Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 5

message: 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
* Reference / anaphora
* Bad Faith 
* Causation 
* Conceptualism 
* Consciousness
* Continuum Problem (philosophy) 
* Demonstratives 
* Direct realism
* Embodiment
* English Philosophy 
* Essence
* Existence 
* Existentialism 
* Fatalism
* Free will
* Haecceity
* Ideal Language 
* Identity (relation)
* Indexicality
* Individuation
* Intentionality
* Judgment
* Logical behaviourism
* Logical Form
* Metaphysics
* Nominalism
* Object (Philosophy)
* Perception (philosophy)
* Philosophy of Mind 
* Predestination
* Predication
* Quotation
* Realism
* Representation 
* Sense data
* Skepticism
* Soul
* Substance
* Theory of Ideas
* Truth
Dbuckner 17:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Most important articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  meaning of 'important' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See my proposal for a collaboration that would seek to remedy these difficulties. Banno 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Maybe, but how might we define 'notable'?  The most google hits seems arbitrary to me...  -Seth Mahoney 01:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A recipe for endless edit wars, says this old vet. Banno 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Philosophy in pop culture sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A Dictionary of weird Philosophical Terms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Watching 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To do or tasks? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Important Articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who is responsible for this project? 

message: 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  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  (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)
thread_title: A make-shift philosophy FAQ

message: 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  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  (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)
thread_title: Questions newbs might have, and their answers

message: 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)
thread_title:  We made it to the Main Page!!! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: What about an article like Philosophizing ? In german language it's already existing, see :de:Philosophieren. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 19:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would our equivalent be the stub Philosophical analysis? Banno 03:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proofreading and editing the project page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Publicity for an[[Wikipedia:Request for adminship/Banno| RFA]] 

message: would you like to create certified articles in philosophy? -- Zondor 03:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#Certification gang]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, I have nominated the category for undeletion. Please vote! — goethean ॐ 16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Category: Contemporary philosophers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks OK to me. Banno 01:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disquotationalism

message: 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 , which seems like a good idea to me. How about it? --maru  (talk) Contribs 06:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub suggestion/request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  UC, Irvine class project 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  asking a question here directly 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who taught whom? 

message: 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)
replies: text: ...Sure. Eluchil 05:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: More of a Clipper ship I think. Eluchil 08:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philosophy]] 

message: 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 itand 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Terminology and consistency

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Talk:Philosophy]] improvement

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cosmology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Praxis School 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nihilism issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Solipsism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Split of [[List of philosophers]] 

message: 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    	Academic Genealogy
Notable teachers      	Notable students
Alfred North Whitehead	Donald DavidsonDavid LewisDaniel Dennett
Hope you guys like it. KSchutte 05:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academia Template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problem of evil 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good job 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opinions from the project 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Opportunity