Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Philosophy / Philosophers (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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

{{Did you know nominations/The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay658 (talkcontribs) 2 June 2021, 23:58 (UTC)

Rfc on FalsifiabilityEdit

Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability#RfC:_Adding_a_challenging,_counterintuitive_but_instructive_and_well_sourced_example_in_the_lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic Mayers (talkcontribs) 20 November 2021, 18:48 (UTC)

Alan Chalmers is the father of David Chalmers?Edit

An editor recently added this information to the Alan Chalmers article. Is it true? I did a quick Google and could not easily find anything. Thriley (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: don't think so. According to the Scientific American, David Chalmers has said "My father is a medical researcher, a pretty successful scientist and administrator in medicine in Australia" which doesn't seem to fit David Chalmers. I've seen some other sites say his father is John Philip Chalmers which would fit that description more but I also can't find a reliable source for that either. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Move Request Society of Jesus to JesuitsEdit

Information.svg

An editor has requested for Society of Jesus to be moved to Jesuit. Since you had some involvement with Society of Jesus, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). –Zfish118talk 23:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles by user:Phlsph7Edit

Hi, User:Phlsph7 has recently done some extraordinary work in compiling and writing some very dense new articles with an extensive apparatus of sources. But some are a bit inaccessible, a problem severely worsened since he has begun porting them to the German WP with sometimes quite too literal translations (e.g. en:Humeanism and de:Humeanismus) Could you please advise him how to handle those more delicately about that matter? He seems very competent and prolific, and would be greatly helped if he was acknowledged and supported (maybe even beta-read form time to time)- Kind regards Leif Czerny (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Leif Czerny and thanks for the positive feedback. I'm always open to suggestions. But I guess the question of which articles from the English Wikipedia are acceptable at the German Wikipedia and how to translate them is probabily better discussed there and not here. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Both the what and the how of the translation make me uneasy. I'd fell much relived if the untranslated articles were peer-reviewed here before translation. That also applies to Definitions of philosophy, the German Version of which had to be deleted. It is always problematic if someone has to work wholly alone and without feedback. This is me asking for help. Kind regards Leif Czerny (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You can suggest specific articles for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Keep in mind that this is a time-intensive process. But, as I mentioned before, here is not the right place for discussing your opinion on the quality of translations to the German Wikipedia. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I've just looked through the page Humeanism and, personally, I don't find it to be inaccessible at all. Actually, I think it is very accessible, far more complex articles about Hume's thought could be written. I've made some wording and other trivial changes but that's basically it, I wouldn't know how to significantly simplify things further. On the other hand, this might be because I do already have some prior knowledge of Hume and philosophy more generally, are there any parts you thought were particularly inaccessible Leif Czerny? It's probably best to answer on that page's talk page rather than continue here though as that would be a conversation about improving that specific article. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I second this - I find neither Humeanism or Definitions of philosophy to be particularly difficult to understand or inaccessible. I'd compare them favorably to the Stanford Encyclopedia in terms of comprehensibility, even. Philosophy is a fairly dense subject even when explained very well, and there are admittedly further challenges associated with translating it well. But there doesn't seem to be any issue with the content on enwiki at all. - car chasm (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
your support for phlsph is very reaffirming. Please understand that it is kind of alarming if such articles have only one main author, and he translates them one to one. The overview given seems to be very contemporary, which is impressive, but a disservice when attempting one-to-one translations, as the relevance of as well as the perspective on things differ between continental and Anglo-Saxon academia. Be aware that the philosophy department of de-wp is seriously understaffed - there's no one to account for the differences in the evaluation of current topics, or the different style in article writing at all. But articles that take no note auf Germen-speaking acadmica just miss the purpose for de-Wp. we need someone who gets those problems and can advise. Kind regards Leif Czerny (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review these articles to Carchasm and to Alduin2000 for the various improvements. I also appreciate Leif Czerny for helping out with the understaffed German WikiProjekt Philosophie. As for the remaining discussion on whether one-to-one translations are acceptable at the German Wikipedia, let's move it there. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain for further translations in the meantime. I'm sorry, but your approach seems to be severely misguided. Just because a topic hasn't got a de-wiki article doesn't mean that there isn't tons of literature or even canonical editions and translations with well-established terminology and systematic distinctions, which shouldn't be disregarded. The de-discussion continues here. If anyone would like to chip in on the subject of translation or even evaluating the original articles, that would be very much appreciated. Kind regards Leif Czerny (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but since we've started looking into this matter the concerns have only been confirmed more and more. Please reevaluate the work they have done here as well, I'd like to request all review for any articles to which the user made significant contribution, but I don't have the resources to oversee or even initiate such an endeavor. The German discussion consolidating here de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:WikiProjekt_Philosophie#Problemfall_en-Übersetzungen (unfortunately, in German, but the length should be an indication that this has become a serious issue).Leif Czerny (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
It looks like there may be some translation issues with terminology here, but I'm not seeing any evidence of what is being claimed here. I've already (briefly) reviewed almost all of the articles that Phlsph7 has written as part of a broader re-review of all of our philosophy articles that I've been working on this past month. While I have not personally verified all of their citations in the referenced sources, nearly every statement they make on their articles is supported by at least one secondary source citation and none of them seem to arrive at any patently original conclusions or any other content issues that would warrant this kind of accusation. I'd like to remind you to be careful not to cast WP:ASPERSIONS - if you have specific objections to any of the content on English wikipedia I'd invite you to bring that up on the talk page for any relevant articles, but please refrain from making broad statements about an editor's conduct or behavior without specific evidence. - car chasm (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Just have a glimpse at the German discussion. I'm very impressed that you managed to (briefly) reviewed almost all the articles, I sure can't find the time. for that. I'm not even sure we'll be able to mitigate the damages done to de-WP via translations, wikidata-connetctions, replacements etc. Citing a source might be a necessary condition of a sufficient condition for quality or correctness, but it isn't sufficient in itself. Multiple sources might not represent a sufficient diversity of viewpoints. Definitions_of_philosophy was just what caught my eye initially. 'Some might guess that it largely relies on Overgaard, Søren; Gilbert, Paul; Burwood, Stephen (2013). "What is philosophy?". An Introduction to Metaphilosophy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–44. ISBN 978-0-521-19341-2., a 27-page essay, which is cited over 50 times, with some references from dictionaries and Handbooks in between. But if you look at team, those are used to justify broad claims as "the meaning of the term "philosophy" has changed a lot in history". Of course this is supported by teh sandkühler-entry, as it gives a historical overview of that.Leif Czerny (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what your objection to this source is: The source you mention here is not an essay, this is a review article from a subject-specific encyclopedia on definitions of philosophy put out by Cambridge University Press. I would typically expect this to be the kind of resource someone would cite for a claim like "the meaning of the term "philosophy" has changed a lot in history" as it's certainly not a conclusion that one should arrive at on their own. But I really can't think of a better source someone would cite than a review article written by a WP:CHOPSY academic press, as this does seem like the very definition of a high-quality WP:RS that summarizes the current state of research within the field. Do you disagree with this claim, that the meaning of philosophy has changed over its history? Do you think that there are additional perspectives that need to be cited, that the editors of An Introduction to Metaphilosophy have suppressed or simply forgotten to include in their review article? Do you expect other review articles put out by academic presses to come to additional or different conclusions that would change the interpretation of this review article? I'm still not seeing what exactly the issue here is. - car chasm (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
We already had a discussion on this point at dewiki for the German version. It was not particularly successful. As car chasm has already pointed out, the source is good. It might help if you could cite which Wikipedia guideline is violated in your eyes since it is not obvious what problem you see. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok. If possible, I'd like some more opinions. Strong reliance on a single source is always problematic. Surely you share WP:NPOV. I'm still not here to discuss this, but to ask you to check the aricles adherence to your guidelines. And yes, O think that The introductoon to Metaphilosophy is focussed on a current discussion between specific scholars. At least their systematic and metaphilosophical apporach is not universally accepted. That is not a slight against them, but that makes it impossible to persent this approach as all-emcompassing. Ther could -e.g be an apporach that focusses on history of philsophy and schools of thought. One that focussed on sociological aspects of definitions of philosophy. There could be an intercultural comparison. And so on.Leif Czerny (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources that support your assertions, you can always add that material yourself or bring up those specific concerns on the talk page. "This article doesn't include such-and-such perspective" is unlikely to go anywhere, but "this article doesn't include such and such perspective from these sources" very well might, especially if those sources are high-quality and can provide context on other philosophical traditions that are not usually given much academic analysis. However, and I apologize if this seems overly frank, it's starting to sound like you might be objecting more to the way overall that philosophy is conducted in English or in "the West" in general rather than anything to do with a specific editor or their contributions? Maybe give WP:CHOPSY and the rest of WP:ABIAS another read - if you believe that the Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy series is presenting a biased, WP:NPOV-violating point of view, you may want to consider whether or not you need to seek broader acceptance from the academic community for your ideas before they can be included on Wikipedia.
As for myself, I don't intend to go over what are some of what appear to be our best-researched and well-cited articles in the entire WikiProject with a fine-toothed comb. I can't speak for anyone else, but there are certainly far more pressing articles to improve for anyone with the bandwidth to do so. - car chasm (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: you did mark Defnitions of Knwoledge for deletion. Could you explain why and why it was kept anyway?Leif Czerny (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you're pinging me...3 months after the fact, but I'm quite sure you're more than capable of reading the AFD discussion yourself. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Charming.Leif Czerny (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC) ::Sorry, I ment Defintions of Philosophy. I'm a bit overwhelmed by the chaos this has caused, dan frankly, suprised of the lack of consideration. Cheers, Leif Czerny (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Leif Czerny: Just leaving a reply to comment on other issues that have been raised about the articles as I only commented previously on their readability. Reading through the discussion on de.wiki, it appears there have also been concerns raised surrounding possible copyright violation? I'm not sure how thoroughly I can currently review all of Phlsph7's edits but I have put some articles through Earwig's copyvio detector, including axiology, The Right and the Good, Humeanism, Definitions of knowledge and Definitions of philosophy. Most show copyright violation to be unlikely, although I haven't conducted any spot checks so cannot verify this completely. The two exceptions are The Right and the Good and Definitions of knowledge. The Right and the Good article set off the detector due to a website which copied content from the en.wiki page on deontology. It appears (?) that Phlsph7 copied some content that they added at The Right and the Good to the deontology page. Even though you did originally write this Phlsph7, it is maybe still best that {{Copied}} templates are added on the talk pages of each page so that content is properly attributed. However, I don't think this is really a case of copyright violation as it is simply Phlsph7 copying content they wrote from one article to another. The Definitions of knowledge article on a brief glance seems to set off the detector mostly from attributed quotes and some similar wordings of thought experiments, so I also don't think it constitutes copyright violation. Are there any other pages that have been raised as possible copyright violations at de.wiki Leif Czerny? I could also put them through the Earwig copyvio detector if needed, and possibly others can conduct spot checks, although I'm not sure the wikiproject is really active enough for that kind of commitment to so many large, complicated articles. As to whether the articles have problems with undue weight or being too strongly reliant on a single source, I'm agnostic as I haven't checked through all the articles, although I will say that Humeanism did look ok on a brief look through, citing a variety of sources from reliable journals, books and encyclopedias. Other comments on content issues are probably best left to individual article talk pages. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's kind of a relief. Ther were some confusing amounts of splicing and replacing existing articles in de-wp, and over 30 lemmata are affected. it's kind of time-consuming to discuss this on each talk pade.Leif Czerny (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I write these articles myself. I have not had any problems with WP:COPYVIO so far. As for the articles The Right and the Good and Deontology: it's not a full copy but various sentences were used from the section The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right in the section Deontology#Ross's_deontological_pluralism. Thanks for mentioning the "copied"-template. I've added it to Talk:Deontology. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
That would be very helpful, let for transparancy's sake alone.Leif Czerny (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Jews of ColorEdit

Please contribute to this new article draft on Jews of Color.--Coin945 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

True Torah Jews Edit

Please review and copyedit this article so we can get it out of draft and into the mainspace. Coin945 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Integral JudaismEdit

Please can you have a look at this stub and help improve it?--Coin945 (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Society for the Right to Die and Concern for DyingEdit

Hello all,

I recently created articles on the US organisations Society for the Right to Die and Concern for Dying, which may of interest to members of this WikiProject.

Any additional eyes on these articles would be greatly appreciated, as I am not an expert in the topic matters at hand - these groups just seemed notable to me. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:De Coelesti Hierarchia#Requested move 15 August 2022Edit

Information.svg
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:De Coelesti Hierarchia#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Adam BeckerEdit

There is a current request from Adam Becker for subject matter experts from the Philosophy of Science Task Force to review the criticism of his book to gauge whether it is balanced for a BLP. This was posted at BLPN but is detailed at his article talkpage.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Problem of Pain (CS Lewis book) needs attentionEdit

The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis is a well-known and well-liked work of pop theology.

Our article is categorized as "of interest to WikiProject Philosophy / Literature", among other WikiProjects.

The article has been suffering from a bad case of

This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.

and

This article possibly contains original research. Nearly all of it is an extended summary of the book, without citing any secondary reliable sources. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations.

for over a year now.

The revision in question did add some useful content (the article previously was basically a stub) so I hesitate to just revert it wholesale.

Can anyone help beat this article into shape?

- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:F802:1D23:B35D:B603 (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Articles for improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Gender studies, 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, 5 September 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

FAR for Alfred Russel WallaceEdit

I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-awarenessEdit

Last sentence in the lead paragraph states: "There are two broad categories of self-awareness: internal self-awareness and external self-awareness." and uses this reference:

  • "What Self-Awareness Really Is (and How to Cultivate It)". Harvard Business Review. 2018-01-04.

There is no further discussion of the distinction between internal and external self-awareness in body of the article, the citation is definitely a primary source, and the terms appear to be first defined in the source and not used elsewhere.

Should this sentence be deleted? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it should, I deleted it. I tagged the article for cleanup as well, it looks like the whole thing is in a pretty poor state. - car chasm (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you --76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about philosopher pages as against philosopher-"ism" pagesEdit

(Disclaimer: I'm new to the creator side of Wikipedia.)

In the course of editing the page on G. W. F. Hegel – educating myself as to general Wikipedia policies and GA requirements – I found myself somewhat baffled by the distinction between articles on philosophers and those on their philosophies.

Philosophers have encyclopedia entries on the basis of their thought. It is entirely appropriate that most entries begin with a section on their lives, but curiosity about their lives is not the reason that most people arrive at their Wikipedia pages.

For this reason, it seems very weird to me that many articles on high- or top-level importance philosophers would link out to "-ism"s pages as the "Main article"s on their thought.

In such cases as, for instance, Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Thomism, these secondary pages make sense. They explain the respects in which – again, just for instance – Iris Murdoch, Martha Nussbaum, and Alasdair MacIntyre are "members" of those schools.

Many such pages, however, merely restate the thought of the philosopher in question (e.g., Kantianism). A separate article with less traffic allows its editor(s) to operate with relative independence of the editorial oversight they would receive at the parent article. For this reason, they are worse than redundant.

Is there a statement of best practices or any other kind of guidelines for such secondary articles on the thought of such-and-so philosopher? If not, might it be worth drafting such a document? To be a Cartesian or Hegelian, for instance, is not the same as endorsing wholesale the philosophies of Descartes or Hegel.

It would be nice to have something even just to post to the Talk pages of articles the content of which ought to be submitted for scrutiny on a parent page with more traffic.

All thoughts and opinions most welcome —

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I myself am not aware of the existence of such a document. If it does not currently exist on WP, I believe it would be a worthwhile exercise to try and draft such a document. Maybe it should be posted on the main page of this project? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I've created the article Humeanism and I also worked on Aristotelianism so I'll give you my take on the content of such articles. I'm not aware of any explicit wikipedia guideline on this. The first sentences of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Thomism:
  • Platonism is the philosophy of Plato and philosophical systems closely derived from it...
  • Aristotelianism is a philosophical tradition inspired by the work of Aristotle...
  • Thomism is the philosophical and theological school that arose as a legacy of the work and thought of Thomas Aquinas...
What they all have in common: they are about the philosophy of the philosopher in question and about the school of thought they inspired. They differ from the articles on the philosophers themselves in some ways: they have little or no biographical material and they focus on the reception by other philosophers: how they interpreted them and used them in their own philosophy. I think they can also include the most important teachings of the philosopher themselves. Being a Platonist or an Aristotelian does not mean that they accept everything Plato or Aristotle taught. For example, the same person may follow Aristotelian ontology but ignore or reject Aristotelian ethics.
But you are right: this style is not followed in all such articles. But then, of course, many of these articles are far from complete. I think in the end, what goes into an article like Kantianism is determined by reliable sources: whatever they say is Kantian. I think Kantianism should follow this style as well. This is roughly how reliable sources like [2] and [3] proceed. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Phlsph7, The Aristotelianism page makes sense to me. It covers his geographically dispersed historical reception and makes notes of some contemporary thinkers and trends that are well-categorized as Aristotelian. All of this material would make the Aristotle page too long.
But what on the Humeanism page that would be out-of-pace on the David Hume page? It's well written and well referenced, but it is devoted to defining or describing some of Hume's central doctrines, which is the purpose of the Writings section of the main page. Wouldn't it be better to integrate the two? Competently executed, this would produce a treatment better than either of what we have now. It would also help to ensure that future editors directed their resources to a central text, rather than dividing them arbitrarily.
There also seems to be plenty of space in the Legacy section for additional material on his reception.
Does this make sense? I'm not trying to criticize your work, which looks to be quite good, just questioning your placement of it on a page that is redundant, at least in many respects, with the main page.
Moreover, the Humeanism page is getting about 25 hits/day, whereas the Hume page is getting about 1,650 hits/day. Whatever advantages the secondary page might have, they are not reaching readers.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@PatrickJWelsh: I guess it's a question of WP:Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". Humeanism is mentioned a lot in the philosophical literature and there are various articles and books on it, for example, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Of course, the gist of how other philosophers interpreted Hume's ideas and used them in their own theories could also be mentioned in the article David Hume but humeanism is a big field so it wouldn't be a good idea to try to fit everything in there (like the problem of Humean supervenience, Davidson's theory of action, applications to the theory of rationality, cognitivism vs non-cognitivism, etc). And with almost 20000 words, Hume's article is already quite long as it is. So I think the argument you made for Aristotelianism applies here equally. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Phlsph7, to me the article seems quite light on Humeans compared to its exposition of Hume's own doctrines. But it's not my intention here to argue any particular case. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
This could get a little into detail so it might be better to continue this discussion on the article discussion page. I guess the basic response to your question is this: [philosopher]-ism-pages usually talk about the person's philosophy and how other people interpreted them and used them in their own theories. But in the end, it depends on the reliable sources whether such an "ism" deserves its own page and what content should be discussed there. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I think Manual of Style may be what you're looking for as far as prior work or a previous document, but it doesn't look like there's much there yet. That's probably where we want to put anything we come up with, I guess. I agree though, we probably usually want those articles to be about the people who are e.g. Hegelians, Platonists, rather than just a restatement of the original philosopher's thought, with the only exceptions being when those "-isms" are used in a different sense in reliable sources. And for lower importance philosophers we probably don't need an "-ism" article at all. - car chasm (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:Carchasm, I agree. It could be something quite simple: "As a general principle, a philosopher's thought should be treated under an appropriately headed section on the philosopher's main page. Secondary pages devoted to an "-ism" (e.g., Aristotelianism) should merely restate (not any more than necessary) what is found in primary article. Instead, such pages should be devoted to subsequent schools of thought associated with that philosopher and to discussion of his or her legacy and critical reception that would be too long to include in the primary article."
"Secondary pages devoted to a specific area of a philosopher's thought are justified only if they treat that area in greater technical detail or at greater length than would be appropriate for the main article. Branching out in this way is a strength of Wikipedia's model. Child pages that merely restate the main article, however, should be reintegrated to eliminate redundancy and avoid dividing the labor of future editors."
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@PatrickJWelsh: Lots of philosophers are independently notable outside of their area of thought. A good example is Giovanni Gentile whose academic and political career in fascist italy is almost completely independent from actual idealism which is his main philosophical idea. Others include Immanuel Kant who first theorized the nebulary hypothesis. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 03:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Immanuelle, I agree. I suspect that this page could accommodate both his political life and philosophical thought. But maybe it is a case where dividing it up would be justified. I'm only suggesting we formulate a general principle. Of course there will be exceptions.
I would also note that the actual idealism gets only a tenth of the traffic as Giovanni Gentile. If I were passionate about his philosophy (about which I actually know very little and do not have a position), this would motivate me to condense, if possible, some of the discussion on the child page and integrate it into the Philosophy section of the main article.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
PatrickJWelsh, you might find WP:SPLIT useful when thinking about this too. It covers when it is appropriate to split content from an article into its own page. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy categoriesEdit

Hello, WikiProject,

Five philosophy categories were emptied "out of process", meaning that an editor removed all of the pages so that the categories would be tagged for CSD C1 speedy deletion rather than proposing category deletion in a CFD nomination. They are:

I don't know if other editors also believe these categories serve no purpose and should be deleted. Any way, with empty categories, they sit for 7 days in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion just because situations like this can happen. If they are still empty next week, they will be deleted. If they no longer are empty in the coming week, then the speedy deletion tag is removed. Rather than reverting all of the page removals, I thought I'd come here first and see if there was agreement with these categories being deleted. So, fill me in on what you all think about this. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this discussion @Liz:! As the editor who removed the categories I'm happy to explain my rational and address any concerns about why I did so (although I'll be sure to follow the correct process next time and I apologize for any inconvenience!).
Taking this feedback about process into account, I've also nominated Category:Philosophy and culture for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_23#Category:Philosophy_and_culture - I believe that many of the pages are creative works about philosophy that should be moved to Category:Works about philosophy and the remainder should be moved to Category:Philosophy of culture. - car chasm (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Saul KripkeEdit

Saul Kripke has died. His article is not in the greatest shape. It needs more than a few citations if it is to appear under Recent Deaths. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

improving the Argument from Authority pageEdit

The Argument from authority page could use some knowledgeable help. Among other things, there's a disagreement about whether an appeal to authority is always fallacious or is only fallacious under certain circumstances (e.g., whether the ostensible authority lacks expertise on the topic under discussion) and (ironically) whether it's legitimate to cite works by people who lack expertise in logical fallacies as support for the former stance. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh geez. Yeah, pretty much nothing in that article is really worth keeping as it stands. Ironically, there's no shortage of self-appointed "experts" on the argument from authority, but that doesn't mean we need to listen to them! I've salted the earth :) - car chasm (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
It's true that the article has various issues. Concerning the original question: the argument from authority is often understood as an informal fallacy. But not everyone agrees on this and some hold that there are fallacious and non-fallacious arguments from authority depending on how the argument is used. On a short search, I found [9] and [10] for these two positions. One example of a non-fallacious use might be a jury that takes the opinion of an expert witness into account. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding. On the page itself there isn't "a disagreement about whether an appeal to authority is always fallacious or is only fallacious under certain circumstances". As the page itself says, "Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources". These are two views that you find in various sources. Where reliable sources disagree, the page includes both views. It isn't Wikipedia's job to decide the answer on these questions per se, Wikipedia just presents the views that exist in reliable sources. I think the page does that perfectly fine in its current form. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
N.B .to other editors: there's some history to this issue documented here - car chasm (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The checkuser there confirmed that "There existed no other accounts on IPs used by the...account". I find accusations of sockpuppetry odd since there's only one account you've spoken to on the Talk page there. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome to defend yourself on the investigation page if you feel the accusation was made in error. - car chasm (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
It's immature WP:FORUMSHOP. I guess you figure it'd be easier rather than really discussing the article if I got banned. But that's not going to happen so we're going to have to hash this out on a Talk page. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm not misunderstanding. I meant the disagreement on the Talk page about whether there are reliable sources for both views. I now see that I wasn't clear that the disagreement was on the Talk page. Referring to the page itself does not -- and cannot -- resolve the disagreement on the Talk page, per WP:WINARS. (As an aside, absent a survey of all sources to determine how many times it has been listed in each category, one cannot justifiably assert "it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources." More to the point: the issue isn't simply how many times one can find sources that assert one or another view, but whether those sources are WP:RS for the claim in question, which is at issue on the Talk page and on WP:RSN.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
"it is listed as a non-fallacious argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources" is a cited statement, it's in Reference 6. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I added another source so now it's references 6 and 7, but what I called Reference 6 in the previous comment is now Reference 7. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Expert attentionEdit

This is a notice about Category: articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It might take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. Treetoes023 (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)