Talk:Philosophy/Archive 16

message: The debate appears interminable, the disputants irreconcilable. I'm tempted to ban all present editors from the site for a month or two (joke!). 
But instead, I'm going to unlock the page for a bit, and see what happens. 
I'm going to do this partially because of my naive conviction that there is no problem that men of good will can't sort out when given the opportunity. (Men - I'm not being sexist here, since no women have taken an interest in this dispute. It might profit us to consider why.)
So have at it. But remember a few basics of men of good will. Don't just revert. Improve what is there, rather than just deleting it. Avoid personal attacks. Be polite. And Don't be a dick. "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick yourself!"
If you really think that the other guy is being a dick, talking about it on this talk page won't help. Instead, launch a RfC on the user. If they are a dick, they will have been a dick on other pages, and this gives others a chance to comment on their misbehaviour. It will also provide the admins and others with the information they may need to decide if they are worth having on the Wiki. Be aware that folk may also comment on your behaviour. 
If the dispute cannot be settled, consider mediation.
If the discussion degenerates into a revert war, the page will be locked again. 
Best wishes, Banno 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're certainly setting a positive and mature tone for the rest of us. Perhaps you can provide us with additional information on how not to be dicks? After all, I could be right about an issue and still be acting like one, no? JJL 23:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the golden rule. —Quiddity 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Unlocking the article. 

message: These two seem to be the ones people keep reverting between.  One I cal the snake version, it contorts itself into putting 2,500 years and millions of leafs of written and spoken material into a few clauses:
====snake version====
Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom) concerns 
itself with how to live one's life (ethics), what one knows, can know, and how one knows it (epistemology), and what can be said to exist (metaphysics). 
Defining philosophy is controversial in part because it is also its own subject; accordingly, there are diverse  definitions of philosophy. Some describe philosophy as a form of intellectual enquiry which uses critical analysis and reasoning, as well as dialogue or introspection, to solve seemingly intractable problems.   Others claim that philosophy examines the process of examination itself. Still others argue that philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field. 
Although the word "philosophy" originates in the Western tradition, seminal figures in the history of the East have addressed similar topics in similar ways.  Contemporary Western philosophy is divided into continental and analytic traditions.
----
The above version uses tertiary sources the Oxford and Penguin (!) dictionary.  WP:OR recommends not using tertiary sources. 
====Neat version====
Most definitions of Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom), are fairly controversial. In general, philosophy is concerned with critical or systematic enquiries related to what should be done, (ethics), what we can know (epistemology), and the fundamental elements and general nature of existence (metaphysics and ontology).Anthony Quinton, "Philosophy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, 1996
The definition of philosophy is controversial because one of the subject's own projects is to enquire critically into its own nature. Because of this, many important philosophers have proposed new  definitions of philosophy as part of their work.
----
The neat version admits the difficulty and in so doing manages to sum up not only philosophy but all the bits on this talk page.
--Lucas 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote goes for the neat version, as well as my appreciate of the work done by User:KD Tries Again, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stabilizing the Intro 

message: Most definitions of Philosophy (from the Greek, philos, love + sophia, wisdom), are fairly controversial. In general, philosophy is concerned with critical or systematic enquiries related to what should be done, (ethics), what we can know (epistemology), and the fundamental elements and general nature of existence (metaphysics and ontology).Anthony Quinton, "Philosophy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, 1996
The definition of philosophy is controversial because one of the subject's own projects is to enquire critically into its own nature. Because of this, many important philosophers have proposed new  definitions of philosophy as part of their work.
----
The neat version admits the difficulty and in so doing manages to sum up not only philosophy but all the bits on this talk page.
--Lucas 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote goes for the neat version, as well as my appreciate of the work done by User:KD Tries Again, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neat version

message: . . . Greek philosophy, . . . in the development of
   the intellectual life of Europe.
        The emphasis falls primarily upon the lifting of mere knowing to the plane of systematic
   knowledge, or science. Not content with his storing of practical facts,
   and with his fantastic speculations born of his religious needs,
   the Greek sought knowledge for its own sake. Knowledge, like art,
   was developed as an independent function from its involvement
   in the other activities of civilization. . . .
        It is, . . . the birth of the separate sciences. For the process of differentiation,
   which begins with distinguishing thought from conduct and mythology,
   was continued within the domain of science itself. With the accumulation and organic
   arrangement of its facts, the early, simple, and unitary science to which the Greeks
   gave the name φιλοσοφία, divided into the special sciences, the single φιλοσοφίαι,
   and these then continued to develop on more or less independent lines.
   [Links added]] - History of Ancient Philosophy (1900) (Dover: 1956), pp. 1-2
I shall supply the 2 omitted Greek words shortly. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ludvikus 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[W. Windelband]] - History Ancient Philosophy 

message: Dear Wiki colleagues,
I thought I'd give you guys and/or gals a gift or brake by filling in the body of the article, regarding Analytic and Continental philosophy - something we're pondering besides the opening. I'll work on it later - unless someone beats me to it and improves my work.
:Now I know some of you have your doubts, but I do have a life, and need to eat, if not to sleep and dream . . . philosophia . . .
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy as Logic under Frege and Russell and England

message: I don't like the neat.  But I don't like the snake either.  Some reasons:
1. Metaphysics is about "what can be said to exist"?   False, without further qualification.  Usually said to be about what 'ultimately' or 'really' exists, or something similar.
2.  "Defining philosophy is controversial in part because it is also its own subject" is clumsy – what does it mean?   If it means that the subject of philosophy is philosophy, then as KD pointed out, the subject of literature is literature.   
3.  The claim that there are 'diverse definitions of philosophy' is not true.  Definition of philosophy shows that there is remarkable agreement among philosophers about what philosophy is.  Or rather, as Quinton says, there are interesting definitions, which do tend to be controversial, and there are dull ones, which are not so.  As KD says, look on the prospectus of any reputable university, and see how it describes itself to prospective students.  There you see remarkable agreement.  
4.  But the most misleading bit is the whole thread of 'some .. others … still others'.  This, coupled with the earlier insistence on the diversity and disagreement between definitions, suggests quite inaccurately that these 3 groups disagree with each other.  Not at all.  Nearly all philosophers would say that philosophy uses critical analysis and reasoning, i.e. that is its method.  And nearly all would also agree that philosophy, unlike many other disciplines which are defined by their subject matter.  "It is by its methods rather than its subject matter that philosophy is to be distinguished from other arts or sciences" (who said that?).  Correct.  The subject matter can be pretty much anything (though usually limited to the usual suspects).  The method, by contrast, is its defining characteristic.  KD said "I'd repeat that it's very important to say something about the way philosophy answers those questions, because novels, poems, churches, politicians and exotic cults also address them."  Asolutely.  We seem to have lost that.  Anyway.  The first group (the 'some') are in fact the majority of philosophers.  The second group are the ones who 'claim that philosophy examines the process of examination itself', i.e. think of philosophy as somehow second-order.  This forms a sub-group of the first.  The third group think that 'philosophy is continuous with the best practices in every intellectual field' – still not sure what this means (and it will certainly be unintelligible to the average reader of the article), but I know from Ben it was intended to be a group that disagreed with the assessment of philosophy as second-order.  
5.  I don’t like 'seminal figures in the history of the East', but that's a point of style.  Seminal figures of what?  Why 'seminal'.  
6.  Don't like 'Contemporary Western philosophy is divided into continental and analytic traditions'  because it introduces an idea without definition and explanation.  If I know no mathematics, and I am reading an article to understand it, it does not help in the slightest to know that it is divided into pure and applied mathematics.  Whats that?
::This comment displays a mis-understanding of contemporary philosophy.  If I wanted to study the politics of the world during the latter half of the 20th century, the essential thing was to know the major two political divisions, and which were used as excuses for many international affairs, wars, coups etc. If was easy to define/explain it would not be what it is.  --Lucas 11:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with almost all of that, and especially the bits which quote me.  Well done.   Lucas is right that the split matters and must be dealt with; but it must be dealt with accurately and must not become the fulcrum of the whole article.  KD Tries Again 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snake vs neat 

message: Look at it's cleanup version:
   Defining philosophy is controversial in part because
   it is also its own subject;
   accordingly, there are diverse  definitions of philosophy.
   For example: one describes philosophy as a form of intellectual enquiry
   which uses critical analysis and reasoning,
   as well as dialogue or introspection,
   to solve seemingly intractable problems.
    ;
   another claims that philosophy examines the process of examination itself;
   still another argues that philosophy is continuous with the best practices
   in every intellectual field. 
   Emphasis/boldface added
It's an arbitrary sampling, with the most uninformed choice of vocabulary.
:It is a-historical in the extreme. It is a prime example of what happens when a horse is designed by an arbitrary committe of shoemakers - you get a camel?
:We should look at things as follows:
:1st: West: Philosophy Thought - Mythology = Science.
:2nd: East: Chinese philosophy, Hindue philosophy.
:The Only way to go is start with West, and do it from a historical point of view;
then come back and do it in all the other place - and you cannot omit African philosophy or you will be labeled a Racist; acknowledge the Unity of European civilization - it is the civilization which is now associated with Abrahamism; or Jews, Christians, and Muslims, with their intellectual traditions intermingling, especially when it comes to Philosophy; there would be no philosophy in the West as we know it, if it had not passed through the hands of the believers in Muhammed. And the role of Mathematics and Logic must be accounted for.
:But lets take things one at a time.
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt that if and when someone misses the point, it may be because the point is invisible. You're not talking about "the point", as in Lud's point, which had nothing to do with what you attribute to him in this section, and everything to do with what he really said: 'start with the West', a 'historical point of view'. I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other -- it depends on how it is executed. But my first reaction is "we already have a historical narrative in the body of the article". My second reaction is "we need to be economical if this proposal is supposed to be in the intro". Third: history should not replace descriptions (note, descriptions not definitions) of philosophy. The very fact that these two things (description of philosophy vs. history of philosophy) are not coextensive, and interchangeable, shows that there is a line between the two disciplines, no matter how blurry one would like to imagine that line is { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 20:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Snake (ugly) version - cleaned

message: === Please stop writing rubbish on the Philosophy page ===
Stop now.  I am reverting anything whatever that you do here.  Dbuckner 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, garbage man. At what hours do you take out the trash? --Ludvikus 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dbuckner on Rubbish and Rationality 

message: Stop now.  I am reverting anything whatever that you do here.  Dbuckner 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, garbage man. At what hours do you take out the trash? --Ludvikus 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop writing rubbish on the Philosophy page 

message: ===The Newton - Liebniz rivalry===
   The Calculus, as as new Branch of mathematics, had been invented independently
   by Newton and Liebniz. It enabled Newton to revolutionize Physics,
   which at his time was thought of as being a branch of natural philosophy.
   The calculus enabled natural philosophers to offer an account for the physics of motion
   and the mathematics of the infinite.
   
   Newton, an Englishman, subsequently accused Leibniz, a German, of having stolen from him
   the fundamental ideas of the new calculus, and Newton, vindictively,
   used his position as President of the Royal Society
   to marginalize Leibniz's independent accomplishments.
   The result was a schism between England and the Continent in accordance
   with national feelings and corresponding loyalties to Newton or Leibniz accordingly.
I find it incredible - the extent of your irrational conduct at undermining me because you do not agree with me on my philosophical work here. What you are doing is a personal attack upon me. You now full we that it's a substantial distortion on your part - and constitutes a personal attack.
And you keep saying that philosophy is rational?
:Newton would do that to Leibniz, what you do to me here.
:But Newton was a genius. How do you see yourself?  Ludvikus 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the weird stuff in the box come from?  Is it supposed to be an authority?  Pity about the spelling.  KD Tries Again 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the Newton-Leibniz rivalry really significant enough to include on this page? It didn't (AFAIK) have much of an impact on philosophy. If we want to include philosophical grudge matches, Descartes vs. Hobbes strikes me as a better one, as it leads into a discussion of the rationalist/empiricist split. VoluntarySlave 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Leibniz; the debate is mainly found in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence.  It's relevant, mainly to Kant, at a very abstruse level.  I have written about it.  It's tedious.  We don't need it.  Let's get the bare bones right.  KD Tries Again 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't the place for a discussion of N. vs. L., fascinating as the story is; I would think that Berkeley's criticisms of N.'s methods would be more relevant (but still too detailed for this page). If absolutely necessary, simply refer the reader to a history of the calc. page (surely it's addressed several times in WP). JJL 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: the lack of scholarship is incredible - as is the mediocrity. It shows that no one knows what it's all about - Russell and Wittgenstein. This is the stuff of which 2oth century Anglo-American Philosophy is made of? It is common knowledge to anyone who has read read [[Bertrand Russell] substantial work -- not just popular work, like Marriage and Morals. You guys just gave me an idea - I should just write a book - make money - and you could quote me. I see it as main events that are common knowledge of those in the field. --Ludvikus 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (Ludvikus, for reasons best known to himself, copied this over from his talk page - that's why I was specifically addressing him) I don't see how you can characterize my changes as a revert: I specifically attempted to include the information that had been added about Russell and about McCarthyism. Could you say specifically what's wrong with the changes I made? VoluntarySlave 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this rubbish too? Sanitation man? 

message: The Calculus, as as new Branch of mathematics, had been invented independently
   by Newton and Liebniz. It enabled Newton to revolutionize Physics,
   which at his time was thought of as being a branch of natural philosophy.
   The calculus enabled natural philosophers to offer an account for the physics of motion
   and the mathematics of the infinite.
   
   Newton, an Englishman, subsequently accused Leibniz, a German, of having stolen from him
   the fundamental ideas of the new calculus, and Newton, vindictively,
   used his position as President of the Royal Society
   to marginalize Leibniz's independent accomplishments.
   The result was a schism between England and the Continent in accordance
   with national feelings and corresponding loyalties to Newton or Leibniz accordingly.
I find it incredible - the extent of your irrational conduct at undermining me because you do not agree with me on my philosophical work here. What you are doing is a personal attack upon me. You now full we that it's a substantial distortion on your part - and constitutes a personal attack.
And you keep saying that philosophy is rational?
:Newton would do that to Leibniz, what you do to me here.
:But Newton was a genius. How do you see yourself?  Ludvikus 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the weird stuff in the box come from?  Is it supposed to be an authority?  Pity about the spelling.  KD Tries Again 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the Newton-Leibniz rivalry really significant enough to include on this page? It didn't (AFAIK) have much of an impact on philosophy. If we want to include philosophical grudge matches, Descartes vs. Hobbes strikes me as a better one, as it leads into a discussion of the rationalist/empiricist split. VoluntarySlave 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Leibniz; the debate is mainly found in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence.  It's relevant, mainly to Kant, at a very abstruse level.  I have written about it.  It's tedious.  We don't need it.  Let's get the bare bones right.  KD Tries Again 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't the place for a discussion of N. vs. L., fascinating as the story is; I would think that Berkeley's criticisms of N.'s methods would be more relevant (but still too detailed for this page). If absolutely necessary, simply refer the reader to a history of the calc. page (surely it's addressed several times in WP). JJL 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: the lack of scholarship is incredible - as is the mediocrity. It shows that no one knows what it's all about - Russell and Wittgenstein. This is the stuff of which 2oth century Anglo-American Philosophy is made of? It is common knowledge to anyone who has read read [[Bertrand Russell] substantial work -- not just popular work, like Marriage and Morals. You guys just gave me an idea - I should just write a book - make money - and you could quote me. I see it as main events that are common knowledge of those in the field. --Ludvikus 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Newton - Liebniz rivalry

message: Ludvikus: I'm sorry our edits crossed over, meaning that I removed a lot of your text just after you'ld added it. However, I do think we should try and be concise, and that my version included the key points from what you had added. Over and above that, what I was trying to do with my version was make the section more coherent and easier for the reader to follow, explaining first the history and then moving onto the matter of the division between analytic and continental philosophy, rather than simply listing differences with little or no structure. So, if you do want to add some of the detail from your version back in (and I'd encourage you to think whether it's really necessary before you do so), please try and integrate it with what I've written, rather than reverting wholesale. VoluntarySlave 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Ludvikus, for reasons best known to himself, copied this over from his talk page - that's why I was specifically addressing him) I don't see how you can characterize my changes as a revert: I specifically attempted to include the information that had been added about Russell and about McCarthyism. Could you say specifically what's wrong with the changes I made? VoluntarySlave 21:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the analytic/continental divide 

message: We have been doing well until now with not reverting.
Can I ask you both to stop doing complete reverts, the page will just get locked.
If someone is going to add anything major (ie, a new paragraph) to the page might you also put the text in here.  We can then comment on it and reach a consensus or suggest improvements. I ask this because with all the reverts of reverts it is hard to know what is being contested.
--Lucas 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The record is clear.  Ludvikus posted his history with no discussion here.  Several editors pointed out the horde of errors on this Talk page, and quite rightly removed it.  Rather than the errors being addressed, it keeps getting re-posted.  Similarly, the material from your deleted article was published without any discussion here first.  The Voluntary Slave version (if that's where the credit goes) is at least better.  Your principle seems to be that if you post something, then it can't be deleted without discussion.  The principle ought to be not to post something without discussing it first.  The page needs to be locked down, with the spontaneous and undiscussed contributions removed.  KD Tries Again 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry Lucas, but it's very misleading of you to say that you "have not reverted anything." Reverting is precisely what you've done - you haven't just added deleted material, integrating it with other changes; you've undone re-organization and re-phrasing of the section. If you think these changes made are iredeemably bad, and so there's no point trying to work with them, fine; but don't claim that that isn't a reversion. VoluntarySlave 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  And the changes were an improvement.  KD Tries Again 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think you are accurate anout what Lucaas has done. For Lucas is correct. What you say he has done is simply not true. He is dedicated - and keeps telling that he's willing to discuss. It is Dbuckner who is reverting - how come you do not see that? And You seem not to be able to tell the work of VoluntarySlave to which Dbrucker has state is trash which will revert. He thinks its my work - but it is not. Perhaps you should slow down a bit and see whose doing what? Ludvikus 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop reverting each other  

message: What ought we to say about this? It seems to me there are a few things we could include:
* The philosophical genealogy of the split: Russell and Moore's rejection of Hegelianism and move to analysis, the Vienna Circle's rejection of metaphysics and move to formalization. Probably something about contemporary alternatives that resisted the  analytic approach on the continent (i.e., Russell/Moore and the Vienna Circle tells us why analytic philosophy is as it is; it would be good to explain something about why continental is as it is).
* The institutional changes: the rise to dominance of analytic philosophy in English-speaking countries in the '50s and '60s (if that time period is indeed the correct one - it's the one claimed by Rorty). We could attempt to explain this by reference to McCumber's book on McCarthyism, or we could leave the issue of explanation out altogether.
* A brief statement contrasting the subject matter and methods of the two approaches (I'm not sure of a good source for this).
* Something about the contemporary status of the divide - a broadly recognized division,  with some people working across the divide (e.g. analytic work on Nietzsche and others; Derrida translating Quine? I don't know).
* Possibly examples of interactions between the two traditions. I don't know if this is really worth including, except to give examples of the hostility and misunderstanding that has often characterized the relation between the two.
VoluntarySlave 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analytic/continental schism 

message: Look, would you please just f--- off.  OK Dbuckner 22:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =Big Insulter, bad editor, user to be blocked from use

message: I've given up editing on the article.  KD and VS have done sterling work but it seems pointless to do this when it will either get reverted or overwritten by two dyslexic morons.  Are you two guys keeping your work?  What you can do when this happens is work in a separate space in a collegiate way (i.e. discuss changes, have meaningful dialogue &c.  It is absolutely pointless doing anything here.  Dbuckner 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in any editor making corrections, because you just revert.  You did it to me, you did it to VS.  You won't respond to the corrections and criticisms here, however well sourced.  KD Tries Again 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care about reverts.  It's the monstrosities he reverts that are the real crime against humanity.  Dbuckner 22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what to do 

message: Especially troubling to me is including all three of Ethics, Aesthetics, and Politcal Philosophy as "Branches" in the table near the end of the article, but not including "Philsoophy of Religion", too.  Multiple major historical philosophers have been largely silent on at least one of Ethics, Aesthetics or Political Philosophy, but not one has overlooked Phil of Rel.
PhilOfRel is routinely one of the must-have areas of every academic dept. of Phil. and no PhD program could possibly pass muster without one specialist in it.  Tmusgrove 02:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello metaphysics { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a reason why PhilOfRel is scarcely touched? 

message: Eastern philosophy is a classification used by book stores. For example: Barnes and Noble. It conotes (1) the philosophy(s) of Chine, (2) the philosophy(s) of India, ...
:Question: Is the West unified in a way that the East is not?
::Accordingly, is there such a thing as a single/common Eastern Intellectual Tradition?
:--Ludvikus 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By all means replace the reference to "Eastern philosophy" with something more suitable; so long as we retain the content about the plurality of oriental outlooks { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Eastern philosophy]] 

message: Why Philosophy is a laughing stock in Wikipedia.  All contributions welcome.  Dbuckner 10:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laughter is the best medicine 

message: I have reverted the introduction to the version above called 'snake'.  To be absolutely clear: I do not particularly like this version (see my comments above, if you can find them).  But I wanted to avoid reverting to something I had written, and moreover this version had some support among other editors.  Please work on gradual changes to this version, and please do not make any material changes without discussing and obtaining consensus on the Talk Page. Dbuckner 12:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to snake version 

message: I see some editors have purposely fooled the wikipedia parser by using two single quotes but they have never opened them. For example after "Beyond Good and Evil" someone has entered two single quotes in order to fool the parser into thinking a "close" italics has occured - but the itallics has never been opened according to the Edit This Page view. 
This  is a bad habit and will most definitely screw up the parsing at some point if the parser ever becomes smarter - or especially for custom parsers that don't interpret this as a closing itallics tag. It could cause the entire page to be italicized which is not a good thing. How do we stop people from fooling the parser, just because they want to turn off itallics which haven't actually been turned on according to the "Edit This Page" text? LFiveZeroFive 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are people trying to fool the italics system