Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Help please. Standard whether WP should use the label "philosopher"
If any of you has some time to review what FreeKnowledgeCreator has been up-to in topics concerning Philosophy, in particular Philosophers, it would be a big help. Beginning-with a problem in the Timothy Leary article especially, interactions with other editors have been curt and sharp as-if other editors are supposed to be following guidelines specific to philosophy that as far as I can tell do not exist. Any Guidance concerning this would be helpful-thanks. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Respectfully, it is not clear to me what you are trying to accomplish with these vague complaints. What exactly do you expect editors to do? I had a disagreement with some other editors at the Timothy Leary article, yes - what of it? Disagreements are common on Wikipedia, and so far as I know, I have a right to disagree with people. Instead of making some kind of ill-defined complaint about me, you could instead have left a neutral note that there was a dispute at that article and asked editors interested in philosophy topics to comment on it, whatever their views (the dispute concerns whether Leary should be labelled a philosopher). As for "interactions with other editors have been curt and sharp", I have been considerably less rude and aggressive than certain other editors in the course of that disagreement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well-personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea that editors are just supposed to settle discussions like who is and who is not a philosopher. Leary for instance, the article passed what is normally considered using reliable references yet your arguments hinted at policy standards that were never produced. Also- I don't think that it really is debatable whether or not someone is/was a philosopher, like Huxley where I think you changed his article as well? Either someone is/was or not. But as far as WP is concerned, I thought that the rule is that if reliable sources say it, it is acceptable.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- You might wish to review the discussion at WP:NPOVN, TeeVeeed. Several editors noted that the case for labeling Leary a philosopher was open to question. Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Evidently there are sources that call Leary a philosopher, but whether that amounts to a significant view remains in dispute. One user, Fyddlestix, commented, "there are a few legit sources out there that do describe Leary as a philosopher...The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes him as 'a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens.' So the IP isn't completely off-base, although I'm skeptical that there are enough sources like this out there to justify using the 'philosopher' label." That seems a reasonable observation. There might be a case for calling Leary a philosopher if more high-quality sources were provided, which has not happened so far. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well-personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea that editors are just supposed to settle discussions like who is and who is not a philosopher. Leary for instance, the article passed what is normally considered using reliable references yet your arguments hinted at policy standards that were never produced. Also- I don't think that it really is debatable whether or not someone is/was a philosopher, like Huxley where I think you changed his article as well? Either someone is/was or not. But as far as WP is concerned, I thought that the rule is that if reliable sources say it, it is acceptable.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- This question comes up repeatedly at articles edited by enthusiasts, some well-informed and well-intentioned, and others with limited perspective on the issue. It's a longstanding issue at Ayn Rand and a highly motivated editor kept at it for about a year at Stefan Molyneux, going so far as to edit the Philosopher article to support his POV, before he was finally TBANned. Among the common contributing factors in these articles are citations to what appear to be RS but which are written by members of a closed group of acolytes of the purported philosopher. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is unfortunately true, and I think the situation you are describing may well apply at the Timothy Leary article. The "philosopher" claim is currently cited to this document, "An annotated bibliography of Timothy Leary", written partly by Michael Horowitz, described in his article as a "former close associate" of Leary. I think there may be grounds for questioning whether it qualifies as a reliable source. The publisher, Archon, is not known to me. It certainly does not seem to be a mainstream press, and its books cannot have the same level of reliability as something published by a mainstream academic press. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- You raise an excellent point--there are 50 shades of philosopher. Would a more nuanced description in the article help achieve consensus? Perhaps one could say:
- Leary considered himself a philosopher
- Associates of Leary considered him a philosopher
- Leary wrote about philosophy, I'm thinking of works like the eight-circuit model of consciousness
- Leary was not formally trained as a philosopher
- As a counterculture figure, Leary was outside the mainstream of philosophy (my guess, I have no source for this)
- --Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Blue Mist 1 altered the "philosopher" description to "self-described philosopher" here, which was reverted, on the basis of one user's personal understanding of the meaning of "philosopher." Skyerise restored "self-described" here, and that was also reverted, by the same user who reverted Blue Mist 1. The article is thus suffering from very unseemly behavior aimed at presenting Leary as a "philosopher" without qualification. Conceivably, some qualifier other than "self-described" might stand a better chance of acceptance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- This question comes up repeatedly at articles edited by enthusiasts, some well-informed and well-intentioned, and others with limited perspective on the issue. It's a longstanding issue at Ayn Rand and a highly motivated editor kept at it for about a year at Stefan Molyneux, going so far as to edit the Philosopher article to support his POV, before he was finally TBANned. Among the common contributing factors in these articles are citations to what appear to be RS but which are written by members of a closed group of acolytes of the purported philosopher. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a related discussion on the talk page at Philosopher that would benefit from additional participation by Philosophy Project members. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the general view that we need clear standards on who is considered a philosopher. A litmus tests on this issue is (or ought to be) Noam Chomsky, whose formal training and occupation centers on linguistics, and yet many sources (some highly credible), consider him a philosopher, despite having no academic qualifications to that effect. One thing that might sway people is that Chomsky is actually published in philosophy journals likeSynthese and Mind, which ought to count as philosophical contributions at the highest level of professional philosophy (even if you don't have a doctoral degree from a philosophy program).
- So what does this say for Leary? It gives us a helpful set of questions to ask: (1) Is his doctoral degree in philosophy? (2) Does he have any publications in philosophy? (3) Are any of his views (like the aforementioned Eight-circuit model) been noted or otherwise discussed by professional philosophers or in philosophy journals? (4) Has he ever been employed by a philosophy department? (5) Are there any credible sources that depict him as a philosopher? These questions seem to be a good starting point in answering the question. BabyJonas (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
RfC on Genocide-related flag icons
Since this is a listed project, there is an ongoing RfC to determine the validity of flags in Genocide-related articles. It's at Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles. Please comment there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Defeasiblity
Currently Defeasibility is a redirect to Falsifiability. Unless I misunderstand, though, the two terms mean something rather different in logic, don't they? Help with the redirect is appreciated. (See also Defeasible (disambiguation), which points to Defeasible reasoning and (since my recent edit) Defeasible logic. If necessary, help there would also be appreciated.) Cnilep (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Plato on Egyptian self cultivation
Years ago I happened to read on a web page that in one of his dialogues Plato states that on an Egyptian pyramid there was an inscription which described the way how man can reach the condition of a god by simply breathing. Could anybody here help me find the citation? Thank you very much for the attention.05:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
RfC on: should Timothy Leary be described as a "philosopher"?
There is an RfC at Talk:Timothy Leary here. Skyerise (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Medical Controversies – principles for category inclusion
This is posted here as the Category:Medical controversies page falls under the Wikiproject Philosophy purview.
The issues follow from discussions at CFS: Talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Problems_of_controversy
There does not seem to be any guidance on what in WP terms constitutes a medical controversy and there is a danger that the Category: Medical Controveries could act as a self referential axiom, whereby a page listed at Category:Medical controversies is automatically defined as medical controversy without necessarily meeting, or continuing to meet an encyclopaedic definition of a Medical controversies.
Suggested principles of what would be required to meet an encyclopaedic definition of a medical controversy.
What a medical controversy is not:
- Not a media controversy. i.e a controversy that is presented in the media as a medical issue but is not reflected as such in MEDRS
- Not a mere difference of medical opinion, either between individual clinicians/researchers, informal groups of clinicians/researchers, formal research groups, institions or specialisms.
- Not an historical division of opinion between individual clinicians/researchers etc.
- Not a fact established by unsupported opinion even when expressed by authors of MEDRS.
Location of a medical controversy:
- A medical controversy should be capable of location within one or more aspects of an illness, disease etc. Classing an entire illness as controversial is rarely encyclopaedic, controversy were it truly exists can be identified in aspects such as diagnosis, physiology, treatment, research etc.
- A medical controversy may also be geographically specific. This can be difficult to address encyclopaedically and it is essential that the geographical nature be clearly specified.
- A medical controversy may be service or specialism specific, again to be encyclopaedic the clinical/academic location of the controversy needs to be accurately identified.
Attachment of controversy to illness/disease:
There are multiple points by which controversy can attach to an illness. Poor research, fraudulent research, political speech, media commentary, poor or dangerous treament, fraudulent treatment and fraudulent practitioners, celebrity comment, clebrity patient etc. From an encyclopaedic perspective these sources of controversy should not of themselves support classification of a subject as a medical controversy. Of course if a piece of research or a treatment has impacted on clinical practice, then that research or treatment may of itself be a medical controversy - Hyperemesis gravidarum is a non controversial medical condition, but its treament with thalidomide remains profoundly controversial because of the harm caused. It is notable that this is no longer a continuing medical controversy as a treatment because no resonable clinician would any longer prescribe thalidomide it for morning sickness, but it remains a controversy because of the the continuing effect on the lives of those who were harmed.
Sources defining a medical controversy:
In science controversy isn’t about mere difference of perspective – different groups of researchers are in energetic argument with other groups all the time, for there to be medical/scientific controversy there needs to be more than the usual fighting of corners, instead there needs to be an exceptional divide in scientific perspective. In medicine such an exceptional divide should be indentifiable in MEDRS, with the material clearly specifying the basis and location of the controversy.
The Specific case of CFS:
Medical controversies tend to resolve as research progresses, while in comparison political, media, and social controversies do not, although these latter types may fade from general interest. CFS is certainly a difficult illness about which to construct an encyclopaedia article, it has more than one name attached to it, diagnosis is by symptomology only, there is no current certain treatment and its pathophysiology is not established. Nevertheless over the last 25 years there has been progress in formulating now well established processes of diagnosis, there is general clinical acceptance that management options are limited and offer little benefit for most patients, and there has begun to be progessive investment in researching the biological bases of the condition. Various media controversies have attached to CFS and the false association of the XMRV retrovirus and ongoing open data issues related to a study called PACE are research controversies that have attached to CFS, however neither has impacted on the established positions on diagnosis, pathology or management. To the extent that CFS has itself been considered controversial, this has been related to a debate about the differing significance of imputed psychiatric versus physiologic characteristics, this debate continues between differing specialisms but it is notable that the practioners of just one specialism continue to talk (without providing evidence) in terms of the condition being controversial and that this specialism (psychiatry/psychology or indeed primarily a single English dominated school of thinking – BPS) has in recent years lost ground in the research focus and funding. Neither of two major reports published by respectively the US NIH and IOM http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2322800 and http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19012/beyond-myalgic-encephalomyelitischronic-fatigue-syndrome-redefining-an-illness in the last 18 months referes to CFS as controversial.
Comments on the general issues of medical controversies and on the specific case of CFS would be welcome. Particularly on the appropriateness of removing the CFS article from the medical controversies category, and/or the creation of a medical controversies(Historical) category. --In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- CFS should be removed from the medical controversies category...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- For WP purposes, this doesn't seem a matter of philosophy, but of reliable sources. Here is a 2015 Lancet article on the controversies surrounding CFS. Here is a 2015 Lancet position paper on the IOM report, which says "The authors of the report hope that the new name will send a signal to clinicians and patients, and could be the first step towards a widespread change of attitude". That's a medical journal hoping clinicians pay attention to the report's recommendations and the fact that there is a position piece in a an important medical journal shows this is still a big controversy within the medical community. Here is a 2015 news article in Science about the PACE controversy and some of those challenging the studies are researchers. Again if this makes it to the Science news section, it is still controversial. My hope is that IOM, Cochrane, and NIH reports will go some way toward establishing consensus within the medical community. But it seems clear from MEDRS that the controversy isn't over yet. --Mark viking (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- From a philosophy perspective there is indeed a question regarding semantics and what “controversy” means in the context of an encyclopaedia. There is more to the issue than a simple question of RS. When (for an encyclopaedia) does the normal level of academic or professional difference of opinion become controversial ? If we were to accept a test of any difference of view as constituting a “controversy” then the whole of theoretical physics would be one enormous and near perpetual ‘controversy’, yet to for encyclopaedia such a classification would clearly be absurd. Certainly (as I acknowledged above) differences of clinical opinion and research perspectives regarding CFS exist, but the question is whether these constitute a medical controversy. The fact that one medical specialism has a narrative (exemplified by Prins et al 2006) in which CFS is consistently presented as “controversial” does not make for a controversy, likewise for one journal and its editor to favour one research perspective does not constitute a balance of MEDRS (Open Letter to The Lancet). And news, even scientific news, by the very nature of the overriding character of the news media, inevitably provides a presentation that heavily weights for ‘controversy’ where only common difference of opinion is in play. The semantic and encyclopaedic question is firstly what is it that constitutes “controversy” ? Only once that is addressed then can we answer the question of whether (for Wikipedia) CFS is as whole subject a medical controversy, or whether elements attaching to CFS are separately ‘controversies’ or whether these attached issues are merely part of the general progress of medical science. --In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Neutral notification of move discussion
There is a discussion underway to move the article Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (with a single comma) to Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Please share your opinion on the matter at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. Day#Requested move 22 April 2016. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
nonexistence
Ever since my timid contribution to negated existence was bluntly dismissed by User:Blue_Mist_1 (see User_talk:Blue_Mist_1#nonexistence, diff), I have been struggling to put something together that somehow provides a bigger view of the topic. The sciences have come a long way since Parmenides put forward his view of the world, after all, and I am convinced that so far we have a blind spot here that should be addressed by WP. May I kindly ask the community to contribute to User:Kku/Nonexistence? You may notice that I think there is more to it than what can be said from the philosophical side. You are free to improve (or critizise) those parts as well if you feel inclined. Thanks for many interesting contributions in advance. -- Kku 10:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
"Usurpation"
The usage and primary topic of Usurpation is under discussion, see DRAFT TALK:Usurpation -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I need help with a category problem
There are these two categories: (1) Category:Branches of philosophy (maybe soon called Category:Subfields of philosophy) and (2) Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy. The way I get it, (1) is for the main fields of philosophy, (2) for the crossover/fusion between philosophy and another discipline. I have no experience with philosophy and for me it seems "off", that Category:Political philosophy and Category:Social philosophy, who are fusions between social/political science and philosophy are not in (2) but in (1). Is is because of history/tradition? Would suggest me to start a discussion at Wikipedia:CFD to restructure them into (2)? – CN1 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Both seem to be sub-fields of philosophy. BabyJonas (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- We over at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion decided now to nominate Category:Interdisciplinary subfields of philosophy for renaming to Category:Philosophy by topic. The reason is to set it apart from Category:Philosophy of science, because every discipline is also a (branch of) science. Also there are topics who are no discipline, like time, happiness, life etc. This is only an information, I have no further questions. CN1 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Should there be a series on "Certainty"?
So apparently we have a series on Certainty. I'm mystified as to why this particular aspect has to have its own series, not to mention everything else has to defined in terms of certainty. Some of the related concepts have nothing in common. Solipsism and fatalism? Is this worth cleaning up, or should it just be deleted? BabyJonas (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Peer review of life.
Globalization categories
Due to the inherent inter- and multi-disciplinary nature of the Globalization topic, there is a lot of intersection with categories of related WikiProjects of WP:GLBZ. Currently, comments would be welcome on a proposed re-name of Category:Sociocultural globalization (a major aspect of and 2nd tier level of the Globalization category) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_28#Category:Sociocultural_globalization. Thank you in advance. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Mention of Black and Women Philosophers in the "Philosopher" article
Philosopher used to have sections that referenced black and women philosophers which have been removed. However the argument to reinstate them is only between myself and one other editor. Accusations of "victim mentality" among other things have been thrown around. If other people could come in to give their suggestions, that would be very good so that this isn't just a dumb one-on-one argument.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Merger Proposal
You are all invited to the discussion. Lbertolotti (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Michel Foucault
There is currently an rfc at Talk:Michel_Foucault#RfC:Should_Foucalt_be_tagged_with_LGBT_and_Gay_categories.3F over whether the following categories should be applied to the article: Category:Gay writers, Category:LGBT historians, and Category:LGBT writers from France. I invite interested editors to comment whatever their views. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Schiller's On the Aesthetic Education of Man
The current article is a stub. I ran the extensive German article through Google translate and put it in my userspace. Anyone is welcome to help clean it up. Thanks! — goethean 16:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, but what happened to the citations? Article content will need to be properly cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Plato
Plato is rightfully listed as among our top 1,000 Vital articles. I was disappointed to see that Plato was rated a class C article there, although I think it might currently be Class-B. The reason: lack of in-line citations. I agree; that's a problem. Same with other Philosophy articles I have encountered.
I'm willing to do a little work to find citations. However, finding good RS on-line is not fun. I've Google searched for Philosophy material on-line many times since I took Philosophy classes, and it is always a chore. Most of it is long rambling articles written by people who may or may not be experts. If they are it is often way to technical for the lay reader, or just the opposite: way too superficial. My initial search turns up self-published works at Universities.
Any suggestions on where to go for good WP:RS for Plato and for other Philosophers and Philosophy subject matters? I could go to my bookshelf, but then it makes it harder for others to verify, if my book is not available on-line. Same problem with going to the library. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- How would you do that for Einstein or Euler or Shakespeare or Rembrandt? ~~ BlueMist (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Great! I think it would be wonderful for that article to have an audit and verification of the content. I agree that lack of inline citations is a problem, especially in the philosophy sections. Finding RS to verify assertions and cut out any synthesis would be a help. It is perfectly alright to use offline treeware reliable sources. If you wanted to make it easier for fellow editors to check sources themselves, you may consider checking if your books in question have scanned content in Google Books. If not, you may want to prefer books that appear in many libraries, rather than more obscure tomes. Either way, Wikipedia:Book sources can help ascertain the relative availability of your sources. Good luck! --Mark viking (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I concur. I find most of my sources on Google Books. Google has scanned a huge number of both copyrighted and PD books, including recent texts in many fields, and they can be searched. A random sample of works on Aristotle: Adler, Aristotle for Everybody, Irwin, Aristotle's First Principles, Lenox; Being, Nature, and Life in Aristotle, Leunissen, Explanation and Teleology in Aristotle's Science of Nature. --ChetvornoTALK 22:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Requested move proposal, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please comment on a requested move to change numerous article titles which contain Dr. King's name. Randy Kryn 11:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Conflict at Reductio ad absurdum
There is an edit conflict over whether the sentence "Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos" is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Outside opinions are needed. Please stop by at Talk:Reductio ad absurdum#Removal of example from introduction. Thanks --ChetvornoTALK 21:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I know this seems like a trivial issue, but more and more, aggressive editors are PUSHing their opinions by removing good examples from philosophy and logic articles simply because they don't like the POV the example expresses. That is what is happening here. If this keeps up we won't be able to use common sayings like this in articles. Please take a look. Thanks --ChetvornoTALK 21:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Theology template
There is a discussion about {{Theology}} over at Template talk:Theology § Too large - discussion resumed in 2016. Feel free to join in. Thanks! YBG (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Euclid or Euclides of Megara?
There's a page move discussion at Talk:Euclid_of_Megara#Requested_move_8_August_2016. PamD 08:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Philosophy Undergraduate Degree = Philosopher?
Should someone with an undergraduate degree in philosophy be listed as a philosopher? BabyJonas (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, otherwise David Cameron would be a philosopher and an economist, which he obviously isn't.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BabyJonas: You're asking this question the wrong way. What WP says about a person being a philosopher is based on what WP:RS (reliable sources) say about them, not whether they have or do not have a particular credential. Sometimes this is not straightforward, though, when someone's status as a philosopher is not generally agreed upon. A person's own claim to identify as a philosopher can be considered, but is not necessarily determinative. —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In some cases, the claim to be a philosopher is one strong signal that the person is not. It's also the case that there are academics, with doctorates in philosophy, who, in terms of their contribution to the field, could hardly be considered philosophers. In fact the question 'What is a philosopher?' is, itself, a philosophical question, not one that can be answered with a simple set of easily established criteria. Fustbariclation (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Kevin Gorman and women in philosophy
Hello everyone; I've proposed a possible drive/subproject for creating articles about women in philosophy over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Kevin Gorman and women in philosophy, partly in memory of Kevin Gorman, and partly to continue his good work. If you think you might be interested in being involved, please do go and comment on the thread in question. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive
In case anyone is interested: I have set up an editing drive about women in philosophy. Several members of the Women in Red project have expressed interest in joining in, and, of course, all members of WikiProject Philosophy would be more than welcome. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Lettrism doesn't really belong under Philosophy portal
Sorry, only a very casual editor at Wikipedia, so apologies if this is not the right way to go about things.
I just want to point out that Lettrism concerns an obscure, but significant, 20th century art movement, and I have trouble understanding why it's under the Philosophy portal. It's an art movement, and belongs to that category. From the talk page (where I've grumpily made comments) it seems like many commentators aren't familiar with the movement at all. I think it would receive more knowledgable treatment under a portal concerning art movements. It has a strong relationship to Dadaism and even stronger relationship (in fact, an inspirational precursor) on the Situationist International, which in turn influenced Fluxus and Punk. Can it somehow be reclassified under whatever art portal is more appropriate, so the article gets editors who are more familiar with the movement? I'm not an expert, nor particularly adept at Wikipedia, but I definitely know that this article deserves a more thorough treatment. The Lettrists were historically important in the history of 20th century art. Feel free to let me know on the talk page, but be aware that I am a very occasional (and extremely minor) participant at Wikipedia. Thank you. StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Should these 3 articles be merged?
Do any of these three articles talk about the same concept and need to be merged?
Based on the definitions in their leads, they all sound somewhat different, but it's hard to tell if that's because each article is a little too narrowly focused or if they're actually separate topics. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 00:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Desiderius Erasmus or just Erasmus?
This requested move discussion for Desiderius Erasmus is also relevant for other philosophers' articles. – Editør (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Need Help with Paradox of tolerance
Hi Team,
Coming here as I am not sure about the talk page of the article. The last edit was in 2010. The topic of the article is frequently used by journalists to defend against intolerance. It is also a subject of many research papers. I have also found many books that use the topic while discussing intolerance. However, I don't see too many notable philosophical discussions or debates around the topic. So my question is where does the topic belong to? Philosphy / Journalism / Literature? I am not sure how such topics are handled so please help --Wikishagnik (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good discussion of toleration, including paradoxes. Given that Popper originated or popularized the paradox, it seems firmly within the philosophical sphere. But other domains, such as psychology or politics, could also be interested in the topic. It is OK for an article to be of interest to multiple Wikiprojects, so feel free to add a Wikiproject if you think it is compelling. With regard to the article itself, how the paradox is discussed really depends on the sources available. If this is a topic in journalism, and not just something reported on by journalists, then feel free to add to the article summarizing the sources found. --Mark viking (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
