a new editor, "Festal82," appeared on the page to try to accomplish what the WikiProject Philosophy had not yet been able to: (1) Mention all notable uses of the term in scholarship, dating back to the 1970s, whether or not these uses represented related readings of what "metamodernism" is; (2) correctly identify the original coinage of the term; and (3) chronologically list all major uses by subsection. About a month ago, this task was finally accomplished, after repeated attempts at disruption from "Esmeme," a single-purpose user account since identified as belong to Luke Turner--not coincidentally, the author of a personal blog (wwwmetamodernismorg) as well as the co-editor of a group blog ("Notes on Metamodernism"; wwwmetamodernismcom) that is focused exclusively on Turner's "Metamodernist Manifesto," a piece of writing Turner has described as "intentionally incoherent" but which was inspired by the work of Vermuelen and van den Akker. | |||
| * ] | |||
| Once the WikiProject Philosophy goals had been met, Luke Turner/"Esmeme" initiated a sock-puppet investigation into "Festal82," alleging that ten separate accounts were run by the "Festal82" editor and that the only reason Turner's work had been deemphasized (or, rather, emphasized no more or less than other uses of the term) was because of a grand conspiracy by these ten accounts. An investigation was conducted, and of the 9 accounts other than "Festal82" investigated, only 1 returned an IP address similar to "Festal82." A review of the edits to the ] page by these accounts revealed that "Festal82" had made 163 edits to the page, and this other account had made 2 unrelated substantive edits. Nevertheless, because the IP address associated with "Festal82" had previously but largely non-sequentially used four accounts (over a period of 7 years) to edit another page, "Seth Abramson," Turner was successful in having "Festal82" banned from Misplaced Pages. | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| "Mental world" seems like It should be more about a representation of reality, rather than an individual object. | |||
| The next 100 edits to the page were made by Turner ("Esmeme"), and the article was returned to the state that this Group earlier found inappropriate and self-interested. | |||
| So, for a start, I think "Mental object" redirect should be changed to "Object of the mind", which I can go ahead and do. But other than that, I think there needs to be some discussion about clarifying what these articles are about, adding {{Template link|About}}/{{Template link|For}} hatnotes to each of the articles to clarify their distinction, and possibly merging some. | |||
| The article for ] is now a personal advertisement for Turner's personal blog and the group blog he co-edits. Every other mention of the word "metamodernism" over the past forty years has either been eliminated completely or cast as an irrelevant "previous use" of the term (in some cases, original-source content in scholarly journals has been deliberately misrepresented to make this possible), with Turner claiming that his own usage of the term is the only "notable usage" the article should be concerned about. Turner has continued to use administrator interventions to remove any/all dissent from the article (apart from a single likely sock-puppet, "Snuffleumpagus," who appears occasionally simply to note that Turner's edits are perfect in all respects). Other users no longer are permitted access to the article, and major publications on metamodernism (including a regular column about it on '']'', articles about it in '']'', mentions of American metamodernists in '']'', '']'', and other major U.S. media) have been stripped away entirely. | |||
| Sidenote: It seems reasonable that ] might be interested in this discussion. I might make a post there directing here. ] (]) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Again, the WikiProject Philosophy Group was involved in this article at its inception, with several members noting then what I'm noting now--that it's become a vanity page for Turner's projects--and nothing was done. Another editor (above) begged for assistance, and nothing was done. And now we have a major subject in contemporary philosophy being exclusively edited by an SPA whose author is clearly Turner (as every edit made by "Esmeme" either lovingly details, without references to any criticism, Turner's collaborations with ]--LaBeouf having been inspired to engage in metamodern performance art by an '']'' essay published in the U.S. that Turner/"Esmeme" removed from the article--or obsessively edits the article to remove any and all sources not connected to Turner's two websites). The account for "Esmeme" has been traced to an IP address in the same tiny village near London where Turner resides, and Turner's public Twitter account (@Luke_Turner) mirrors every argument made by "Esmeme" on Misplaced Pages. Turner's public feud with "Seth Abramson" on Twitter coincided--to the day--with Turner appearing on Misplaced Pages as "Esmeme" to attempt to remove all references to Abramson from the article. | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| Turner and Abramson are immaterial here; the issue is the state of the article, which is now embarrassing. People now trying to access the article to fix the damage done by Turner are being blocked from this by Turner's frantic attempts to have every user account that edits the page declared a sock-puppet for "Festal82." Any attempt to note that the term "metamodernism" has been in use for decades (which I understand to be the consensus opinion of this Group) is mysteriously derided by Turner as an attempt to create a unified "WP:SYNTH" history, when in fact the aim is the opposite: to show that the term has been read many different (and unrelated) ways by many different scholars and artists, and that these different ways have been documented in major U.S. and foreign media beyond Turner's two websites. I beg for the assistance of this Group to right the ship at ], lest a potentially significant development in contemporary philosophy be considered no more than a vanity project by a single Londoner. Many thanks for any help you all can offer. ] (]) 00:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:33, 26 December 2024
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | WikiProject Philosophy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 25 July 2011. |
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2013. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
FAC of Metaphysics
The article Metaphysics is currently a candidate for featured article status. So far, there has been little response, so I was wondering whether some of the editors here are inclined to review the article or comment on it. The nomination page can be found at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Metaphysics/archive1. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see here. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Addition of link to Colin Murray Turbayne to the article Truth
Ciao fellow editors in the Philosophy Project! I have initiated a discussion on a proposed addition of text referring to the work of the modern philosopher Colin Murray Turbayne within the article Truth --specifically in reference to his contributions to the field of epistemology and the search for objective truth through the use and misuse of metaphor. Several reliable and credible sources have been provided from various international journals, Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR=-- all of which review his work in considerable technical detail within a specialized philosophical niche. Perhaps a participant in the Philosophy Project could participate in the discussion to delete the proposed text since it references several technical Epistemological themes which might require the insights of an expert.
- You can add your contribution to the discussion on the talk page Talk:Truth Thanks in advance for your help. Respectfully 160.72.81.86 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)GCL
- O.K. Thanks for the tip.68.129.171.69 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)PWL
Good article reassessment for Consciousness
Consciousness 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) 16:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Looking for epistemiologist Mioara Mugur-Schächter
The notability of Mioara Mugur-Schächter is being discussed in its talk page. If somebody has some evidence of the notability of her work in philosophy (epistemiology) please consider joining the conservation. ReyHahn (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Peer review of Mind
I was hoping to get some feedback on the article Mind to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. The peer review can found at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Mind/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Seeking for a consensus regarding the "philosophical pessimism" template
Greetings, all.
The user "Paranakyaa" has recently argued against me in these edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Philosophical_pessimism&action=history) that many of the links to the template "philosophical pessimism" should be in red merely because they do not have a Misplaced Pages article still existing for them.
I, on the other hand, tried to argue against them by stating that such red links are unnecessary and make the template look aesthetically unpleasant.
After that, he appealed to the supposed fact there is a "consensus" that such links should be red (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates).
I still maintain my original position, but have no further intent nor energy to engage in any kind of "edit war" with them. If there is still no Misplaced Pages article existing for these works, the fact that they are not dyed in the color blue already indicates this; there is no need to make so many works in the template dyed in the color red.
I am curious as to other users think about this. Please do share your opinion so that we might, in fact, reach a "consensus". Alice793 (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Universal dialectic
The article Universal dialectic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Spam bucket. Vandal bait. Not enough information to merge, and no obvious targets for a redirect. Delete and salt, please.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) Bearian (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
"You lose" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect You lose to the article Godwin's law has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14 § You lose until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Notability of Jean Laplanche
Was he notable enough that he should have a separate page on his works at Jean Laplanche bibliography, which was recently created by Honigfrau. I have seen these for nobel laureates, but I feel as part of WP:NPP this question should be asked. I will also post to psychology. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)#Requested move 7 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge proposal for discussion
There is an ongoing merge proposal for Statement (logic) into Proposition that may concern collaborators of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Need help disambiguating several "Mental object"-esque articles
Currently "Mental object" redirects to Mental world, which seems to be a philosophy-related stub. However, there are several articles that seem to be talking about roughly the same concept, and I'm not sure why these are all seperate:
and possibly
"Mental world" seems like It should be more about a representation of reality, rather than an individual object.
So, for a start, I think "Mental object" redirect should be changed to "Object of the mind", which I can go ahead and do. But other than that, I think there needs to be some discussion about clarifying what these articles are about, adding {{About}}/{{For}} hatnotes to each of the articles to clarify their distinction, and possibly merging some.
Sidenote: It seems reasonable that WikiProject Psychology might be interested in this discussion. I might make a post there directing here. Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Teleological argument
Teleological argument has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: