Manual Archive pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Nomination of White Student Unions for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Student Unions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Student Unions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

WikiProject Women in Red/The World ContestEdit

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Snowded. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 17:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020Edit


The revert you did on Leary was for something there had been zero objections to. All previous objections were for the iteration that created the new section "Criticism." So you are threatening me over something you did not read the Talk history on. If you'd read it, you'd also see that the content objections (not the new section issue) were captious and contradictory. You are allowing nitery to block desperately needed balance on Leary's fan page. Do it again and I'll have the karma dragons visit you on your next acid trip. BillHaywood (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You are in a pattern of edit warring so don't get surprised if edits you make without a talk page discussion are reverted -----Snowded TALK 06:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligenceEdit

Hi there, could you please self-revert your most recent edit to this article? The talk page is supporting removing the content. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You will have to spell out where all I can see is multiple debates, one unresolved RfC and a total mess -----Snowded TALK 08:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, the relevant discussion is at Talk:Race and intelligence#Do we like these new changes?. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to conclude, but then links to an open ANI discussion? I've got work to do now but will take another look this evening (UK time) -----Snowded TALK 09:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate it. The ANI discussion is irrelevant to the content in question. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you please look at this again? He's making a new attempt to do the same thing he did before: [1] 2600:1004:B10A:3B8D:688D:3BC5:92A1:5CF6 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Change: RealityEdit

Change lead sentence from-"Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary."

Change lead sentence to- Reality is the state of things as they actually[1] exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.[2]

And this reference from PhilPapers: On “Self-Realization” – The Ultimate Norm of Arne Naess’s Ecosophy T Md Munir Hossain Talukder Symposion: Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 3 (2):219-235 (2016).

Abstract: This paper considers the foundation of self-realization and the sense of morality that could justify Arne Naess’s claim ‘Self-realization is morally neutral,’ by focusing on the recent debate among deep ecologists. Self-realization, the ultimate norm of Naess’s ecosophy T, is the realization of the maxim ‘everything is interrelated.’ This norm seems to be based on two basic principles: the diminishing of narrow ego, and the integrity between the human and non-human worlds. The paper argues that the former is an extension of Plato’s idea of self-development or self-mastery while the latter is implicit in Aristotle’s holism. It defends that Self-realization is morally neutral only if the term ‘moral’ is considered in the Kantian sense. However, Naess reluctantly distinguishes between ethics and morality, which makes his approach less credible. The paper concludes that Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia supports Self-realization to qualify as a virtue.

Reality is the domain of post modern philosophy and modern psychology today. The existing lead does not provide a direct means to understanding reality...

This new lead is modern, understandable, cited, linked, and referenced, thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure it is well referenced - the title of the paper indicates a school of thought that you favour, it is not a mainline article and it isn't a third-party source which is what we should use for definitions. Restricting Realism to Actualism is simply wrong as realism is not confined to the analytic school. You might want to propose some text for the section if you can find a better source. My opinion is that the existing wording could be understood by any reader, your wording requires esoteric knowledge to understand. As a general suggestion, I think you should stop suggesting changes to the lede sections - you have a zero track record of success there. The lede reflects the article so focus on changes there first -----Snowded TALK 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
If you have a free moment, please click on Encyclopedia-"Characteristics" and Analytic philosophy-"fourth paragraph"; hopefully you will enjoy...And what is a long retired person who favors Analytic philosophy to do with a benevolent editor... I'll try this: "Actualism is the direct means for Realism to be understandable." Third-party sourcing in philosophy is probably-actually impossible, but I aim to get better at editing here with you. I also referred you to "Analytic philosophy-the fourth lede paragraph", as an example of third-party, neutral-positioning for a "mainline" understanding of philosophy today. thanks, Arnlodg (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Third-party sourcing is easy on philosophy articles such as Stanford, the Oxford Companion; although in this case they tend to jump to Realism. In fact I've just asked if we should delete the article as it is an unreferenced fork. That aside what you can't do is to pick one article you happen to like and then change the lede based on your reading of it. Also you cannot define a whole field by one school of thought - analytic philosophy is only one perspective -----Snowded TALK 06:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Actualism: In contemporary analytic philosophy, actualism is the view that everything there is (i.e., everything that has being, in the broadest sense) is actual.[1][2] Another phrasing of the thesis is that the domain of unrestricted quantification ranges over all and only actual existents.[3]
  2. ^ google definition