Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive 21

4992:

article is about a particular notable problem in a field, Knowledge doesn't have a rule that prohibits authors' names as subheading titles, for the sections that contain their respective solution (theory, etc.). I admit that Sam-2727 never fully agreed with me, about this. However, he knows that he couldn't prove that those authors' names couldn't head those sections. And the last objection that Sam-2727 raised was, instead, he didn't like the solutions themselves as the structure either (regardless of their names). He never provided proof of either of those objections. Since we already debated these points, are you going to have them debated again? Respectfully, that's redundant and inconvenient, and now you've started the same debate all over. If you had a strong case about this point, I think you might also use stronger language, not "tends to." There may be no other Knowledge article using names in that way, but there's not a rule that prohibits it. Already, it's obvious there is no other way to name the subheadings. The actual "structure" of the article isn't peoples names, as you imply, but their solutions to the topic problem (change of fortune paradox). So when Sam-2727 suggests that "eventually it might be better," clearly this one point can't be changed.

5099:

Knowledge could maintain the simpler piece that included say, only Dacier, Lessing, Bywater, and Halliwell (after the introductory Vettori and Castelvetro)? Maybe it would start out omitting Murnaghan, Bouchard, and Heath, but what would prevent them from being added? Compare, again, the article Theories of Humor in Knowledge. The late Peter Marteinson, author of the Ontic-Epistemic Theory of Humor--which is referenced in reliable secondary sources, books--is still a less prestigious scholar than Elsa Bouchard or Malcolm Heath. What then would stop anyone from adding them to a shorter Metabasis Paradox given their high reputations? At some point late in the game, someone added I.M. Suslov's Computational-Neural to Theories of Humor, which there is reason to delete. And there are other individuals who could have been considered, cases that are worthy and some that are not. Concerning metabasis paradox, Sheila Murnaghan's theory on the topic is somewhat unpersuasive yet it is extremely well written, and has a backing in general ideas that are talked about throughout literary theory.

5093:

appropriate for Knowledge. And this is a really, really weird case, where a topic might barely fall short. While Sam-2727 was more optimistic, you might be right. Of course I side with him. True notability would need discussion and relevance of the idea in other work on the Poetics, tragedy, and so on. I don't think you're saying it would have to appear in a literary mag like LARB or Times Literary Supplement, but in other literary scholarship. And it doesn't appear in either. I wouldn't quite call it a "viewpoint held by an extremely small minority." It's more of a problem, and Elizabeth Belfiore also wrote about it, someone almost as prestigious as Halliwell. At least in their opinion, those people are big. For example, in the Philosophy of Humor Yearbook to come out in August 2020 with De Gruyter, Halliwell is on the editorial board, along with academic celebrities Simon Critchley and Daniel Dennett.

5053:: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Knowledge, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Usually this refers to sections of articles, but it has been invoked in cases where the very topic of an article is not considered prominent or legitimate by most relevant scholars. One single article bringing together other scholars' work on the topic for the first time, is not a good indicator about the prominence or legitimacy of the topic. The main problem is not that the solutions to this problem do not have names but that the topic does not seem to be a prominent one. I personally would endorse the existence of a trimmed down version of the article in question. You could also create an article on 5012:

unkind), I don't think that's what you mean. You're not saying that my article has no notable, central issue. You can see that it does have one, "the change of fortune paradox." When you say an article should be "structured around" a "major theme," you're not really referring to the "structure" itself, but only to subheadings. You're equating "structure" with names of sections. But that's not "structure," of ideas presented, it's just subheadings, names. You're just pointing out that the subheadings don't bear the solution's names. As I mentioned, the theorists didn't provide theory names. (I presume this page is not the wrong place for all this, and literary theory is considered to fall under philosophy; you didn't say this was the wrong place).

5002:

solutions never were given names by anyone. OK, but so what? Lessing's theory on this topic has been very influential. Scholars have adopted his view on this, since 1770, so 250 years. But because he gave his solution no name, then the problem can't be in Knowledge? I disagree. If you could prove that you're right, then wouldn't Sam-2727 have already done so? He would have already taken care of this, and the article would already be deleted. But instead, he sent me here. Why? Here's what I suggest. Either delete the thing, or else find some substantive flaw in the article that can be corrected. The thing about authors' names being used to introduce their solutions, that can't be fixed. It seems a dead issue.

5077:

misrepresented Dacier, Lessing, and even Halliwell, which is an amazing amount of error. In that sense, what I wrote doesn't reproduce him, even though you're right that he compiled a longer structure than had appeared before. That's true, and if it has nothing to do with notability, he is at least an additional secondary reference. But I put in the correct description of the main scholars' views on the problem which are at least referred to elsewhere. Although my secondary sources don't fully define each view that they reference, clearly no secondary source fully defines, for example, The Computational Neural Theory of Humor, and perhaps none exists for the O'Shannon Model of Humor either, in

5368:

indicated in the very beginning. But then when you get to Dacier -- the first thing that Takeda is well known to misread, there is a very brief phrase, saying that this reference about Dacier reflects the standard scholarly opinion that comes to us from Lessing himself -- in 1769, who responded critically to Dacier for the first time. Well I put these two things in, look forward to what you think. But before I even did this, the caveat was already there with respect to Halliwell in the Halliwell section, as per Elsa Bouchard's mention of him. In that case, you didn't notice it, or you did not object to me doing it.

5350:

saying it -- but I would justify it on these grounds, first of all it's not backed up as my opinion, but the view of a large number of scholars in both distant past, and present. As it stood before, the Knowledge article would just say that "Takeda wrote a history" -- and you wrote your admin note to the effect that the article follows Takeda's "structure", which it only does for a main part. So if you leave out this caveat to the reader, then they don't know that Takeda's descriptions are so at odds with the standard view of the scholars he talks about.

2386:

relationship between identity and other important concepts: time, necessity, personhood, composition (parthood), indiscernibility, and vagueness. In addition to these issues, some have suggested that identity is not absolute, but relative, so that we may say two things are the same person or statue, but not the same simpliciter. Finally, there are questions about whether there must always be informative criteria of identity that settle questions about when identity holds or fails to hold...

1795: 4539: 4104: 1651: 111:? Sometime back in April 2017 the page was significantly altered to state that "Unity in diversity" was merely a political motto, but I feel like there's a good case for it being more of an overarching philosophical concept—even if the phrase itself is sometimes used as a slogan. The Lalonde ref on that page mentions that the concept was current in Taoist societies as well as in Ancient Greece, but all I've been able to find so far was its treatment by 31: 950: 4481: 3357: 3302: 3053: 2792: 2671: 2596: 2254: 2927:. However, topic categories, like articles should minimize links into the Knowledge: project. Please remove them all. Imagine if every project added their links, and that topics can be of interest to multiple projects. Recall that projects do not own topic articles nor topic categories. Such links could be added to the category talk pages, and possibly within the project banners themselves. 4074: 1476: 2876: 359: 2485:

a look as well. Note, though, that their inclusion as figures in this school of thought is tied to a scholarly article (that I can't access), not their own works, which is the only thing that keeps me from removing it right now. Seems like a minority/fringe viewpoint, but I am not 100% sure. Political philosophy is more my area of interest.--

5164:

differ, but didn't find enough secondary on Moles. The things about Aristotle himself in the more detailed "The Problem" section are connected to a few scholarly books on the Poetics. Perhaps you may find that unnecessary. I found it seemed the right way to give the paradox fuller background, in a way that could be backed up by secondaries.

1250: 1235: 725:, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time. 5421:. 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 3756:

this is one of them. Don't be afraid of this topic. I am going to gently press for it. It really is overdue and Knowledge will at least make something interesting out of it if not authoritative and I want to see that in my lifetime (it could take an age to write it and turn out really important so,) Thanks Mark that's spot on.

4024:

said about the thing in itself that may be the basis of these appearances." Kant's critics responded by saying that Kant had no right, therefore, to assume the existence of a thing in itself."? Thank you for taking the time to look over this issue? I cited my sandbox page where my article draft is located.

5349:

Thanks, I submitted yesterday. But want to discuss with you the fact that I just added a caveat at the beginning, that informs about how most of Takeda's explanation of others' theories disagrees with the standard scholarly account of it. I thought you might object to putting that in, since it's me

5072:

Hi Omnipaedista, as much as I'm inclined, it seems unproductive to speak of my personal interest level. I'm just going to respond to the above, a day late because I got sidetracked. I don't completely agree with any one of the paradox solutions, and that may be the reason why my interest in it is not

3686:

Hello, I am seeking guidance and help in defining a tree of knowledge to suit Knowledge. Trees of knowledge have been considered indispensible to encyclopaedias of the past and though Knowledge has many content trees, it doesn't really have a tree of knowledge. The difficulty here is the focus on the

5232:

Lessing can be used as the correct secondary source for Dacier (since Takeda is wrong), even if there is not a single other one. I guess publishing all this in Knowledge hinders the prospect of publishing the correct history in some reliable print medium. I guess that is a deterrent to going forward

4981:

There's no dispute at this point as to the notability of the topic problem, and that each section of the article describes one of the several notable solutions (Castelvetro and Vettori are important because of they were the first to respond). Prof. Ford of Princeton, for example excessively praised

3695:

I don't even have a basis for this tree except that encyclopaedias have done them before, they've been really good for those encyclopaedias, and that we must have one on Knowledge where it will, eventually, be the best of these trees ever and perhaps even a guide to certain parts of the site such as

2484:

I don't know enough about it to throw the entire thing out, but the use of Popper and Wittgenstein as "notable figures" really does seem suspicious (and a lot like WP:OR, as you say--or even more misleading), so I encourage anyone reading this with a background on either one of those figures to take

1996:

a bit over the last couple of days. Anyone familiar with OC will appreciate the difficulty of saying much about it that isn't contestable. Nevertheless, I think it ought to be possible to draw on the Moorean propositions and images like the river-bed, the hinges and a few others. There is an e-text,

1433:

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

4018:

Hello, everyone. I have been working on the "Will(Philosophy)" article for a few weeks now. So far I have been planning on adding more content to the "Kant" and "Rousseau" sections of the article, the draft of which is in peer review currently. Last week, on February 21, I received a critique from

3944:

2. Is there a notable book on philosophy that does not have an article (I find that recent books often don't get articles for a few years after release)? You could potentially create the article (NOTE: this would not be a simple task, and I would recommend submitting it as a draft for review. The

3923:

I am an Undergraduate student studying History and International Relation at the Birkbeck University College London, and one of my modules was social and political studies. You have an interesting wiki-project and as a beginner I would like be part of Wiki-project philosophy, specifically political

3699:

Can anyone express an interest in creating this tree and/or help me to find relevant resources? (try a websearch for "tree of knowledge", you are not going to find epistemology so, as this is the sort of thing which goes by comparison and review, it is crying out so to speak for guidance and help).

3509:

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you?

2074:

Was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at this new article and assssing it. It looks like a first attempt at writing an article by a new user. Subject matter seems quite technical, and it reads more like an academic paper than a Knowledge article. I tried to do some

835:

I just came across this article during my editing and discovered that it has been undergoing major changes by multiple student editors who joined in January 2018. I have no comment on their contributions, in part because I have not extensively reviewed them myself, but it may be helpful if more are

5273:

However, I think you should keep in mind that (1) Bywater was first to say Aristotle changed his mind, yet (2) scholars have paid more attention to Moles than Bywater. Moles wrote a much more elaborate piece on the paradox (1979), and he is a more recent figure who was also very charismatic and a

5177:

The Malcolm Heath paragraph delves into his view of only Poetics chapter 13 and the single versus double plot. I could shorten that, and it should be referenced to Bouchard for a secondary source. I could add from Bouchard her very concise description (in the same article) of what Heath says about

5163:

There is a secondary source that at least mentions, and very briefly describes each of the various opinions. There is not one I know of that clearly defines John Moles' specific view--so I removed him. Moles thought Aristotle changed his mind, but so did Bywater, and I know how Bywater and Moles

5149:

In terms of defining the issue, I would suggest looking at the lead of the article. It defines the problem briefly, although you might have the impression the problem is stated redundantly (i.e., twice). This is even before the section The Problem where there's a bit more background. If you find

5130:

is usually not a very good argument.) Anyway, my basic point is that a problem may be age-old, but a clearly defined approach to deal with it has to have developed before Knowledge can include it. If you think that you have secondary sources to back up your claim that the topic is notable, then we

4962:

Hi Cdg1072. I am afraid that an anthology of summaries of philosophical works is usually not considered encyclopedic. Wikipedians tend to avoid this style of essay-like article structure. Philosophy articles tend to be organized around major themes, not organized around a collection of opinions of

4023:

section. What should I do? Also, I just wanted to ask if it would be alright if I eliminate the following from the "Kant" section of the "Will (Philosophy)" article: "Kant's Transcendental Idealism claimed that "all objects are mere appearances ." He asserted that "nothing whatsoever can ever be

3755:

Indeed it is certainly a philosophical topic. Even the most minor approach feels complex. Although I am sure this type of theme has been fluffed out a thousand times, the internet is awash with culture and philosophy, as always, just resting. However, the internet is still new in so many ways, and

144:

I just put together a biography of this German-born Hegelian, who seems like he was important in the early history of Hegel in America and of the "St. Louis Movement". If anyone wants to look it over and maybe find something better to say about his impact, that would be great. Anyways, there is at

5571:

Hello philosophers. Here's a draft about a philosophy professor. It needed third-party references, so I added some, but this is not my field so there may be more appropriate ones. Also, the text may need some changes to make it less CV-like, but I'm not sure what's important to include in an

5367:

I also did one other related thing, and btw, I would understand if you said that the corrective comment about Takeda and Dacier should only appear in one place. I disagree that we should worry about redundancy here. That Takeda is not standard scholarship, that he's considered incorrect, is now

5269:

I take it that you might mean to remove: (1) that little comment that mentions D.W. Lucas alone, and (2) the comments about John Moles. I don't presume you mean to remove (3) the comments about Bywater, and (4) that list of names of people right after Lessing himself, that over the centuries have

5011:

It seems that, in your attempt to claim that Knowledge doesn't allow theorists' names to introduce their theories on some one major problem, you sound like you're claiming that there is no major, notable problem that the article is about. Although it's really strange that you would say that (and

4943:

Hello, I'd like to ask for advice as to this article, before resubmitting once again after several submissions. What has been done to it lately is to ensure that all the statements are attributed to another party. It is not certain that the part under Lessing that mentions John Moles should have

4797:

article must be as complex as those others, but it still could be better at this point. Ideally it should equal those other language versions, in my opinion, eventually. A long term goal. I arrived at this issue late in the game, yet I have made this article more normal so far. That's a simple

4322:

attempted to merge the former into the latter in February, but failed to copy the content across correctly, which confused matters, and was reverted. I think their sense that the articles are more or less about the same topic, however, was on the money. I could have a go at carrying out the merge

4217:

is pretty much a stub, but it would seem to be a very important article, considering the amount books written on the topic; and even the subcategory of Sun Tzu's Art of War in business books are very numerous. We don't have coverage, and it could do with some help. Could editors familiar with the

3941:

1. In the sidebar on this page (above, right), click "show" next to "articles by quality." Click one of the lower quality designations ("stub" or "start" class), and it will send you to a long (multi-page) list of articles needing improvement, sorted by importance. Do you see any with which you

5001:

It just so happens that no convenient name exists, for each of the solutions that have been put forth. In some fields, for example, or especially for such a highly specific, narrow problem, solutions might rarely have names. And if we were to create names, that would be original research. The

4247:

Harvard philosopher Cristobal de Losada Lopez de Romana has been acclaimed for his works rebutting LNC and arguing against theories around explosion. While admitting to not fully pursuing his ideas due to cowardice and focusing on other works he characterizes as Malthusian (not in their alarmist

454:

I just took a look, and your order of sections appears to be the ideal one. You may wish to find a source for the "overview" section you created, as it's a part of the article, not the lede, and thus can be removed if not sourced. The claims in it look okay to me, so I won't remove them, but I'm

5382:

Just now, I made the lead of the article more neutral in tone by attributing the paradox to the scholars through history that have tried to resolve it, not just coming out and stating that there is an issue. I think the redundancy there is also now better, because the very first lead statement

5076:

Before talking about notability directly, there is the statement, "You basically want to reproduce here the structure and content of academic paper." But Takeda's article is shockingly inaccurate, and it's not your fault you didn't know. As I regretted while creating the article, he completely

4991:

Now as you emphasize here, and as Sam-2727 also noted, unfortunately the authors' names were the only things available for introducing each solution to the problem. Yes, I know that. So does Sam-2727, who sent me here. I debated this with him to no end. As I argued to Sam-2727, given that an

5092:

Third, about notability, you're right that just because an idea is steeped in the Renaissance, involves huge literary names like Dacier and Lessing, and many classical scholars wrote on it, and you can find a secondary source for almost every theory in detail--those things still don't make it

5098:

My last point is about how you say, "I personally would endorse the existence of a trimmed down version of the article in question." It seemed that you had just denied the notability, unless you meant that only for the full list of opinions. But whatever your judgment is, is it likely that

2452:

notable enough for an article, I think the title needs to be changed – currently it seems to suggest that this is some sort of type of math or field within math, but this clearly isn't the case. Rather, it seems that the actual topic is more about the study of math as a discipline through a

1371:. 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 2385:

Identity, Identity, Edited by Chad Carmichael (Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis), About this topic,Summary: Identity is sameness: the relation that holds between each thing and itself, and never holds between two things. Most philosophical issues about identity concern the

4798:

start. I reverted some weird section headings, which were, inappropriately, named 'form' and 'content,' changing them to 'overview' and 'synopsis' as typically found. Finally, if the article on Metabasis Paradox is ever accepted, I would motion to add a link to it along these lines:

4285:. AFC Reviewers get to use really cool automated tools that make reviewing really quick and easy, and I've really enjoyed volunteering there, and I'm really digging the AFC Sorting tool so instead of having to comb through lots of articles, I can zip right to topics I'm interested in. 4047:

rather than here. If you comment there and give a clear reason for removing it, other editors can respond who are more familiar with the content and with the whole article. If no responds after several days, you can remove it (then if someone objects you can continue the discussion,

696:

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template

4373:

Thanks – that goes some way to clarifying the issue. If they are genuinely different concepts with different origins then perhaps they shouldn't be merged. If that was the case though there'd still need to be more done to distinguish them and explain the differences (e.g.

2016:

I have collected a very small batch of articles which include philosophy-related links to DAB pages. Expert help in solving these problems would be welcome. Search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode. If you manage to solve any of these puzzles, remove the

3103:

about whether to rename or delete or merge or otherwise make major changes to that article, which seems to me that it is really about libertarianism more generally and so needs eyes from a wider selection of editors than just those who happen to be watching that article.

2224:

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the

3725:, there are two directions I could think of investigating. The first is to look at the system of categorization of articles we have. There is a lot of good hierarchical knowledge contained in there. At the very top of the hierarchy, categories get philosophical and the 889: 2447:

So I just ran across this article, and I'm completely at a loss what to make of it. First, I'm unsure whether or not this is even a notable topic (it maybe looks like this is restricted to just a few academics, and I'm not sure if that's enough). Second, if it

576:

I am absolutely no philosopher (more into classical music and early German cinema) and don't feel particularly qualified to write the article: but brickbats/suggestions/ideas for English sources would be welcome if anyone felt it was worthwhile my carrying on.

5041:). It is clear that you invented the term "Change of fortune paradox"; not a good start. You could have called it "metabasis paradox." As you know the "metabasis paradox" is only mentioned once in the literature (Elisabetta Brighi, Antonio Cerella, eds., 2721:. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. 2303:-Change from: These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" which must follow it. 3127: 3383:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

3328:

3079:

2818:

2697:

2622:

2280:

199:

listing the central topics of the field (in a structure closely mirroring other authoritative sources like SEP) citing poor referencing for those being within the domain of metaphysics. Some other editors' attention there would be appreciated.

5086:

My second point is that to have substituted change of fortune for metabasis, to create a short title, seems a minor issue. Metabasis means change of fortune, and then you suggested that if the topic was considered notable, metabasis would be

5383:

refers more to the contemporry situation, while in the redundancy just after that, it alludes more to the earliest scholars discovering the problem. I think this is much smoother. I also fixed a really bad sentence in the Halliwell section.

2570:

Philosophy part is messy and needs untangling. I also think it glances over some important figures and doesn't have proper priorities, potentially confusing philosophies and philosophers that are important for postmodernism, not

737:. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals. 223:. I have attempted to engage with this user and discuss the dispute at the article's talk page. He has, however, ignored me. I would welcome any comments on the issue, whatever they are, from editors interested in philosophy. 3687:

site and content. For instance, Truth, Belief, and Justification are probably going to be too vague to be relevant to Knowledge. I've had one idea for instance, Fact, Fiction and Theory. But I don't think this is key. I am

1733: 3151:

I have collected a batch of articles with philosophy-related DABlinks where expert attention would be welcome. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the

901: 5288:

I just went and removed a number of things from the Lessing section, and also made the main statement of Lessing's own view much more concise. I made it less redundant. I'm against the idea of cutting out Bywater or

5117:

We need to make sure that the topic is well-defined—especially if an article about the problem is to feature a full list of opinions. Before this discussion, I was a bit skeptical about the notability of the subject.

3729:

Knowledge has created with its categories is just one take on the problem. The second, for topics lower on the tree, is to look at the outlines (of varying quality) that have been created for various topics; see the

2499:

Hmm, I've definitely read a bit in the philosophy-of-mathematics literature about "humanistic" interpretations of mathematical truth, and my guess is that there's enough to warrant an article describing the works of

4645:, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the 1292:, 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. 734: 686:

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

1045:

on its talk page involving restructuring the article topically to produce a more neutral pov and better content. I am looking for consensus on improving what everyone agrees is a poor quality article. Please

4280:

Just in case there are folks here who might be interested in reviewing drafts awaiting article status that are particular to this WikiProject. If you'd like to sign up to review/approve/decline new Drafts,

3574: 1767: 1434:

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.

3691:

however that a suitable tree can be produced and refined in the Knowledge fashion to become really important and authoritative. At very least it would provide an interesting method of content browsing.

4646: 3380: 1813:

to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Knowledge's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Knowledge-academia gap. It is also part of a

5448: 5414: 4882: 3387:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

3332:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

3083:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

2822:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

2701:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

2626:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

2284:

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

4599:

Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher Langan

3942:

have some familiarity? You might be able to improve the article. The ones in the low-quality categories are often low-traffic, and some might even have simple copy-editing or clarity needs.

2694: 741: 2924: 2277: 1345:

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? --

4491:, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to a less ambiguous title. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the 3254:

requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks,

4696:. Their editing consists in inserting the phrase "∅ in Primary Encyclopedic Published Academic Source" in accurately sourced articles. Attention is needed for the pages they edit. ---- 4019:

Sulferboy, mentioning that my article was written in an essay-like style, and that I did not have secondary, reliable sources, although I have both primary and secondary sources in my

5544: 4982:

Elsa Bouchard's solution, which had the effect of making it very notable, due to Ford's prestige as a Classicist. That's all I'd say about notability of the problem and its solutions.

3502:! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the 2619: 1302:

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

5204:

I just worked on the Malcolm Heath part which was in bad shape. I also found yet another thing synthesized as fact, and fixed it by attributing to Halliwell by name, in that section.

836:

watching this article and others review the article's recent history of changes. I will do so soon if I have the time and already plan to help clean the article up to conform to the

4274: 3076: 2525: 566: 4497: 4560: 4259: 4196: 4125: 3325: 2887: 1672: 274:

that you might also want to comment on. To be completely explicit about it, I am not asking you or other editors to agree with me. I welcome your comments whatever they are.

5619:

on a talk page and was astounded to find it a red link. To write such an article is way above my pay grade but does anybody on this Wikiproject feel brave enough to try? --

4453:

currently cites a number of authorities advising against wordiness, but seemingly none critiquing this advice. Any sources or other contributions would be appreciated. See

1830: 1074: 4567:

in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!

4132:

in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!

1903: 1679:

in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!

1555:). At least two other editors (Modocc, WarrenPlatts; see the said talk page) noticed this back in 2015, but did not take action. After reviewing the relevant discussion, 628: 5049:)). You basically want to reproduce here the structure and content of this academic paper. There is a policy that can be invoked against the existence of this article: 3995:

Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

3977:

If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.

5274:

popular classicist. Thus Bywater and Moles are each, in their own way, significant. I'm going to delete the isolated comment about D.W. Lucas, as you think about it.

1627:

that I don't have the time to properly evaluate but I think they could really use some experienced eyes to make sure that they are worth keeping and not disruptive. --

754: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2461:

issues going on, but I don't feel comfortable enough with the topic to really be sure. So anyone who'd like to take a swing at this would be welcome. (Notifying at

1471:

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.

3973:. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers. 5034: 2815: 2226: 1479: 5081:. One can with good reason delete The Computational Neural Theory of Humor--just for breaking guidelines, I understand the craziness of the content is irrelevant. 4598: 1126:

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. -----

4581: 4146: 3945:

MOST important tip for creating an article about a book is making sure that you cite reviews in major publications to show the book is actually notable. See

4248:

quality but rather in the start contrast between their widespread popularity and low accuracy), he has pushed these theories farther than many others before.

1310:. 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 1101: 807: 802: 2970:

We could do with some more eyes - ideally those with expert knowledge - on this article. Lots of accusations of bias etc. being thrown by one editor. -----

1693: 4555: 4282: 4120: 3580:

Opinions are needed at this AFD, whatever they may be. It's a tricky AFD that needs input from those familiar with this content area (which I am not). Best

2098:

has been rated as stub class by your Wiki Project Group, but might be long enough to be brought up to Start Class now (see the talk page on this article).

1667: 811: 475:

Actually, I'm going to add some sources to it myself as I edit it (am currently doing so, so please don't edit conflict me). They're fairly easy to find.

4898: 2920: 2418: 2413: 1559:

TBR-qed's version a few months ago. This reversion is still being disputed by TBR-qed. I would welcome comments from other editors, whatever they are. --

1202:

tags to philosophy-related topics which required expert attention; but on reviewing that handful, that number was down to two. (Good work, by Whoever!)

4878:

Is there a definite ruling or guideline on Knowledge on whether "Islamic philosophy" is "Eastern philosophy", "Western philosophy", or "other" ??

3369: 3314: 3065: 2804: 2683: 2608: 2422: 2266: 1911: 1893: 1875: 1869: 794: 1579: 1438: 4347: 4263: 4200: 3511: 2405: 1097: 271: 968:

Not Well Sourced/ To The Point Of Not Being Encyclopedic (All Valuable Content Here Could Be Merged Into Another Page With Maybe Three Sentences)

296: 5418: 2756: 2047: 1011: 657:. I have a COI as a paid consultant to the author of the book. I'd appreciate it if someone happened to have time to look at this request, at: 573:

has been updated since then, although it still has very few inline refs: I could probably translate the relevant bits of the current article.

4519: 3808: 2546: 47: 17: 4689: 3722: 925: 5254:(outdent) Sections about the views of Murnaghan, Bouchard, and Heath can be kept. The Lessing section should probably be trimmed down. -- 4502: 4219: 3119: 2474: 2143:

should be merged into other existing articles, and if so, whether the page should become a redirect or disambiguation page. Thank you. –

1998: 849: 177: 3506:

that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

4886: 3988: 2869: 712: 5422: 5543:, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at 4685: 1997:

helpfully. If anyone has any ideas about this, I have said more on the talk page (mainly about sources). Thanks in advance. -Soap

455:

going to re-write it a bit because the language is not ideal (the first person POV is a bit jarring for an encyclopedia article).

5038: 3476: 2542: 2535: 915: 907: 701: 4899:

Asian philosophy : an international journal of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Buddhist, Persian and Islamic philosophical traditions

3130:. It touches on philosophy, in assessment and treatment, and may be of interest to any members overall. With many kind thanks -- 2075:

basic formatting cleanup, but perhaps someone here is familiair with the subject matter and can help with the phrasing, etc. --

5624: 4033: 2856: 2722: 1971: 1015: 5599: 5150:

the lead really is redundant, perhaps the redundancy could be merged into one, although I found it resulted in a logical way.

4656: 3538: 2508:

article makes grand claims about what all postmodernists think about mathematics, which is unsupportable. I'd be inclined to

1590: 1552: 1544: 1196: 1147: 1109: 279: 228: 128: 4748:

I kept the "Page overflow" comments still in the wikicode in case this issue re-occurs. Posting here for more pagewatchers.

5033:

is of interest to philosophy, classical scholarship, and literary theory (this means that other relevant projects would be

5489: 3970: 2643: 798: 721: 555: 4323:

properly, but it might be best if someone who hadn't first heard the term(s) five minutes ago could take a look at it. –

5430: 5218:

I found the last of the Halliwell unattributed statements, don't know how I could have passed over that all those times.

4830: 4025: 3946: 1907: 1810: 1794: 4944:

been cut short due to an original research issue. I saved the excised detail about John Moles which could be put back.

4805:

has generated a handful of debates over its interpretation, including two that are better known, namely the meaning of

409:. There seems to be some confusion about whether all empirically verifiable facts are (properly speaking) "science". 5510: 3804: 3631: 3472: 3461: 2409: 1915: 1740:(FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- 1070: 1003: 961: 939: 771: 4917: 4719:. Tables starting at "Analytic philosophy" to the end were not being shown. These statistic tables are now viewable. 4677: 1446: 742:

article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject

5270:

endorsed Lessing. You might let me know if you feel that of those 4 items, 1,2, and 3 should go, but 4 should stay.

4716: 3503: 2113:

I've updated all the assessments to reflect the current state of the article. Good work by those who expanded it. --

5620: 4649:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 4564: 4391: 4328: 4129: 4078: 3987:

For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section:

3623: 3025: 2987: 1775: 1676: 1529: 1007: 760:

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the

535: 343:

In that case, can you repair that bad link, and perhaps also update the DAB page? I don't feel competent to do so.

38: 4597:

Hi there is an RfC on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe that may be of interest to this project. See:

3364: 3348: 3247: 1938: 4515: 3767: 3711: 3672: 3650: 3564: 3484: 3373: 3318: 3259: 3137: 3100: 3069: 2808: 2687: 2612: 2554: 2513: 2297: 2270: 1397: 4029: 1919: 561:

As far as I can see, no such article exists on English WP. Some time ago I translated some of an old version of

5518: 4642: 4492: 4421: 4290: 3434: 3422: 2718: 2678: 2662: 2209: 1405: 1380: 1350: 1322: 1167: 1143: 1105: 1082: 790: 783: 503:

Hi, I'm looking for advice on whether (and how much) to roll back an extended period of block evasion edits at

484: 464: 275: 224: 5628: 5605: 5581: 5559: 5522: 5495: 5463: 5441: 5392: 5377: 5344: 5330: 5316: 5298: 5283: 5263: 5242: 5227: 5213: 5187: 5144: 5108: 5066: 5021: 4972: 4953: 4932: 4911: 4890: 4757: 4705: 4662: 4632: 4610: 4524: 4466: 4436: 4395: 4368: 4332: 4294: 4267: 4227: 4204: 4089: 4057: 4037: 4008: 3958: 3933: 3912: 3885: 3858: 3835: 3812: 3771: 3746: 3715: 3675: 3635: 3611: 3589: 3567: 3523: 3488: 3454: 3416: 3393: 3341: 3286: 3263: 3232: 3141: 3113: 3089: 3037: 3014: 2991: 2976: 2958: 2936: 2905: 2862: 2828: 2776: 2729: 2707: 2655: 2632: 2580: 2558: 2494: 2478: 2365: 2290: 2238: 2214: 2191:

is regarded "highly important" in this WikiProject. Please ping me while you reply, I don't watch this page.

2177: 2152: 2122: 2107: 2084: 2062: 2006: 1978: 1779: 1752: 1722: 1636: 1607: 1568: 1533: 1510: 1458: 1409: 1396:

I added this discussion to the talk page for the second one, where I pinged you and the editor who added it:

1384: 1354: 1326: 1279: 1182: 1151: 1132: 1113: 1086: 1059: 1031: 933: 929: 878: 853: 776: 672: 640: 609: 586: 520: 490: 470: 448: 418: 388: 379:

TY! There may be more links like that which need expert attention, but I haven't started to collect them yet.

374: 352: 331: 312: 283: 257: 232: 209: 185: 154: 132: 2261: 2245: 2002: 1306:

we would consider there to be a special technical term "now" that is well defined or carefully attributed to

5592: 5529: 4628: 4223: 3412: 3282: 3033: 3010: 2954: 2470: 2068: 1805: 1229: 990: 874: 845: 605: 539: 267: 220: 181: 5539:

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to

3929: 2603: 2587: 1525: 5502: 5340: 5312: 5259: 5140: 5062: 4968: 4928: 4907: 4701: 4693: 4364: 4214: 4044: 3800: 3627: 3604: 2401: 1564: 747:

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

582: 435: 414: 253: 150: 5131:

might be good to go (the title should definitely be "metabasis paradox" so that there is no violation of

3060: 3044: 1814: 318:

Pien refers to the concept of gradual transformation in Confucian or Taoist philosophy; see for instance

5616: 5577: 5471: 5458: 4495:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

4065: 4043:

Responding to your second question: I would recommend asking about the removal of that material on the

3881: 3846: 3741: 3389: 3228: 3176: 3085: 2983: 2932: 2824: 2703: 2628: 2521: 2286: 2148: 2058: 1887: 1771: 1454: 1275: 1205:

In main text, search for 'disam'; in edit mode, search for '{{d' (and keep on going through things like

1123: 1104:, but Διοτιμα has not responded as yet. I would welcome comments from other editors, whatever they are. 897: 761: 384: 370: 348: 327: 308: 138: 5565: 4487: 4472: 4387: 4324: 4182:

No definition of the term "pathè" is provided, and I'm sure that it will be unfamiliar to many users.

3309: 3293: 562: 4185:

I linked it to some existing text in Knowledge, but another editor felt that my link was incorrect.

4506: 4053: 3954: 3659: 3551: 3480: 3255: 3181: 2916: 2839: 2769: 2576: 2550: 2490: 2134: 1244: 1055: 239: 1315: 5514: 4417: 4286: 3877: 3731: 3212: 3191: 3135: 3109: 2901: 2850: 2799: 2783: 2234: 2197: 2173: 2080: 1706: 1632: 1521: 1430: 1420: 1401: 1376: 1346: 1318: 1209: 1163: 1078: 1042: 1019: 477: 457: 205: 4359:. There is some kind of overlap between the two articles and merging them might be a good idea. -- 1334: 1174: 5602: 5410: 4624: 3908: 3900: 3519: 3468: 3438: 3426: 3408: 3278: 3196: 3029: 3006: 2950: 2651: 2466: 2462: 1596: 957: 943: 870: 601: 547: 516: 406: 123: 108: 4538: 4103: 3876:, but don't have the heart to undo them all, especially if the text is not itself unreasonable. 2752: 1650: 841: 4676:

has been making some very disruptive edits changes to WikiProject Philosophy-related articles:

4673: 3982:

and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!

1829:. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to 735:

RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace

266:. I would appreciate it if you could comment about the dispute on the talk page of the article 5485: 5388: 5373: 5336: 5326: 5308: 5294: 5279: 5255: 5238: 5223: 5209: 5183: 5136: 5119: 5104: 5058: 5017: 4964: 4949: 4924: 4903: 4826: 4753: 4697: 4433: 4360: 3792: 3781: 3600: 3585: 3243: 3133: 2361: 1960: 1560: 1364: 1178: 1027: 986: 578: 551: 410: 263: 249: 146: 530:

Hi, I've been interested for some time in the philosophical/aesthetic aspects of the idea of

5573: 5555: 5454: 5426: 4606: 4462: 4319: 4004: 3925: 3831: 3823: 3737: 3337: 3224: 2964: 2928: 2517: 2144: 2118: 2103: 2054: 1950: 1718: 1450: 1271: 1219: 893: 890:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics

680: 668: 654: 380: 366: 344: 338: 323: 304: 115:

and his followers. Would anyone else have any leads on good sources to expand this article?

3869: 438:

it (shuffled sections and paragraphs around). I would like to ask for some feedback on its

5127: 5123: 5050: 4049: 3950: 3796: 3785: 3499: 2762: 2572: 2486: 2139: 2095: 1759: 1744: 1425:

I can resolve about 85-90% of the ambiguous links to DAB pages I look at (and I look at a

1260:

if you solve either of these puzzles, remove the dab-needed tag from the article and post

1051: 859: 658: 444: 921:

Attention from additional editors might be able to improve the quality of this article.

5593:

Category talk:Communism § Categorization of Communism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism

4273:

Articles for Creation has a new sort tool, you can see all pending related drafts here:

3024:

A request to re-title an article which may be of interest to members of this project is

2840:

Talk:Gender_equality#Is_formal_equality_the_same_term_or_should_it_have_its_own_article?

5233:

with this, but now I've done everything I can think of to make the article appropriate.

4956: 4620: 4454: 3854: 3726: 3450: 3217: 3186: 3105: 2891: 2842: 2230: 2169: 2165: 2158: 2076: 1748: 1628: 1504: 1486: 244: 201: 4715:

Greetings, Since 2016 there was a "Page overflow" issue which should now be corrected

1551:

this article since 2014 by replacing it with his own original synthesis (see also the

1298:: I looked at the first one. I'm not sure what you are hoping for. Do you want the 5596: 5132: 4681: 4650: 4574: 4173:

We always say that as regards belief (i.e., dogma) the Pyrrhonist's goal is ataraxia,

4139: 4082: 3904: 3892: 3763: 3707: 3515: 3251: 3201: 3166: 2883: 2647: 2509: 2458: 2337: 2031: 1737: 1686: 1583: 1548: 1494: 1264: 973: 837: 636: 543: 512: 508: 117: 5540: 5478: 5384: 5369: 5322: 5290: 5275: 5234: 5219: 5205: 5179: 5100: 5013: 4945: 4822: 4749: 4356: 3896: 3646: 3581: 3534: 3206: 2971: 2744: 2516:, which already has heaps of words about social constructivism, fictionalism, etc. 2501: 2454: 2357: 2041: 1993: 1883: 1879: 1600: 1139: 1127: 1023: 439: 167: 160: 2439: 828: 5054: 5046: 2755:

on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at

2138: 5551: 5435: 4786:

Note also how much better are other articles on Aristotle's works, for example,

4602: 4458: 4240: 4233: 4000: 3827: 3333: 3156: 2318: 2188: 2114: 2099: 2021: 1714: 1480:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism#WikiProject Philosophy revisited

972:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

664: 196: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3924:

and social philosophy. Do you have any practical but simple tasks I can do?. --

3445:. Are all of these identical to one another? Should this be reflected somehow? 407:

Talk:Faith healing#RfC about inserting content and category about pseudoscience

4383: 4375: 4352: 4315: 4304: 3608: 3442: 3404: 3274: 1928: 1825: 1819: 1303: 1289: 1047: 624: 5307:

Good. The article is much better now. I think it is ready to be published. --

4875:

I wouldn't include "Islamic philosophy" under "Eastern philosophy" myself.

4188:

Can we please provide an appropriate definition, explanation, or link in

1963: 753:

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the

719:

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members

5043:

The Sacred and the Political: Explorations on Mimesis, Violence and Religion

4844: 4837: 4450: 4443: 4379: 4338: 4311: 4300: 4178:

and that as regards things that are unavoidable it is having moderate pathè.

4114: 3850: 3446: 3403:

An RfC which may be of interest to the members of this project can be found

2947: 2564: 2353: 2349: 2307: 1955: 1741: 1624: 1613: 1372: 1307: 866: 620: 112: 5447:

Thanks for the notice. Your link is to the 2007 FAR. The current FAR is at

4770:

If you look at the French and German versions of Knowledge articles on the

4081:, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. 2757:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett

996:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

4549: 4189: 4166: 4159: 3899:

on the article talk page instead. I’ve welcomed them and added a link to

3759: 3703: 2341: 2322: 632: 504: 3273:

An RfC which may be of interest to members of this project can be found

2875: 195:

Someone has been repeatedly removing much of the content of the article

4775: 2345: 2311: 1524:

to be included in this project. I would also value any feedback on it.

570: 531: 431: 424: 319: 5511:

Talk:Involuntary commitment#RfC about merging an article with this one

4787: 3126:

Hello! I was wondering if any members of the WikiProject could kindly

1793: 4778: 3667: 3559: 2352:.This is a semantically more comprehensive update, Please go for the 2329: 1661: 1075:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/1700_in_philosophy#1700_in_philosophy

5078: 4553:, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of 4310:

Is there anyone clued-up on the subject(s) who could take a look at

4118:, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of 3939:

I often do one of two things to get started and find things to edit:

2547:

Talk:Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Revert,_damage_too_much_to_fix

1872:

on topics that don't yet have a Knowledge page, or only a stub/start

1665:, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of 1914:. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the 1896:, based around an important images, photographs or summary diagrams 597: 5572:

article about a philosopher. Can someone here take a look at it?—

3873: 2717:

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at

2315: 303:

which has me baffled. Can any expert here help solve the problem?

4781: 4774:, you find they are noticeably superior to the one in English. 4530:

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

4095:

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

3575:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories

1642:

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

884:"Countering systemic bias/Mathematics" at Miscellany for Deletion 242:. Their latest additions seem to be a personal interpretation of 3242:

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain

2326: 1437:("Ignorance is bliss" may be a cliche, but it's a quote from an 1100:. I have tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page 300: 2946:

The following RfC may be of interest to members of this group:

693:

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

3381:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Philosophy of science

3002: 1317:. What made you feel a need to make a "dab" entry for it? -- 1311: 1299: 1142:. I believe I can contribute something given my EBSCO access. 25: 5449:

Knowledge:Featured_article_review/Philosophy_of_mind/archive2

5057:

and include information about the metabasis paradox there. --

4529: 4158:

Can we please provide a link or explanation for "pathè" in

4094: 3209:(if the name 'Regalia' is correct, an article may be missing) 2982:

Two editors. Against a "consensus" of maybe three or four. —

2882:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

4537: 4102: 2874: 1851:

Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review

1649: 1582:

of the "generations" of the Hudson River School. Thanks! ···

948: 173:

Would anyone here care to review and improve this article?

5417:. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 3467:

There is an RFC on the names to include as Key Figures for

3128:

take a look at the review for this article that I nominated

1641: 1288:

I'm willing to try and help you out. I'm not an expert in

170:

is overly essay-like and needs more citations to sources.

4810: 3864:

repeated addition of self-published work in logic articles

2695:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Political science

4793:

Not everyone might agree that the English version of the

4475:

has been nominated for renaming to a less ambiguous title

3433:

There are several forms of extreme skepticism, including

2925:

Special:WhatLinksHere/WP:WikiProject_Philosophy/Resources

2278:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Anti-consumerism

1096:

There is a content dispute between myself and Διοτιμα at

509:

Talk:Socrates#Looking for a clean version of this article

4957:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox

4836:

Is Islamic philosophy "Eastern philosophy"? (re article

4818: 4355:

is supposed to be a Continental and Russian synonym for

3653:

that would benefit from your input. Please come and help

3095:

Right-libertarianism and its place within libertarianism

2453:

postmodernist lens. And finally, there's possibly some

5545:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism

4896:

There is a notable Taylor & Francis journal called

2620:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Existentialism

2435: 2431: 2427: 1770:; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! 1620: 1556: 1442: 1368: 1342: 1338: 1171: 1014:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

824: 820: 816: 4079:

Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020

4014:"Will (philosophy)" Article Questions & Intentions 3700:

Any advice, comments, information, anything, thanks o/

3005:

RfC may be of interet to the members of this project.

1920:

general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group

979:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

4275:

Knowledge:AfC sorting/Culture/Philosophy and religion

3077:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human rights

1732:

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the

653:

I have proposed a substantial redraft of the article

600:

which may be of interest to members of this project.

567:

User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/Gestalt (philosophy)

4919:

Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy

4593:

RfC on the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

3845:

Just want to make you aware of the merge request at

3368: