Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Wikipedia open wikipedia design.

Notice -- article deletion[edit]

FYI. Discussion on deleting the year 1700 from List of years in philosophy here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1700_in_philosophy#1700_in_philosophy. Feel free to comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion[edit]

Descriptive knowledge looks like it has never had any citations and in replicates material from other articles. Simply applying wikipedia rules would reduce it to zero content. -----Snowded TALK 05:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I commented at the AfD, Snowded. I believe I can contribute something given my EBSCO access. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Dispute at Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger)[edit]

There is a content dispute between myself and Διοτιμα at Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger). I have tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page here, but Διοτιμα has not responded as yet. I would welcome comments from other editors, whatever they are. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Need input on Omnipotence paradox article[edit]

There's a dispute at Omnipotence Paradox (relevant section on talk page) concerning this edit: [1]. Can I get some outside opinions on it? Thanks. Banedon (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages[edit]

I had collected half-a-dozen pages which contained {{disambiguation needed}} tags to philosophy-related topics which required expert attention; but on reviewing that handful, that number was down to two. (Good work, by Whoever!)

In main text, search for 'disam'; in edit mode, search for '{{d' (and keep on going through things like {{death date}} and {{div col}} until you find the problem flag).

if you solve either of these puzzles, remove the dab-needed tag from the article and post {{done}} here. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


I'm willing to try and help you out. I'm not an expert in Philosophy, but probably know much more than the average editor, since I have taken numerous classes, including upper division, and was on my way to seeking a Master's. I've continued to study it here and there since then.
First Item: now: I looked at the first one. I'm not sure what you are hoping for. Do you want the now disambiguation page to link back and have a brief explanation of what it is linking to? And you're not sure how best to word it? I'm not sure it is necessary. I don't think even in Philosophy we would consider there to be a special technical term "now" that is well defined or carefully attributed to Aristotle. As you can see it is not even in the Aristotle article--although perhaps it should be added. I could see how we could have a simple link of "Aristotle's now" as described in [2]. What made you feel a need to make a "dab" entry for it? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
How about we just ask Metadat who added it here? Medadat: When you added the wikilink to "now" this edit did you expect there to be more content about "now" as it relates to Philosophy? Can we just remove the wikilink, or do you think it should have a disambiguation entry that links back? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I see this one has been addressed by Omnipaedista with this edit. Thanks. I agree. That's what I would have done if we had not heard back from Metadat. I have marked it done. I agree that it is not a technical term in philosophy to the best of my knowledge, even though the issue of the complexity of time described in that article and by authors like Heidegger certainly is. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Second Item: Ignorance is Bliss I added this discussion to the talk page for the second one, where I pinged you and the editor who added it: Talk:Anti-intellectualism#Ignorance_is_Bliss. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: I can resolve about 85-90% of the ambiguous links to DAB pages I look at (and I look at a lot – it's my WikiGnomish speciality). Here, my immediate reaction was: an editor has added a see-also item by free association to a cliche that they'd heard of, rather than to something technical. However, I don't like deleting such an entry unless I'm certain that it's useless to readers: the original editor might have had something in mind which I've missed. But, if specialists can see no obvious relevant connection, then my gut reaction was right, and the entry should be deleted ASAP as unhelpful to anyone and as confusing.
("Ignorance is bliss" may be a cliche, but it's a quote from an 18th century poem. I was very surprised to find that this edit was necessary.) So it goes. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Anarchism task force[edit]

Wanted to give notice: We're planning to split off the anarchism task force, as many of the articles in our scope are not a subset of WikiProject Philosophy's scope.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism#WikiProject Philosophy revisited

(not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)



This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

Destek