Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Active discussions
WikiProject Philosophy / Philosophers (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Additional information:
Taskforce icon
Philosophers

Did you know nominationEdit

Noticeboard discussion on "Neither qi nor meridians exist"Edit

This Wikiproject may be interested in the noticeboard discussion about the statement "Neither qi nor meridians exist." in the Shiatsu article: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Do_qi_nor_meridians_exist?. MarshallKe (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hitchens's razorEdit

There is a discussion happening on Hitchens's razor regarding whether it is used to claim the nonexistence of gods, and if so, who uses it this way, and whether evidentialism says that claims like this require evidence. The proposed edit has a citation. MarshallKe (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Articles for improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Past, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Question from a beginner editor in philosophyEdit

Hello my fellow Wikipedians, I've been feeling quite confused so far in my time here on Wikipedia and an answer to this question may help clear up some of that confusion. When editing an article on a specific philosopher (Plato for example) is it okay to cite sources that they themselves created? Or is this presenting a sort of biased view? Similarly, when editing an article on a controversial topic in philosophy is it okay to cite sources that are explicitly in favor of a particular view on the topic? Is citing these things okay so long as I present the views neutrally or should I refrain from using these kinds of sources all together? This may seem like a dumb question but I am genuinely struggling to figure out what exact sources are permissible for me to use when editing philosophy articles in Wikipedia. Any insights on these questions I would greatly value, thank you! Braelynn2000 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

As a general rule, WP:primary would say no. However (a) it is unlikely to be self-promotion! (b) the author is notable in his own right. So provided you make it clear that "Plato said ..." (rather than just state it in WP: Wikivoice, citing him as the WP:RS, then it is ok. If it were a modern philosopher, I'd be more cautious. Of course you will know to avoid your own WP:OR interpretation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Braelynn2000, JM Friedman's comment above indeed refers to the relevant policy, which encourages use of secondary sources mostly, rather than sources that the subject/philosopher created. The reason for that is that primary sources are often open to multiple different interpretations, and even if they're relatively straightforward, determining which parts should be emphasized or de-emphasized is often best left to experts (scholars). You can cite primary sources, and many WP articles do, but they should be used "with care," according to the policy. To your second question, it's fine to cite reputable/expert sources explicitly in favor of a certain in favor of a particular view. Note: if what the source says is broadly accepted by most experts, then it can simply be stated and cited. If the view contradicts the prevailing view or comes from a reliable-but-potentially-partisan source, it should be attributed in the text of the article itself ("according to ..."). Figuring out the integration of certain views and how they should be worded on a sentence level is a constant process on many talkpages, so don't be discouraged if someone changes, challenges, or reverts your intial wording. There's usually a kind of evolution before a new fact or statement reaches stability within an article.--MattMauler (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
To add to the previous replies, you might find the Philosophy Manual of Style useful here too. It says "Presenting material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research." Hope that helps. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Articles for improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that History of art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Return to the project page "WikiProject Philosophy".