Talk:Charles Sanders Peirce/Archive 3

message: The following material from Putnam is probably important, but way too long for the point it makes. I have moved it here for abstracting before re-inclusion. Way of Inquiry 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logic as formal semiotic — Material for abstracting

message: This article is an organizational mess ... and a good example of how Wikipedia fails (for Jon and Ben's benefit). The whole thing needs to be restructured I think to focus on the subject and not the theories of the subject. --Steven Zenith 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be nice. I just wanted to write simple summaries defining the usual terms and relations for the general reader who would be encountering those terms and relations in any Peirce discussion.  If every such summary is to be turned into a vast battleground over abstract theoretical emphases, the point is gone. Each section would need to be turned into its own article, and the general reader will find a series of links to long-winded articles written almost as if with the purpose of driving the general reader away. The Tetrast 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To the contrary, Peirce often defines his terms in ways addressed to general audiences and not always in fully abstract theoretical ways. Since it is not easy to find "examples that are fully generic," one should do as Peirce did and give the reader things to hang onto.The Tetrast 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing to remember here is that, as Aristotle pointed out, the order of being is opposite to the order of knowledge. The general reader needs to get a rough idea of the meanings of the most common terms and relations which he will encounter in a typical discussion of Peirce or by Peirce. A reference work can helpfully organize these terms and definitions in a way which reflects the theoretical rationales and discusses them at well chosen turns. Brevity in this is hard-won but valuable, and I'm still looking for ways to shorten the things that I've written. What's called for here is neither a dictionary of the terms nor a textbook of the theory, but brief summaries which get the usual initial confusions out of the way ("Is the interpretant the activity of interpretation or is it AN interpretation?" etc.), and which clearly identify in prominent places the chief terms and their often numerous synonyms or near-synonyms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Tetrast (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, I'd like to turn the Type of Signs section into a separate article, but I'm unsure what to call it -- the title should relate to Peirce but I'm unsure how. And should I say "classification" instead of "types"? "Types of signs (Peirce)"? "Classification of signs (Peirce)"? Is there some preferred way to refer to Peirce in the title other than parenthetically at the title's end? I have material to add to such an article, and also an idea of the summary which would take its place in the Peirce article and which would link to the Types of Signs artice.The Tetrast 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizational mess

message: I don't remember the reference now - but someone might want to find it and add that Karl Popper acknowledges that Peirce preceded him in the development of the notion of falsification.
--Steven Zenith 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsification

message: Moving the following paragraph to discussion for further work.
The object determines the sign to determine the interpretant to be related to the object as the sign is related to the object.  Therefore this determines the interpretant as a sign to determine a still further interpretant, and semiosis ever continues.
The topic of multiple determination in Peirce will probably take a very careful treatment in its own right, as the casual reader will have a tendency to think of determination in the causal and dyadic terms of classical determinism, which we know would be misleading in the case of sign relations.  Way of Inquiry 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Determination

message: Since this page is the hangout of this man, I will leave my comment here.  The sockpuppets of this banned user are getting even more out of control.  Take a look at the history of edits to this article within the past month - all of them largely by the same person under different names.  Please do not let the multiple names fool you.
Starting from February 1st, here's just a sampling of his sockpuppets: The Tetrast, Sir Humphrey Appleby, Brought Forth, Edvard Munchkin, Brought Forth, Love And Fellowship, Conceived In Liberty, Four Score And Seven Years Ago, Knight Of The Woeful Countenance, Way of Inquiry, Santiago Saint James, Our Fathers, Sir Humphrey Appleby, On This Continent, Slim Margin.  FranksValli 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidence of banned User:Jon Awbrey using sockpuppets should be reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.  Note that the instructions say that the report should be made within one week of suspected edits.  --Blainster 09:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Blainster, can you say why you think it's him? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that it was FranksValli who brought this to our attention. I looked at a number of the entries and they are very typical of Awbrey's style of writing.  I hesitated to put a request at WP:SSP because that page says the edits should be within the past week. It would probably be best to do a checkuser to make sure the IP range matches, but you can see the similarity of names and they have all started editing since Awbrey's ban last September.  I am less sure of "Love and Fellowship", and possibly "Sir Humphrey".  --Blainster 10:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not order a check-user of these usernames listed above?  There were so many of these over the past eight months that there was a category named "Category:Sockpuppets of banned user Jon Awbrey" or something to that effect (which may have since been deleted in a CfD).  I believe there have been in excess of forty to date.  User:KillerChihuahua is familiar with this set of events — perhaps you might want to consult with that admin as well. … Kenosis 14:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gone ahead and blocked them. See :Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey and :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Jon Awbrey" problem

message: I am beginning to remove some of the excessively specific material from this article on the heels of this unfortunate set of events discussed above.  I'm placing all significant chunks of removed material in Talk:Charles Peirce/Cache in the event some of it may be useful in a topic fork in the future.  No doubt it took a great deal of work for Jon Awbrey to assemble, but the vast majority of it is either unsourced or based on primary sources by Peirce, and simply too much for the main article on Charles Peirce. Please feel free to adapt, undo, or partially re-use as appropriate. ... Kenosis 13:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing the article to a manageable size

message: Jon, this article needs to be more clear to our average reader. The more complicated stuff needs to be in a different article. You must accept that the opinions of others have value even if you don't understand how that can be so. Is truth miscommunicated still truth? WAS 4.250 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accessibility Questions

message: Jon, thank you very very much for all your hard word and dedication in helping to bring knowledge to the world in this free (libre) encyclopedia (Wikipedia Review does not get the free culture aspect at all). Please let the past stay in the past as far as regretable interactions with certain wikipedians. We all have our flaws and wikipedia does not do revenge or punishment as a rule (although individuals certainly do in spite of the rules, especially when they are the ones interpreting the rules). So let us move forward rather than create unneeded barriers. You are respected by those you are now interacting with here on this page and anyone who does not respect you should stay the heck away from this page. But even those who respect you may differ with you or even block or ban you if you appear to be hurting wikipedia rather than helping. You need to behave in a way that leaves no doubt that you are being helpful. Being insulting and demanding leaves doubts. Getting in revert wars leaves doubts. You have doubts about their being helpful, no doubt - but if your goal is to give the gift of free knowledge to the world, fighting that fight now is not a good strategy. First regain your standing in this community by showing you can play well with others. WAS 4.250 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obstacles To Collaboration

message: In the intro paragraph I changed "semeiotic" to "semiotics" to be consistent with the other use of the term in the same paragraph.  I see there are separate entries on each term; however, "semeiotic" is defined as Peirce's own particular take on theory of signs.  Therefore, I reason that his "contribution" is to semiotics generally, not just his own "semeiotic".  Aldrichio 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Charles Peirce's particular theory of relations, why not simply start an article on Charles Peirce's theory of relations and place that material in such a location for now, with a link from the article on Charles Peirce?  The material, originally submitted by Jon Awbrey under his own name, can be found fully intact at Talk:Charles Peirce/Cache... Kenosis 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those of us who have been labouring here for the last year, going on two, will know that many related articles have already been spun off from the main Peirce article and that User:Jon Awbrey, now defunked, was early on encouraged by the local interest group to organize this effort.  As reported in the archives somewhere, Jon Awbrey looked around Wikipedia for established models of related article complexes, and found that folks in Literature had some of the best arrangements.  For example, see the complex of articles related to Chaucer and his works.  It was also observed that articles with titles like "So-and-so's approach to such-and-such" were generally deprecated for using that form — I forget the exact cases, but a lot of them seemed to involve Ken Wilber, I think.  So it was decided to follow the Chaucer rather than the Wilber model.  Accordingly, there are sub-articles and stub-articles on many of Peirce's individual works, and many on topics that Peirce initiated, or brought to new life, but that have developed further in the years that came after him.  If size matters, then 80 to 100 kb is not out of bounds for a figure of Peirce's stature.  But simply deleting essential aspects of Peirce's work from respectable coverage in the main article is not an acceptable way to it cut it down.  Created Equal 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without reviewing the articles, I'm guessing that our articles on Einstein and his ideas might be a proper model for how to break up information on a man and his important, yet to the general public, difficult to understand efforts. WAS 4.250 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: * For a moment there, I thought that Reason, Pure or OtherWise, had returned to Wikipedia.  But it seems to come in lurches and bakwashes.  On jugera, I guess.  Sadly, the present state of Wikipedian censorship and gag-ordering does not permit me to discuss these matters further here.  Those of you who still remember how to behave like scholars are invited to the Peirce Corner of our Public House at the Wikipedia Review.  Created Equal 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I count this as three more sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey, right here in this section alone. The refusal of Jon Awbrey, under the auspices of his many sockpuppets, to accept that well-researched material and personal commentary on that material (in this case Peirce's voluminous and often oblique writings) can legitimately be subject to editorial discretion of others is simply beyond me.  I mean, what is this? playing the role of Don Quixote with a multiple personality disorder or something? Some of us, including Jon, watched some unfortunate sockpuppeting happen before on this and another talk page involving another WP user, and I should think one would avoid this kind of approach based on that experience, rather than replicate it ad absurdum. Unfortunately I'm also reminded of the fellow who worked for three years on his doctoral thesis, didn't like the doctoral advisor's recommendations for the material he presented and demanded peer review of the situation.  Then after getting knocked down in peer review, rumor has it that he then went to a bunch of publishers with the material and came up empty, then went and bought an old luger — that was a couple years ago, and we still wonder every now and again whether he'll make the headlines and what the headline will read.  What I mean to say here is — sometimes things get a bit ridiculous after awhile, and it'd be very preferable in general to see some other course taken than the present one.  Do have a nice week, and stay in touch, OK?. ... Kenosis 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Collaboration is possible only on the basis of respect — respect for each other, respect for all of the ideals that we espouse, respect for those that came before us, and respect for the subject of the article.  When that basis is in place, then people can begin to collaborate on producing a high quality article about the subject in question, but not before.  The Proposition That 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jon, you have established that you have a consensus with yourself. Quite the puppet play. But all your characters sound alike. I read the same critisism of Isacc Asimov's characters. I think at least one should be Spanish. Si?  4.250.168.36 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to disagree with you 4.250.168.36. A Spanish speaking puppet that takes up where Jon left off would be like totally transparent, ya know? So, like, I suggest a French speaking puppet that takes up where Jon left off. Like, cuz that'd totally work. Ya, know? Oui? WAS 4.250 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are both wrong. Taking up where Jon left off is the give-away. You need three or so socks that care about this article and want to improve it in mildly differing ways. Let them argue with each other but agree in the end and thus improve this article.  5.250.168.36 19:70, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No that won't work. They'd see right through that. You have to have socks that oppose what Jon was trying to do and in the end claim to make the article better but actually make it worse according to the standards and criteria that Jon was using to make it better. Has Vietnam taught you guys nothing? Sometimes you have to destroy something to save it.6.250.168.36 19:80, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sockpuppets, you are wrong.  32kB is the recommended length for the entire article.  We just removed, and the sockpuppets keep replacing, 32kB worth of excess highly technical material that if anything should be published with a free host, and at most a link from this article.  Even without this material the article's still roughly double the recommended length.  Note that WP recommendations, such as for article length, can be altered by consensus of WP users and NOT by a fabricated "consensus" of sockpuppets.  And that's not the only issue with this article, though it's one of the more conspicuous ones ... Kenosis 11:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kenosis, You know perfectly well, at least, I think you do, that 32 kb is an obsolete limit based on the page edit specs that some browsers had almost 10 years ago.  There are tons and tons of Wikipedia articles that exceed that size, as befits their subjects.  Everybody is trying to write as succinctly as possible, and Peirce was especially noted for doing so, but that does not always make for ease of comprehension.  So let us put aside these red herrings and address the real issues.  And Dedicated To 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation

message: I think you're too harsh in your attempts to reconcile the Charles Peirce article.  More flies with honey, you know.  If you take a look at Benkler's breakdown of commons-based peer-production, you'll see that social capital is extremely important, and your unwillingness to invest it (Through your decisions to label certain activities as vandalism even knowing that it would bother other users and your strident tone in supporting your changes — which often include good information) is not an idealistic stand.  Wikipedia is no different than any other commons-based peer project, and requires of its volunteers a volunteer ethic.  More often than not, if you calm down, extend the olive branch and be the bigger person, it is not actually a sign of weakness but a sign of strength.  Elijahmeeks 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a different view of history.  Let me explain through example: I'm a big Jefferson fan — which means I hate Hamiltonians — I mean, I loathe Hamiltonians.  But I acknowledge that their contribution to the creation of the United States was valuable and important.  Even when it was destructive to knowledge and freedom.  These models of commons-based development are extremely resilient, production (And not contribution)-centric and, most importantly, demonstrate a marked ability to leave the hands of those who don't respect the model (Either through forking or dissipation).  The cultivation of civility and empathy to the point of submission is itself Strength and not weakness.  Well, I feel like I've gone a little too touchy-feelie … hopefully it hasn't done damage to the point I was trying to make.  Elijahmeeks 18:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Grace Note. WAS 4.250 16:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we're at the point where Wikipedia needs to note the difference between vandalism and public protest.  It would seem like the case here is not vandalism, or really anything so malicious, but rather a form of activism.  I don't support it, but it should be addressed in the proper manner. Elijahmeeks 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not entirely sympathetic, of course.  But it is apparent that the size and accuracy of the Charles Peirce article on Wikipedia is not what's important here.  I studied philosophy in my undergrad, and I had no idea who Peirce was until a year ago.  So we can't argue that the Charles Peirce article is fundamental to society at large (Unlike, say, Terrorism, Abortion, States' Rights or some other contentious socio-political battle that is rooted in definition).  That's why, I feel, it makes for a good place to discuss Wikipedia Activism.  As much as we'd like to cordon of what Wikipedia is not, the definition of the role and importance of Wikipedia is itself a collaborative effort between the community here and society at large (In the form of media and activists).  Wikipedia has grown so important that these arguments are no longer arguments between amateur encyclopedists and are now public discourse between concerned citizens.  Elijahmeeks 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peircing

message: I still think this is probably a red herring, or maybe just a guy thing, but I went ahead and tabulated a sample of current data on article size for major philosopher-scientists.  And Dedicated To 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. It is also true that working environments without the clever little digs are more fun to work in than ones with. And since we are a volunteer effort, it helps not to drive people away with an unpleasant atmosphere. I guess being sensitve towards the feelings of others is more useful than being sensitive towards slights to oneself. Oh well. That really is too much to ask, I suppose. We can't very well have a saints only policy, can we? WAS 4.250 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size Matters ???

message: I don't have any experience with this, but I'm going to request that the article be given protected status.  As I understand it, protected articles can only be edited by administrators, and semiprotected articles can only be edited by users who have been registered for at least four days.  I'm guessing that Mr. Awbrey has an inventory of these "sock-puppet" user names, and thus would not necessarily be affected by semi-protection.  So I will request full protection.
This war of reversions is totally ridiculous and makes Wikipedia into a laughing stock for anybody actually trying to do research on Peirce.  It seems to me that most users would rather leave the article completely untouched for as long as it takes to resolve this, than to have the article undergoing a radical change in appearance every 12 hours.Aldrichio 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the banned user in question has been indef blocked. I have hence unprotected this article. Let me know if there are further problems. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is it edit-protected again? Did a sock puppet reappear? DCDuring 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection Request

message: See http://www.opencycle.net/wiki/Talk%3ACharles_Peirce. WAS 4.250 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article has been copied to Opencycle

message: Books on Logic that belonged to Peirce were sold or donated by his widow. They are in the library at Harvard and can be downloaded at http://www.books.google.com/
Lestrade 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Donated Books

message: I have not had a chance to read through the whole of Peirce's article and the discussions, and the Archives — so it may be that some of these issues have already been brought up.  
Anyhow, as a Mathematician/Scientist (mathematical scientist, actually), I have some commonsensical questions in regards to Peirce's article : 
# Why is there no criticism of his work or of him?  I do not believe that, given the length of the article, there is a single criticism of him.  Are fellow wikipedians to believe that he was (assuming the date of death to be correct) perfect?
# In the section concerning his contributions to mathematics, there is a distinct lack of mathematical symbolism.  This, in and of itself, is not a problem — but it does point to the very likely fact that he practiced mathematics that is very much different and at odds with the mathematical work of current modern day mathematicians.  In the section concerning Logical graphs, there is also a lack of symbolism.  Of course, this is all dependent upon how one defines mathematics.  However, it does seem surprising that Peirce did not have a chance to outline how his work might be equivalent to any mathematical languages that mathematicians take for granted nowadays (such as ZFC, and other commonly studied, read and acknowledge mathematical formalisms).  
# How many mathematical syllabuses nationally and internationally contain Pierce's work within their itinerary?  How many syllabuses set questions on Pierce's logical graphs on their exam papers?  I cannot imagine many.  ConcernedScientist 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear ConcernedScientist, I share many of the concerns that you have expressed above.  In order to understand the current state of any wikitext, whether in Wikipedia or Elsewhere, one has to understand a couple of factors : (α) the features that are peculiar to the specific wiki environment and (β) the full contribution history of the text in question.  In the case of the English Wikipedia article on Charles Sanders Peirce : (α) many of the defects that you mention are due to philosophical and populational peculiarities of the English Wikipedia environment and (β) many more are due to the rather troubled history of this particular article.  As often happens, these two factors have conspired to block any easy remedy of the rather obvious defects you mention.  I will fill in some details of the case as I get time.  Voice Of Xperience 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics

message: Minor edit, please. In 'Reception', could an admin link the mention of Thomas Goudge to the new article T.A. Goudge, please? Thanks! Homagetocatalonia 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goudge

message: Perhaps when the controversy dies down I (or someone else) could place this link to the logic portal?
  (Forget about that other template I guess.)
Gregbard 04:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logic portal link

message: As soon as this page is unprotected, someone should disambiguate the link to "Boolean algebra" to Boolean algebra (logic), which is the correct target here. --Trovatore 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. In future using  would help draw attention to such requests. —David Eppstein 19:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Boolean algebra]] is now a disambiguation page

message: Please change to IPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekrorider (talk • contribs) 
 Declined. Please be clearer about what edit you propose. Sandstein 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Purse"

message: Could someone add a header like  to make 
Charles Pierce has a similar line that points to this page. Lisatwo 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a disambiguation header

message: A fundamental problem continues to haunt this entry and its Talk Page: too much of it reflects the highly idiosyncratic point of view of a certain Jon Awbrey, who is not a Peirce scholar and whose views bear little resemblance to the Peirce scholarship found in university libraries. I applaud any action taken by Wikipedia management to limit the influence Awbrey has on this and related entries.
Thanks to Brent's biography, the facts of Peirce's life are reasonably well established. However, the sheer mass and range of Peirce's writings remains daunting as ever. Sorting out what Peirce thought remains up in the air, if only because the Collected Papers are misleading in some important respects, and the IUP chronological edition is complete only through 1890. After more than 30 years of work, only 6 of a planned 31 volumes of that edition have appeared, none since 2000. Secondary studies, such as Goudge 1950 and Murphey 1961, that were landmarks in their day are now obsolescent. Since then, our understanding of related figures such as Royce, C I Lewis, Dewey, and C K Ogden has advanced considerably. Hence the whole subject of Peirce's "influence" has to be revisited.
As for Peirce and Leibniz, Max Fisch wrote an entire essay (republished in Fisch 1986) on the relation between the two, quoting Peirce who was well aware of the parallels. Hence a mention of these parallels in this entry, citing Fisch, is not out of place. Some mention of Frege is also in order because Peircians complain, with justice I maintain, that Frege has hogged much of the intellectual limelight that is rightly Peirce's. Frege leads to analytic philosophy and the tortured mathematics of PM; Peirce points us towards Boolean algebra, and set and model theory.132.181.160.42 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A persistent problem

message: The following links under "References" on the main page need to be corrected as shown just below, because of the move of the Arisbe website from members.door.net to the cspeirce.com domain. (The links are already correct on the Peirce bibliography page(s) Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography and Charles Sanders Peirce %28Bibliography%29.)
Links (under "References") with the corrected URLs:
Anellis, I.H. (1995) "Peirce Rustled, Russell Pierced: How Charles Peirce and Bertrand Russell Viewed Each Other's Work in Logic, and an Assessment of Russell's Accuracy and Role in the Historiography of Logic," Modern Logic 5: 270–328. 
Houser, Nathan (1989) "The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Peirce Papers," Fourth Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Perpignan, France, 1989. Published, pp. 1259–1268 in Signs of Humanity, vol. 3, Michel Balat and Janice Deledalle-Rhodes (eds.), Gérard Deledalle (gen. ed.), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 1992. 
Peirce, C.S., "Application of C.S. Peirce to the Executive Committee of the Carnegie Institution, July 15, 1902." Published in Eisele, Carolyn, ed. (1976) "Parts of Carnegie Application (L75)" in The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, Vol. 4, Mathematical Philosophy. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton Publishers: 13–73. 
The Tetrast 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody, perhaps you, already corrected those links, but the corrections were lost in this instance of massive vandalism committed by administrator SlimVirgin when she reverted 3 months of worth of edits on the article.  Graysnots 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the references are fixed now, but I will double check.  Name Sleightly Anonymized 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  They are fixed now.  The use of "Eprint" and "PDF" labels at the end of the citation is done to maintain a distinction between the printed and the online versions, to warn of PDF files, and to avoid that little arrow from breaking into the middle of lines.  12.75.42.63 20:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you so much. I didn't know anything was going on with the "Eprint" and "PDF" labels, I though I was just replacing the URLs and leaving everything else the same. But I was wondering what was going on visually with the arrow thingy. I'll be alert to the issue next time. Thanks again. The Tetrast 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reduced the protection on the article. If problems persist from a particular editor, let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repair three links

message: Why is it edit-protected again? Did a sock puppet reappear? DCDuring 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Un-Protection Request

message: Some of the discussion has been rendered obsolete by subsequent changes. I would have to leave it to veterans to decide what of the older discussions still has a bearing and should not be archived. DCDuring 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Archiving Some of Talk Page

message: I was trying to figure out how to make another Archive page, but when I did I discovered that somebody had already made an Archive_2 for Jan 2006 to Jun 2006, only somehow the link to it got omitted, so I will look at that and see if it's okay, then delete the corresponding sections here.  Moses Nebogipfel 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive Issue

message: This article is huge. Would it not be possible to break out, say, Pierce's more strictly mathematical contributions? Inter-article links are so effective that IMHO little would be lost in those instances where someone had to switch back and forth a few times because of connections between the mathematics and the philosophy. DCDuring 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Length

message: Note to Tetrast.  I see from your user pages that you have been working on these topics.  Some of the "missing grapes" vis-a-vis Peirce's theory of signs can be found in a number of other articles that were earlier spun off from this one.  Many of these can be found listed in the "Main Article" link in various token sections — "token", ha ha — and others can be found in the "See Also" section, for instance, here:
* Charles_Peirce#Information, inquiry, logic, semiotics
* Semeiotic
* Semiosis
* Semiotics
* Semiology
* Sign
* Icon
* Index
* Symbol
The general confusion about Peirce's sem(e)iotic(s) versus Saussure's semiology is as bad as it ever was, but no one has had the energy, nerve, or time to try and do much about it yet.  So there it is.
The Manual of Style seems to weigh against titles like "Sign (Peirce)", so the spin that a given thinker has on a topic tends to become a subsection of the article on that topic.  The articles on Semeiotic and Semiotic Triangle are still very short, and may be natural places to elaborate Peirce's own take on the subject, complete with lots of pretty pictures.  Der Mann Ohne Eigenschaften 12:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They might be good places. But I've noticed articles with titles such as Category_(Kant), Physics_(Aristotle), and Celebrity_Jeopardy!_(Saturday_Night_Live), so that format seems allowed. The stuff that I'm preparing on kinds of signs is definitely about Peirce's system in particular, and not even about all of it, but just the "main" stuff. And it's not done yet -- I have to fix up the stuff about symbols. I'm going to take it slow and watch what happens to the main article. (No reversion wars for me, thanks; I'll make myself scarce if that happens.) Anyway, I don't have the free time that I used to have. The Tetrast 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semeiotic, Semiotics, Theory of Signs

message: Jossi wanted to briefen the definitions of icon, index, and symbol, that's okay. But the unexplained use of words like "representamen" and "ground" could only confuse the general reader and many a philosopher as well. The section on classes of signs is not the place to suddenly use Peirce's alternate term "representamen" in place of "sign." The ground is an important concept but it needs to be defined.The Tetrast 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Icon, index, symbol

message: Please be aware that banned user  has an obsessive interest int his article, and has used many ban-evading sockpuppets to attempt to force his original research into this article. See :Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey. The majority of arguments on this page appear to come from Awbrey socks. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research and POV-pushing

message: The article seems quiet now, and I just couldn't resist trying an edit. The section on Peirce's Categories has needed editing. Maybe it should become a sub-article, but it seems a bit stub-like right now. Another consideration is that Peirce's categories really are totally central to his philosophy. The Tetrast 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: "Types of signs" was always a bad section title because "type" is itself a word which Peirce used to label a certain class of signs (type = legisign = famisign). There is a new article Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce) where the subject is discussed in more detail.<BR>
I added a section on "Semiotic elements" because the sign-object-interpretant triad is one of THE major topics in Peirce. More detail in Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce). Yet, much important stuff remains in Sign relations, especially on correspondence, determination, comprehension, denotation, etc., much of which I don't cover at all and any I don't understand everything in that article very clearly. <BR>
I hope it's not terrible to give two "main articles" for a section. I didn't know what else to do.The Tetrast 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big edit of sections on signs

message: Leaving a link at the top to a man with the same name but with no other distinguishing identification is only moderately helpful and begs the question "Which Charles Pierce?".  If someone is looking for a Charles Pierce because of some philosophical or scientific principal, but that someone is not sure whether it is this one, they might waste time clicking on the other Charles Pierce's link.  I think it would be more helpful if they could see up front that the other one is known for being a female impersonator, so they know if it's a scientific issue, they are in the right place.  -- But|seriously|folks  17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a very sensible idea, BSF. Thank you. ... Kenosis 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Too bad I don't know how to spell "Peirce"! -- But|seriously|folks  18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe standard practice is to state why the other individual is notable.  Look at Charles Pierce, for example, or Wesley Clark, Douglas Adams or Samuel Beckett (the last three being featured articles).  -- But|seriously|folks  01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And if they're looking for the famous female impersonator?  --Haemo 02:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're looking for the famous (a relative term) female impersonator, it's quite unlikely that they'll mistype "Peirce" for the "Pierce" which would have been correct. "Pierce" is a common name, "Peirce" is a bit unusual. And they'll quickly see that they have the wrong one and they'll see "not to be confused with Charles Pierce" and click on that name. The Tetrast 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that Ziemia completely removed the disambiguation link. Previously Ziemia removed only the part about "female impersonator" and I was okay with the link in minimal form. I thought hanging the phrase "female impersonator" near Peirce's head was meant as a joke but I see that Butseriouslyfolks is a serious editor/administrator. Still, the phrase "female impersonator" is distractingly undignified in the context. That's my motive for agreeing with Ziemia, but she also has presented a good justification. The Tetrast 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How about the people who can't get the "i before e" thing straight?  Like this million people.  Or this million people?  It even took me a while to notice the difference in spelling between the Charleses, and I can spel wel. -- But|seriously|folks  02:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh pleeease just put "Not to be confused with Charles Pierce" and let the "female imperonator" stuff go. I won't fight a reversion war over it but please please. The Tetrast 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the phrase is "i before e expect after c" not "i before e except when you're looking for the famous female impersonator".  --Haemo 02:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask what is so objectionable about the dab that we should break from established practice as shown above? -- But|seriously|folks  02:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't concede that you have the argument over Ziemia in terms of practice or rules. But what's objectionable about "female impersonator" is that it is distractingly undignified in the context and, if it weren't, then it wouldn't be funny. If you don't think it's funny, say so to Tony Curtis and Dustin Hoffman. I rest my case, for the moment. The Tetrast 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if the other Charles was just a musician or actor, you wouldn't take issue with it?  It's a valid Wikipedia article, just like any other.  (I guess it's a good thing Peirce wasn't named Ron Jeremy!)  Seriously, I really think we're doing people a disservice and encouraging forks if we don't do everything we can to help them find what they're looking for. -- But|seriously|folks  03:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinguishing Charleses

message: I notice that Ziemia has been banned as one of Jon's suspected sockpuppets. But there's no pun in Ziemia's name like Jon's sockpuppet names usually have. Ziemia's behavior has not been like Jon's. Ziemia reverted once or twice but that's not the same thing as what Jon does, and Ziemia was not involved in today's back-&-forth. I've looked at Ziemia's user page; it doesn't look like Jon's sockpuppet user pages, and Ziemia's contribution history doesn't look like Jon's sort of thing. And, most noticeably, Ziemia's comments don't sound like Jon at all. Ziemia is succinct, straightforward, unsarcastic to the point. I really, really doubt that Ziemia is Jon.
It shouldn't be dangerous to agree with Jon. I agree with Jon about Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim and about a number of other issues regarding Peirce. Jon used to post to peirce-l, where I sometimes agreed with him, sometimes tangled with him. I disagree with Jon (not to mention Peirce) about the adequacy of Peirce's object-sign-interpretant triad as a basis for logical/semiotic relations. I agree with Jon and Ziemia about the inappropriateness of the "female impersonater" label hanging near Peirce's head. I appreciate the administrators' help in letting this article be edited. But the atmosphere around here is like a college dorm now. "Female impersonator." Very funny. Can anybody please stop thinking of Tootsie for five minutes?
Everything was just fine, the article was finally peaceful and editable yet free of its long reversion wars, when disambiguation merely said "Not to be confused with Charles Pierce". Now instead the reversion war has restarted over this stuff. Well, I'll make myself scarce for a while. The Tetrast 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't think Ziemia is Jon

message: The Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms should not be confused with any Commons dictionary. It's got its own Website and everything, check it out http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html The word "commens" itself is Peirce's word for that which he also called the "commind". Basically it's com- + mens or "mind". The Tetrast 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms

message: It turns out that there are the following Charles/Charlie Pierce entries in Wikipedia:
*Charles Pierce -- Female impersonator. Earliest edit: 18 February 2002 156.153.255.195
*Charlie Pierce, a.k.a Charles P. Pierce --  Sportswriter. Earliest edit: 19 November 2005 JB82 
*Charles B. Pierce -- American movie director. Earliest edit:  24 September 2006 Lcduke
*Charles Wilson Pierce -- U.S. Representative from Alabama. Earliest edit: 4 June 2007 Polbot
The impression, that the "female impersonator" phrase is intended for humor or spite, rather than for concern about the female impersonator himself, is reinforced by the fact that the disambiguation sentence, so quickly edited to retain the "female impersonator" phrase -- with an un-Jonlike reverter Ziemia so quickly banned as Jon's suspected sock (yes, the others were Jonlike) -- has been allowed to stand with Harrypotter's accidental misspelling of the female impersonator's name as if it were "Peirce" instead of "Pierce". Now that it turns out that there are at least four people named Charles Pierce with Wikipedia pages, perhaps the disambiguation can be edited simply point to Pierce (surname), which I've updated to include the already-existent Pierce pages. But I won't touch that disambiguation sentence, it seems to be some sort of line in the sand. The Tetrast 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to end the female impersonator fun

message: I have not looked forward to the time when secondary sources would be needed to clarify some of Peirce's concepts. Where, for instance, is the source justifying this edit? My recollection is that Peirce went farther than referring to just the experimental consequences of the "thing" to which a concept refers, but also was referring to the experimental consequences of the application of the concept itself to the thing it is intended to refer. The distinction is not insignificant. But I'd like to look at the source. Thanks. ... Kenosis 05:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I've repaired the problem, which I may myself have accidentally caused! The Tetrast (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent copyedits

message: Sorry I put nothing in the edit line, somebody knocked on the door and I hit the enter button by mistake. Anyway, I've shortened the section by creating a new article Categories (Peirce) and restoring some old material there (with a few tweaks and an update), which helps outline the pertinence of the long quote from Peirce's "Prolegomena." Same table both in section here and in separate article? Well, I hope to enrich the version at the separate article, make it more elaborate or something. The Tetrast 01:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of Categories 

message: Please don't rush to revert! It's done to bring the topics into harmony with Peirce's classification of the sciences. See Classification of the sciences (Peirce). This will create the opportunity to bring in some neglected threads of his thought, in a natural way. The Tetrast 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering of article 

message: 23:57, 10 October 2007 Jlwelsh (Talk | contribs) (81,438 bytes) (Added "Influenced" section to info box and added Habermas to that section.) (undo)
Habermas isn't the only one! This could be fun. Especially one has the TOC unhidden, there's plenty of space for the others whom Peirce has influenced. William James, John Dewey, to begin with. The Tetrast 02:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced 

message: It's been brought to my attention that the standard abbreviation for the Writings of Charles S. Peirce. A chronological Edition is not "CE" but "W". And that turns out to be the abbreviation already used at the German Wikipedia's Peirce bibliography http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_S._Peirce/Schriften. So I'll make the change here. I've already done so at Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography. The Tetrast 13:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation 

message: I moved the "F.R.L" quote to the front (it's no longer in "Theory of Inquiry"), shortened the quote, added some discussion, and made lots of briefenings of phrase elsewhere in the section, so that, I hope, overall the section is only a bit longer now than it was before. The Tetrast 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy: Logic, or semiotic

message: I subdivided the opening section of "Philosophy: Logic, or semiotic", and while such explicit marks of organization help the reader of a long article, one also notices, gee, the article is long. I rephrased for economy quite a bit a day or two ago in the text now called "Dynamics of inquiry" but there's only so much I can do in that direction. How urgent is the issue of length now for the Peirce article as a whole? I'm still kind of new around here. Should I move the length question to the top of the agenda, or should I not worry about it too much just as yet? The Tetrast 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length 2

message: There were four "Logic of relatives" articles, an "On a New List of Categories" article, and a "Kaina Stoicheia" article, all nearly stubs, a few sentences in the main body of each, which Awbrey created way back. I've moved that of his material (some sentences) which was useful into the main Peirce article here. The Kaina Stoicheia article was stub-like except for a long quote of text from Peirce's article, and that text and the rest of Peirce's article are all available (the same text, I checked) in the Arisbe version, to which I linked. The Tetrast (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution: Logic of relatives, Kaina Stoicheia, etc.

message: Now I'm thinking of moving some of the "Pragmatism" section into the main article on "Pragmaticism". But I'm running out of energy for tonight. The Tetrast (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long Pragmatism section

message: Note to whoever moves contributions from one article to another: The GFDL requires author attribution to be retained, and the customary way to do that at wikipedia is to add appropriate information into the edit summary and/or the talk page. In the case of articles like these that basically have one author, a statement like that indicating Jon Awbrey as the primary author of material in the article prior to (January 2007?) in both an edit summary (perhaps of a null edit?) and on the talk page would be appropriate. (Often I move content from one article to another and say in the edit summary "moved from name of article". That doesn't work if the article is then deleted. Why people don't just make the articles redirects instead of deletions makes no sense to me.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see. I already did some of that just above in Talk:Charles Peirce section "Logic of relatives, Kaina Stoicheia, etc." Maybe that section should have a different name. Or I should add "Attribution" to its name. Also see the talk page at Talk:Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs_%28Peirce%29. Just last night in the Attributions section I added a link to an old version of a section in the main Peirce article, a section which had been deleted and which I revived as the basis for the new "Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)" article. I had written a lot of that section, and others had written some, maybe a lot -- Jon may have written quite a bit of it but one would have to dig back through the main Peirce article's edit histories to nail down which things he wrote. The Tetrast (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that. Jon put a lot of hard work into giving this gift of knowledge to the world and he is legally and ethically entitled to reasonable attribution per its GFDL copy-left copyright. I'm sure that whatever you wind up doing in this regard will be well within what is appropriate. Thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the subarticles as redirects. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL 

message: I've been thinking that it would be simpler in a number of cases to link directly to entries in the References section. In fact I already set up some links WITH return links but the return links are a pain, and the complexity of reference will make it hard for others to edit.
How about this?: When the endnote would simply be a reference to a work without annotation or specific page number, I add a superscripted "REF", for example REF, with a link to the entry in references, and I somewhere somewhere tell the viewer to use the browser's "back" button in order to return to the original place in the article text.
Then also there would be these advantages: 
* When there are multiple links to a single reference entry, it's not like an endnote where you have to make sure that the endnote's text is in the first link. The references' texts are all down in the References section, that's where they're edited, when one edits them at all (no annotations to edit). 
* One can link to references from footnotes.
And it's easy to find the span id (since they're all together there). 
Or instead of REF I could use a whatchamacallit, a ^, maybe boldfaced, like this: ^.
Please, comments, cautions, any? The Tetrast (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References versus Endnotes 

message: Usual reading of the GFDL is that there is no violation since the full list of authors remains stored in the database. The list of authors from any particular deleted article can be asked at the Administrator Noticeboard, if needed. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. -- lucasbfr talk 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Prescisive abstraction is not deleted, and its history is readable. I have undeleted Kaina Stoicheia and The Simplest Mathematics, and their history is now readable too. -- lucasbfr talk 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A specific explanation of any other problems would be appreciated, should there be any. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other subarticles have been undeleted and changed to redirects. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging and GFDL