Talk:On Interpretation

message: what's the relation among name, thought, thing? A problem discussed extensively by each and every medieval philosopher (boethius being the first to write about it in latin). Aristotle Int. 1: "names are symbols for the affections in the soul, and these are symbols for the things" or something like that. One of the most perplexing features of this short treatise...
--zuben 10:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll add a little if I have time, otherwise, someone else please add it. JECompton (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  a MAJOR issue still to be treated here 

message: The article for every other work by Aristotle (as listed at Aristotle and Bekker numbers) bears the name that is used in the Revised Oxford Translation (ed. Jonathan Barnes, Princeton University Press, 1984).  This is as close to a standard for referring to Aristotle's works in English as I believe one could find.  I myself would prefer different names in several cases, but at Wikipedia I think using this reference is better because it gives us a neutral standard.  In the Revised Oxford Translation, all the titles are in English except for De Interpretatione and Magna Moralia.  In other words, the ROT shows a strong tendency to English not Latin, even for treatises like De motu animalium (Movement of Animals) that (in my experience) a great many English-speakers refer to in Latin.  Indeed, an awful lot of English-speaking scholars do refer to the "De Interpretatione," and the Wikipedia naming conventions do envision a case like this, where a "form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form."  (By the way, this article originally was at De Interpretatione; there's no clear reason why it was ever moved here.)  Wareh 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is much more likely to be unambiguous; there are at least half-a-dozen other books with this title (all of them also have a subtitle, but will that last?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. None of the others need a move—they are all already named according to the standard I mention here.  Wareh 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move to [[:De Interpretatione]] 

message: (This same editor is known as User talk:84.100.243.155, User:Jean-François Monteil de Quimper, User:Jean KemperN. See also the French equivalent of WP:AN/I here.)
In order for  to be usable, I think we'd need a full statement from Monteil about the degree to which it is a presentation of his own research (cf. here).  Then the appropriate thing to do would be to make sure we have independent secondary sources, and unaffiliated Wikipedia editors, confirming the appropriateness of the ideas to an encylcopedic presentation of De Interpretatione.  Meanwhile, it seems very likely that "many scholars think," "most important," etc., are personal perspectives that run up against guidelines such as Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_oneself.  Wareh (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributions from [[User talk:Jean KemperNN]] (Monteil)

message: I have created an article for Logical hexagon and refactored a large amount of material contributed by User:Jean KemperNN. The material is wonderful, but I think it is more appropriate in its own article.Greg Bard (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article ''logical hexagon'' created by Gregbard. The reason why