MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 30d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 16. |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) →Discussion at RSN about Robert Almeder: new section |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
:Well, it looks like it was deleted pretty quickly. You should always start out by including why this is a [[WP:NOTABILITY|notable]] person. Otherwise it is susceptible to being deleted. Remember to always sign your talk posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Welcome. [[User:Gregbard|Greg Bard]] ([[User_talk:Gregbard|talk]]) 14:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
:Well, it looks like it was deleted pretty quickly. You should always start out by including why this is a [[WP:NOTABILITY|notable]] person. Otherwise it is susceptible to being deleted. Remember to always sign your talk posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Welcome. [[User:Gregbard|Greg Bard]] ([[User_talk:Gregbard|talk]]) 14:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Discussion at RSN about [[Robert Almeder]] == |
|||
There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether [http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_4_almeder.pdf an article on reincarnation] by [[Robert Almeder]], professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in ''[[Journal of Scientific Exploration]]'', a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input from philosophers would be very helpful. See [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder]]. Many thanks, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:40, 18 November 2012
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Proposed Changes to Atheism Article
Hi, a series of proposed changes to the atheism article and have been outlined at Talk:Atheism#article_.2F_source_discrepancies, comments would be appreciated.
Is anyone interested in collaborating to expand the article on this important book by Deleuze & Guattari? We could each take a plateau. (There aren't really a thousand.) Just say hi on the talk page or call dibs on a chapter or something. groupuscule (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Portal:Society at peer review
Portal:Society is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Society/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Logical consequence
A while back, the article Logical consequence was moved to Entailment. I subsequently proposed to move it back. However, it was not. I have always found this to be a very troubling development. Recently, I have been adding reference resources to articles and categories consistent with those resources. This is one that is not consistent (and I said it at the time.) Please take a look at SEP, InPho, PhilPapers, and IEP, none of which has an article on "entailment" independent of "logical consequence." The article itself is a bit scattered, and this has been a big stumbling block for me to improving it. It is only one of the most important concepts in logic. Please support this move, as it is consistent with the scholarly literature on the subject, and Wikipedia is the odd resource out in this regard. Greg Bard (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
- List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
- Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
- Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
- Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
- Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Logic
Can we do something about this dogs breakfast of a page? Category:Logic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
General Semantics
As a newby I'm surprised that General Semantics is not considered to be a philosophical subject. It certainly has a direct relationship to the nature of reality, which is definitely a subject for philosophy.
I beg your pardon, please ignore the preceding. I found the topic.
Sui docuit (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Sui docuit
Hello, do you have anything on Augustin Sesmat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Meltdown (talk • contribs) 11:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
"Metaphysical" cosmology
- Category:Metaphysical_cosmology
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_1#Category:Metaphysical_cosmology
I have proposed for the category "metaphysical cosmology" to be deleted and its content to be moved to either "religious" or "mythological" cosmology. The word "metaphysics" in Wikipedia is reserved for scholarly and academic philosophers, not spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism. Let's not mish-mash the two. It is a disservice to legitimate scholars and hurts the credibility of WP, especially the philosophy department.Greg Bard (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are only 2 articles, Celestial spheres and Dynamics of the celestial spheres, neither religion nor mythology, much less "spiritualism, esoterism, and occultism" are appropriate. Let's not mish-mash the two, they're entirely legitimate... apparently it's a content dispute [1].—Machine Elf 1735 08:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Those two were recently put back there, wrongly imo. Those two are more properly under "early scientific cosmologies" which falls under the scholarly "physical cosmology." The other category under cosmology is "religious cosmology" which is for all the non-scholarly items. So those two really don't belong under "metaphysical cosmology" as it had been used. Greg Bard (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Gregbard, can you provide some background for your ideas about the limitations on "metaphysics"? In my experience the term is used much more widely than simply to reference academic Western philosophy. groupuscule (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The limitation is the use of reason as methodology. Use of the term outside of that is abuse and an attempt to give credibility to something that is not credible. This is why there is a tendency of scientists and mathematicians to look down at philosophy. It isn't appropriate to lump legitimate philosophers in with esotericism, spiritualism, etcetera. This isn't about east v west either. There are plenty of legitimate eastern metaphysicians. My main concern in the cosmology category tree is that editors from the sciences and mathematics will systematically remove legitimate philosophy of time, philosophy of physics, and other legitimate metaphysics content because they don't understand the difference between metaphysics and the esotericism, spiritualism, etcetera. This is why there needs to be a clear line in the sand, on which philosophy of time, philosophy of physics, and other legitimate metaphysics stand on the same side as theoretical physics, etcetera. Greg Bard (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Gregbard, can you provide some background for your ideas about the limitations on "metaphysics"? In my experience the term is used much more widely than simply to reference academic Western philosophy. groupuscule (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Those two were recently put back there, wrongly imo. Those two are more properly under "early scientific cosmologies" which falls under the scholarly "physical cosmology." The other category under cosmology is "religious cosmology" which is for all the non-scholarly items. So those two really don't belong under "metaphysical cosmology" as it had been used. Greg Bard (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Portal:Society for featured portal consideration
I've nominated Portal:Society for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
William Vorilong
Hello can you help me out? I wrote a page about William Vorinlong, but i think it needs to be corrected and improved. I think it needs more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotia me genuit (talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like it was deleted pretty quickly. You should always start out by including why this is a notable person. Otherwise it is susceptible to being deleted. Remember to always sign your talk posts with ~~~~. Welcome. Greg Bard (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at RSN about Robert Almeder
There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source. Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input from philosophers would be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)