Talk:List of important publications in philosophy

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Inclusion criteria[edit]

What is the basis on which the included texts are included (i.e. how is "important" defined)? I see the lead specifies it's based on topic creator, breakthrough, and/or influence, but according to who? The article cites no sources whatsoever. What kind of breakthrough is a significant enough breakthrough such that it's included? I'm seeing some redlinks, which indicates some of the texts aren't even "important" (or notable) enough to have a Wikipedia article. As of now I'm thinking the entire list is original research for these reasons, but maybe someone can correct my perception? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article and updating the intro paragraph, I can see what you mean. This page needs nearly an entire overhaul as far as inclusion criteria, and sourcing/citing for it goes. I want to mark the article as in need of citations, but without inclusion criteria, I hardly see the point. Since this comment, any sort of issues template has been taken down, so I'm putting it back up, because it is very warranted to be there. Loverthehater (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I scoured the Wikipedia namespace a bit and found a couple of things that would be good to base inclusion criteria on.
From WP:BKCRIT (retrieved Dec. 2, 2018.. Inline notes redacted in this copy):
  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
  2. The book has won a major literary award.
  3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
  4. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.
From WP:LSC (retrieved Dec. 2, 2018):
  • Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers.
My current thinking is: if it has its own non-stub, well-sourced article, then it doesn't need any citation. If it does not meet that criteria, the entry needs to have references to verify that it meets at least one of the criteria from the former list. Moving forward, rather than purging the current list of the contents that currently do not meet the proposed criteria, I suggest going over the list to reference and verify, and any new entries would be held to this standard. Loverthehater (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like WikiProject Bibliography has inclusion criteria that matches pretty much with my proposal as well as a good style standard at their main page (sourcing, style). Going to start modifying the article to meet both standards here. Putting some form of this verification criteria should be stated in the lead. Loverthehater (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Loverthehater: Just happened to come back to this after opening this section 4 years ago. :) So yeah it seems like the main way to retain such a list would be to convert it into an index of philosophy publication articles (or a list of philosophy publications that's limited to notable examples -- really a matter of naming between these two). I can't see any way to retain this with the "important," since the list as it is is entirely WP:OR... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangement of section 2[edit]

Can we put the lists for philosophies of physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology as sublists of the list for philosophy of science? It looks wierd, the way it is now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.222.121 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a sort of overhaul to the current layout. It's clunky and divides the works up in awkward ways. I would suggest laying the article out like how the mathematics list currently is, possibly. The chemistry list also seems to know what's up. Loverthehater (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


At this rate lets just arrange it aphabeticall or use the ISBN system --LH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.255.158 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions for style concerns[edit]

Thinking about revising to meet criteria laid out by WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY and possibly adding a small header paragraph to each section to give a brief explanation of the topic, like List of mathematics topics, as well as linking the main article. Also thinking about revising the structure of the article to make more sensible categorization choices. Just putting this out there in case anybody wants to help me out with this or give feedback. Loverthehater (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed addition[edit]

On Rene Guenon's The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times being added to the 'Philosophy of History' section.

According to the article page: "The publications on this list are regarded as important because they have served or are serving as one or more of the following roles

  • Foundation – A publication whose ideas would go on to be the foundation of a topic or field within philosophy.
  • Breakthrough – A publication that changed or added to philosophical knowledge significantly.
  • Influence – A publication that has had a significant impact on the academic study of philosophy or the world."

I argue that it should be added because:

  1. It is by a author who is the 'founder' of the 'Traditionalist School' which is a school of thought in the philosophy of religion that incorporates and has application beyond that field and in this instance, philosophy of history.
  2. Since the author is a 'founder' therefore his works are foundational, indeed, this particular work of which i'm arguing for is considered his 'magnum opus' buy its current publisher in english, fulfilling the criterion that it be foundational.
  3. It is influential as it informs the general outlook of authors or thinkers within or influenced by the 'Traditionalist School'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore Abu Qurrah (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments listed above do not support adding The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times by René Guénon to the philosophy of history section. As the Wikipedia article Traditionalist School says, that school is an approach to religion, not an approach to philosophy of history. Furthermore, for a so-called "magnum opus", the book has had little influence at all: it is only cited on Google Scholar 137 times, which is a low number. And those citations show that the book has not been influential at all in philosophy of history. Indeed, none of René Guénon's books are highly cited; his most highly cited work on Google Scholar, The Crisis of the Modern World, is only cited 166 times, another low number—especially for a work that has had over nine decades to accumulate citations! The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times is not prominent enough to belong in the philosophy of religion section, much less is it relevant to the philosophy of history section. It is clear from the edit history in this article and other articles that Theodore Abu Qurrah is interested in Guénon, and that interest may be clouding his judgment in this case, because all the objective evidence shows that Guénon's book does not belong here. Biogeographist (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Ibn Sina included in this list[edit]

I wonder what does it mean for the “Proof of the Truthful” to be included in this list, considering that it isn’t a proper publication, but instead just a formal argument outlined by Ibn Sina in a number of his works (including the only proper work by this author mentioned in the list, the Book of Healing). Isn’t it an illegitimate entry? 79.47.81.110 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed anachronistic list of "publications" from ancient history[edit]

this isn't a list of important books or texts, so it's silly to put heraclitus or Plato or avicenna on this list. If someone wants to make a list of all philosophical books, it should be its own separate article - car chasm (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19th-century philosophy[edit]

I restored the section on 19th-century philosophy, which is a legitimate category; see, for example:

  • 19th-century philosophy
  • Category:19th-century philosophy
  • 19th Century Philosophy at PhilPapers
  • The Cambridge History of Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century
  • A Companion to Nineteenth-Century Philosophy
  • Debates in Nineteenth-Century European Philosophy
  • Edinburgh Critical History of Nineteenth-Century Philosophy
  • The Longman Standard History of 19th Century Philosophy
  • The Nineteenth Century Philosophy Reader
  • The Routledge Companion to Nineteenth Century Philosophy

Biogeographist (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_important_publications_in_philosophy&oldid=1218070296"