Talk:20th-century philosophy

message: Whats going on with all that stuff at the top??
Its not got anything to do with 20c philosophy and it barely makes sense, 
am i the only one who thinks this?
:The first 3 paragraphs appear to be an attempt to summarize 20th century philosophy which would be a major article in itself and not the lead in to a list of philosophers.  Either this page will become a list of 20th century philosophers or it will become an article on some aspect of 20th century philosophy (it can NOT cover ALL of century philosopy in an article).  The page needs serious work.  What is it's purpose?  It is located under the major category of "History of philosophy" which make the stuff in these first 3 paragraphs more understandable - but still in dire need of total rewriting with a tight focus.
:There is already a List of philosophers born in the twentieth century so perhaps this article, if it is to be rewritten, should just link to that list and this article should be re-named "History of 20th-century philosophy - a summary" - then it could paint in broad strokes and link to other articles that would do the detail work.
:The last paragraph appears to be acting as a guideline for edits, particularly for the list of philosophers.  It needs to be reworked as well.  It says, "Articles referenced here are expected to substantiate standing by demonstrating either of the above criteria."  Did he mean to say "Entries" or "Philosophers" or "Philosophies", rather than "Articles"?  
:And the section entitled "Quasi-philosophical or politically-philosophical movements, schools, and tendencies" plays no part in the top 4 paragraphs.  That is just a rant in list form that doesn't fit the article or the list or the title. Steve 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stuff at top of page?? 

message: sigh, Simoes along with Buridan have initiated a Request for Comment on me.  The request asks that I be admonished to "refrain from editing philosophy-related lists".  I'll confess to several things right now: that I feel a kind of hurt, that I worry that there will be not one voice to come to that page and say anything positive about me or anything negative about the accusations, and that lots of people will be glad if I were gone - and with some good reason.  I know Rand isn't popular here.  I know the edit war has made a mess of the talk pages.  But I'm hoping some people, whose voices are respected, and haven't been partisans in this mess, will take a look at both sides and address the issues of policy abuse.  I haven't attempted to modify text others have put in, or delete their entries.  All I have been doing is entering Rand as a philosopher and attempting to provide valid sources.  sigh, now I have to go off to that page and enter some kind of response or justification for myself.  Steve 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simoes has pulled out of the RfC - it may be dead or not. Steve 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on User Steve Wolfer

message: This time I followed the advice given by many (KSchutte, Simoes, and others) and provided sources where they belong - at the bottom of the List page instead of in the discussion. Steve 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Rand following an anon delete - with sources on the list page 

message: It surely isn't a historical work about how philosophy was done or what philosophers were doing in the previous century (I think that would be an interesting article, if someone were to write it).  It's also a very poor and at times random list of figures that may not even be at all relevant to philosophy (I mean, David Blitz?).  Why hasn't anyone put this up on AfD?  Because this kind of garbage isn't really worth anything.  List of philosophers born in the nineteenth century, List of philosophers born in the twentieth century, and List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy already satisfy (and much better) any need this article could serve at present.  KSchutte 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this article up for deletion because it has no salvageable content that isn't better covered elsewhere.  I do think that the Wikipedia should write an article on this topic, but this isn't even a serious attempt. KSchutte 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the best part of this article is what we imagine it could be.  I said on the AfD page that I'm comfortable with a delete or with a major rewrite as something like 'Summary of 20th Century Philosophy's History' (and no lists).  It could be put up as a well done stub (like an outline only partially flushed out) and left to grow, or it could be a substantial effort right away.  Steve 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the point of this article? 

message: This should be a no-brainer: Our own WP:MOS says no hyphens.--SallyForth123 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it matters, but the case for no hyphen seems well argued. Anarchia 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose 19th-century philosophy and 17th-century philosophy should move as well... -GTBacchus(talk) 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I think this article needs to be expanded massively. I came here looking for an overview of all the important aspects of C20 Philosophy and didn't really find it. I don't know enough to do it myself but I'm sure some of you guys do! Yeanold Viskersenn 23:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: First, a heading something like "early 20th century philosophy".  Then mid-20th century philosophy.  someone should make a try at writing each of those.  it's rather disheartening to see so many academics coming to wikipedia to list themselves as philosophers, but not willing to write articles telling us what it is they are up to.Diotemaheartsphilosophy (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good suggestion, but it faces the problem that we really can't just have headings like "early 20th century philosophy". Instead, we would need headings like "early 20th century analytic philosophy" and "early 20th century continental philosophy". However, then the entry would risk simply repeating the information found in the entries for analytic philosophy, continental philosophy, and contemporary philosophy. I am a little unsure of what should go in this entry, but here are my suggestions for the core subsections: "Professionalization" (e.g. the American Philosophical Association, rise of philosophy journals, the disappearance of independent philosophers not associated with a university), "Emergence of American Philosophy" (e.g. first pragmatism, and then analytic philosophy), "Emergence of the Analytic/Continental Divide". It might also be worth having one subsection devoted to the external influences on philosophy during the 20th century: the effect the discovery of relativity and quantum mechanics had on philosophy, how World War 2 forced many philosophers to seek refuge in places like the United States, etc. - Atfyfe (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outlining the eventual article 

message: Who is this idiot who made this page? Only three lines to describe the entire twentieth century?! Ridiculous. Wiki is losing it s standards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.134.29 (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 Lines?