Talk:Truth

Improving the quality of images in this article

From all the thousands of articles I've read on Wikipedia, I've never come across one where the images appear to be so jarringly out of place like those in this article. So I spent a good few hours trying to figure out why I found them to be so out of place and did a check of Wikipedia style guides. I found this article to violate a number of these guidelines which should be fixed.

Listed below are excerpts of the guidelines (in italics) which I believe this article violates, followed by my reasoning. For the most part, the images in question are the three nude images. Where other images are concerned, I have made this clear.

Issues with the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines in this article

1. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature

• "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting."

The images in question no doubt exist solely to beautify the article. In particular, the images have no particular relation to the text it is placed adjacent, which in my opinion is usually an indicator of an irrelevant image in a Wikipedia article. If the point of having the paintings really has any value or relevance, you'd expect at least a few words of related text besides which you would be able to place the image. Other images in this article such as "Quid Est Veritas? Christ and Pilate, by Nikolai Ge." satisfy this bare minimum requirement by virtue of the discussion on religion, but even this image is only superficial connected to the topic and in my opinion ought not be there. (An aside: this image should be moved down a section to Truth#Christianity if it is to be kept.)

One of the arguments given in favour of keeping these images by an editor is that "children who may see these images of classic paintings will not only be enriched by them... When I was a child, I saw great beauty is such works of art". While my goal is not to rob this editor of the enjoyment of these works of art, this argument is irrelevant given that the purpose of this article is to provide factual information on a specific topic rather than to be a source of pleasure. We should not forget that this is an article on philosophy, not one on fine art.

2. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images

• "Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the "principle of least astonishment": images should respect conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article"

I certainly didn't expect to see such images in an article about the truth and the fact that a number of people have taken the time to argue against the inclusion of these images shows that several others didn't expect to see these images either and found these images if not offensive, out of place.

The justification given by another editor against the removal of these images as "censorship" and that "it is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy" falls flat according to this guideline which clearly states that for images which might be seen to be offensive by some, the onus should be on proving that the omission of these images would make the article "less informative, relevant, or accurate", which, in my opinion would not be the case. These images: a) represent only the vaguest notion of a particular western visual symbolism of the philosophical idea of truth and provide little informative about Truth b) have no direct relevance to the text c) absolutely will not make the text less accurate if removed

3. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead

• "For some topics, selecting the lead image can be difficult. While Wikipedia is not censored, lead images should be selected with care (see § Offensive images, above). The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. Unlike other content beyond the lead, the lead image should be chosen with these considerations in mind."

The same arguments made in argument 2 apply here, only more strongly. The two lead images are certainly not ones I expected to see in an article on this topic.

• "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

I've had a look at a number of online encyclopedias to see what images they have. The Britannica article on this topic has images of works of art but only because they are of the philosophers mentioned in the adjacent text. There are absolutely no works of abstract representations of truth. Other more advanced sources such as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosphy and the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy don't have even a single image for this topic.

• "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred."

I'd argue there is an element of shock to seeing a nude portrait when you expect a discussion on philosophy for reasons explained in argument 2.

In Summary

The fundamental problem I see of including these images is that they are non-sequitur to the philosophical discussion of Truth. While sometimes a representation such as Lady_Justice becomes strongly ingrained in what it represents, this is not the case for these images. That they might be seen as offensive is another reason to remove these images. If someone really finds value in keeping these artistic portrayals of the truth on Wikipedia, perhaps it might be worth creating a separate article on "The Portrayal of Truth in Art".

Further to everything stated previously, I find the fact that three of the eight images on this article are essentially of the same archetype while having only the most tangential relation to the topic astonishing. If one were to only skim through the images on this article, one could quite easily come to the conclusion that white, open-breasted women and renaissance era art [sic] have a massive deal to do with the topic otherwise known as "Truth" when, in reality, I doubt anyone who isn't steeped in 17th century Western art would even make this association.

The arguments given by editors previously against the removal of these images, in my opinion, are misguided attempts at protecting against censorship and a disregard for this encyclopedia's Style Guide which ultimately results in a reduction of the quality of this article. I'm not the only one to find these images objectionable; see other topics in this Talk:Truth such as "pictures" and "Mixing up reality and mind", both of which argue that these images serve no purpose and "Nudes" which argues much the same thing.

Proposals for fixing the issue of inappropriate images in this article

1. Remove the two nude portrayals in the lead section and the one further in. They have nothing to do with the text they are adjacent to nor the topic.
2. Either remove other weakly pertinent images or move them to a more appropriate location:

• Walter Seymour Allward's Veritas (Truth) outside Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
  • As it is, there is no relation of this image to the adjacent text. However, there is a single reference to the 'law' in the lead section. Perhaps this could be made the lead image?
• Truth, holding a mirror and a serpent (1896). Olin Levi Warner, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.
  • As it is, this image is particularly poorly placed because the text next to it is of rigorous mathematical treatment of Truth. If this image is to be kept, it ought to be placed elsewhere where there is a historical or cultural discussion on Truth.
• Quid Est Veritas? Christ and Pilate, by Nikolai Ge.
  • Either remove this image or move it to Truth#Christianity. I'd argue against the inclusion of this image if we are to strictly follow the Style Guide since this image is placed here due to it's artistic merit and not relevance to the textual context (I had to go to the hyperlink John_18:38 to see what this image had at all to do with Truth. In fact, the image is concerned with the literal use of the word Truth and not a deeper philosophical meaning which is not what I had expected from reading the section on Truth#Christianity).

3. For the issue of wanting to beautify this article while at the same time keeping within the Style Guide, we could include more images of philosophers, perhaps with a focus on figures from a variety of cultures and times and not just modern European ones.
--TranquilDragon 09:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As a long-time contributor I remember the enthusiasm with which the suggestion of images was received by a major contributor. So I looked up the context of Edna St Vincent Millay's Sonnet

O blinding hour, O holy, terrible day,
When first the shaft into his vision shone
Of light anatomized! Euclid alone
Has looked on Beauty bare. Fortunate they
Who, though once only and then but far away,
Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.

Given this context, perhaps an illustration of "her massive sandal set on stone" might substitute.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you (TranquilDragon) for this detailed discussion. I agree for most part. I would suggest that we move one of unoffensive images to the lead and remove the other images unless there is a clear relevance to the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Unless there were a section about the depiction of truth in art, almost none of these images seem appropriate to this article. While the image of Kant is so-soish justifiable, the only good case for keeping an image is for Quid Est Veritas? which goes well with the section on Christianity. Perhaps that section is not well articulated, but this scene from the New Testament is philosophically rich. Teishin (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the image of Kant, I agree the image is passable but (apologies for being pedantic) since there are better, more standard portraits, I feel it should be replaced with one such as the lead image here Immanuel_Kant. The current image of Kant also lacks information on when it was painted and who the painter was which raises questions on whether this was an actual commissioned portrait or not.
As someone who is not particularly knowledgeable about Christianity, I found the Quid Est Veritas? confusing. I didn't realise that Jesus was the figure in the shadow until I read the commentary on the relevant verse. Perhaps a rewrite of the caption will help.
Also, it turns out the reason the image of Christ is misplaced is because it predates the section on religion and was included for decoration the same way as the rest of the images.TranquilDragon (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)TranquilDragon (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant images. There is no longer a lead image. I think this is better since now you have that screen space (on a wide screen device) occupied by the vastly more useful Epistemology sidebar. The only potentially irrelevant image I have left is a picture of "Walter Seymour Allward's Veritas", but I have moved it under Truth#Major Theories where it makes more sense since there is a reference to "society" in the adjacent text. The image of "Quid Est Veritas?" has been moved under Truth#Theological Views. The image of Kant has been changed to a standard portrait. I have kept it because the image is relevant to the adjacent text, but it does stick out as odd that Kant is the only philosopher with a portrait. The alternative, adding images for more philosophers, would lead to a needless gallery of philosophers. Also, the image "An angel carrying the banner of 'Truth'" has been right aligned for improved readability.
I would like someone to add a more descriptive caption for "Quid Est Veritas?" (I have no expertise in that domain.) Also, if someone knows how to align this image to the section on Truth#Christianity, please do so.--TranquilDragon (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I rewrote the caption on the Christianity image. Is it clearer now? Teishin (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I originally wanted the caption to explain the meaning of "What is Truth?"; like whether Pilate is referring to some sort of relativity of truth. In any case, I think your edit is sufficiently good. Thanks Teishin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TranquilDragon (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that it?

The result of this apparently prudish editing is that once the first image was the arguably inapropriate "Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy", but now it is the at least equally irrelevant image of a weathered angel with an indecipherable banner. Not what one muight call progress. Banno (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti-truths? Truths that lie?

The discovery was made in 1989, and published in a book, concerning the discovery of anti+truths, that lie, based on the scientific properties of LIGHT, and similar relationships to TRUTH. Called 'The Jesus Christ Code'.

Does anyone have any legitimate sources of this research? 24.79.147.13 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Archive 16

Page archived up until start of year - hasn't been done in a while. Still need to fix archive list in TalkHEader Banno (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

On inspection, the archives are a mess. Suggest moving to autoarchiving. This would presumably mean reomving the existing archive structure and an initial very long archive - everything up to the archive date. I'll give it a couple of days for comment before implimenting. Banno (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

In the first line of the main text of the Truth Page, kindly interchange links to the fact and the reality wikipage.

Reason for requesting this change is that this was how it was prior to an edit which allowed a user to follow the first link in the main text of every wikipedia page to philosophy which then looped on itself. But now, the truth and fact pages interloop which prevents most wikipedia pages from leading to philosophy. 182.70.65.115 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We are not here to play WP:Getting to Philosophy. Favonian (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

Reassess the article. Fails B-class criteria #1 with sourcing issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Page Preview - Unrelated Subject Displayed

As of March 20th, 2023 at 8:30 AM PDT, the page preview for "Truth" displays not the article on the subject, but instead includes a flat-Earther argument. Regardless of the veracity of the claims about the Earth being flat, it has no connection to the article on the subject of "Truth". Text taken from the article would be much more appropriate. Currently, when the cursor is hovering over the word "Truth" from the article on "Knowledge", the following preview is given (including the incorrect grammar): "The truth is, the earth is flat and stationary/non-moving. Why are the world's oceans perfectly horizontal and FLAT? We don't live on a fake ball earth spinning at supersonic speed of over 1000 mph. NASA flood the internat and mainstream medica with CGI images o..." A more appropriate text for the preview would be the following, taken from the article itself: "Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality. In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences." JRaithel75 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably some old cached content. That bologna was promptly reverted a couple of hours ago, if I read the history right. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

English variant?

I just copy edited most of this article. It appears to use the spelling of Oxford English throughout, but I am not good at spotting this sort of thing. If someone else were to skim though to check for consistency and then add the appropriate tag at the top of the article, that would be great.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Notable views

This section is too long. Also, much of it is not properly sourced, and a cursory look suggests that the parts that are sourced to secondary sources are already covered above.

My suggestion would be either to find a way to condense it to no more than four paragraphs or else to delete it entirely. Anything of value to a reader seeking knowledge of the concept of truth should already be included above. If there's something here that is not, it should be integrated into the appropriate section.

I am not, however, going to make this change unless I am surprised to find strong support for it here. So, just something to think about.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

ToC doesnt include subheadings

More of a technical request which I can probably figure out if i search for long enough but:

Can someone change the page such that the subheadings are shown in the Table of Contents? At the moment for example the Major Theories section has no further subheadings available in the ToC, whereas it is subdivided in Substantive (and its children), Minimalist and Pluralist. Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of reference to Colin Murray Turbayne

Ciao Fellow Wikipedia editors: Just a quick suggestion to include a passing reference to the investigations of Colin Murray Turbayne into the manner in which conceptual metaphors contribute to the search for "objective truth". The following text might be included within the Modern Philosophy section. Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Enjoy!160.72.81.86 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)GCL

====Colin Murray Turbayne====

'For Colin Murray Turbayne, conceptual metaphors play a central role in the search for "objective truth" throughout the history of Western philosophical thought. In his The Myth of Metaphor he argued that metaphorical constructs are essential to any language which lays claim to embody both richness and a depth of understanding. He further argued that the mind is not a passive "Tabula Rasa" upon which "objective truth" becomes imprinted. Consequently, the failure to properly interpret metaphorical language as a "category mistake" may ultimately serve to distort our understanding of truth. In addition, the failure to recognize dead metaphors introduces unnecessary obfuscation during the search for truth. This is most evident in the adoption of "substance" and "substratum" within Rene Des Cartes's dualism, the incorporation of metaphors for the "mind" and "language" by Plato and Aristotle into the writings of both George Berkeley and Immanuel Kant and the emergence of the "procreation" metaphor in Plato's Timeus within modern theories of both "thought" and "language". He concluded in his book Metaphors of the Mind: The Creative Mind and Its Origins by arguing that in each of these cases, the use of deductive reasoning over time has distorted the underlying meaning of several ancient dead metaphors. In the process, mankind has misconstrued them as "objective truths" and become the unwitting victim of the very metaphors he initially created in his search for truth.. '

<

160.72.81.86 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note: User:Chrisahn has deleted the suggested text as shown above on November 11, 2024 while indicating that it is "not relevant" to an article about "Truth" or the attempts by various philosophers to formulate an epistemological understanding of what constitutes truth and the relevant philosophical standards which should be utilized in such a search. Alas, he did not provide any details on the discussion page or reach a consensus with other editors before removing the text. In an effort to help in some small manner, I'm including several additional reference citations which can be found on reliable, verifiable professional philosophical sources which suggest Turbayne's work is relevant particularly in reference to the process which is utilized in the search for "objective scientific truth". They include the following journals:Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 1964, 1966) and "The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science" and the journal "Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Review" In this final journal, the reviewer notes that Trubayne argues that in their search for "objective truth" scientists and philosophers can be "victimized by metaphor" by "confusing devices of procedure with the actual process...". I hope that these references help to demonstrate that

Turbayne's work in this regard is relevant to the article. Naturally, once other editors have had an opportunity to review these additional references, I shall not attempt to restore the text in the event that they agree with User:Chrisahn. In the meantime, I'll restore the text with these additional references included. I hope that this is OK. If not, please accept my sincerest apologies in advance for any inconvenience I may have caused. Thanks again in advance, and best wishes. 160.72.81.86 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)GCL

References

I agree with User:Chrisahn; this doesn't merit inclusion here, per WP:SYNTH, as it this reads like you are trying too hard to apply Turbayne's work here; the content you're proposing would probably be more appropriate at Metaphor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights. Kindly note, however, that WP:Synth may not be applicable in light of the detailed reference from the journal "Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review". It shows that Turbayne's work helps to clarify the manner in which

attempts by scientists and philosophers to "llustrate and explain the processes of nature" (i.e. which is equivalent to acquiring "objective truth" through the scientific method)) can be clouded by the misuse of metaphors. This can result in both scientists and philosophers becoming "victimized" in their search for truth by their own metaphors. Also note that Turbayne's work in this regard has already been included within the article Metaphor as you have suggested. Nevertheless, it may also be worthy of inclusion within this article due to the epistemological implications of his work which have been specifically recognized in the reference cited above as well as the reference from the journal "Foundations of Language". Also note that the reviewer of Turbayne's book at the "British Journal For the Philosophy of Science" indicates that Turbayne's work is more consistent with "contemporary linguistic philosophy" Thanks again for your thoughts and Happy Editing160.72.81.86 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)GCL

Ciao fellow editors--I've enclosed just one more reliable reference citation which also suggests that an objection to the text based upon WP:SYNTH may not necessarily be applicable. The "Standford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy" contains several paragraphs which clarify Turbayne's work as it relates to the search for "objective truth" which is undertaken by scientists in the natural world and by philosophers in the academic realm. They suggest that Turbayne is not primarily concerned with postulating a new "theory of truth" per se or a new logical scheme which conveys an intellectual understanding of truth. Instead, the editors suggest that Turbayne's work is more accurately interpreted within the context of the philosophical tradition of the ancient Greeks (who defined philosophers as "lovers of wisdom") in so far as he warns against mistaking linguistic conceptual models of "reality" in the natural world and as literal truths instead of models based upon metaphorical constructs. In any case, here is the reference citation from the encyclopedia for your review. I hope that it is helpful to the discussion. Also note the numerous references to Turbayne's work on Philpapers.org for additional insights. Thanks again in advance for your kind consideration and Happy Editing to all!

Thanks for your suggestion. Truth is a very wide concept and almost every major philosopher had something to say about it. An article on such a wide topic can only discuss the most important positions and can't dedicate full subsections to minor positions per WP:PROPORTION. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, even the canonical figures listed present as a WP:COATRACK. Absent any structure supported by HQRS, I would support deleting the historical sections entirely.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@160.72.81.86: As I said on de:Diskussion:Wahrheit (where you also tried to add a long section on Turbayne): Stop it. You're obviously a fan of Turbayne, and you apparently want to raise awareness of his works, but you'll have to do that elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for such activism. Your likes and beliefs don't matter here. What matters is what reliable sources say, and Turbayne's work has scarcely been discussed in reliable sources. Most Wikipedia articles do not and should not refer to Turbayne's thoughts and opinions, because they are not relevant – few others have picked up on them. See Wikipedia:Relevance of content. To put it bluntly: Turbayne is irrelevant. He may be relevant to you, but he's not relevant in general. Not even to most other philosophers – so far, they have mostly ignored him. Unless and until that changes, you won't succeed in adding stuff about Turbayne to various Wikipedia articles. Stop it. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ciao Chrisahn - Thanks again for your kind remarks as per WP:Civility. It is indeed thoughtful of you to underscore and extrapolate upon your preference for not incorporating Colin Murray Turbayne's work into various philosophical articles on the subject of philosophy. In light of the references to Turbayne's work cited above in respected philosophical journals and more recently within the 2022 updated edition of Stanford University's "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" (see the reference above), I'm not entirely certain that Turbayne's work has "scarcely been discussed in reliable sources" or that his work is considered to be "irrelevant" by his philosophical peers as you suggest. The source from Stanford University does indicate, however, that: "Turbayne’s thought about metaphor was a collection of undeveloped gestures. It took Kendall Walton (1993) to rediscover these ideas and make an organized theory out of them. Walton has pioneered an approach to imaginative play in children and its analogues in adult human culture built around the notion of a game of make-believe..." Apparently the contemporary philosopher Edward N. Zalta was sufficient impressed by Turbayne's work to allocate five paragraphs of the encyclopedia's article on the subject of Metaphor to a summarization of Turbayne's contributions. In addition, the contemporary philosopher Kendall Walton was sufficiently impressed by those contributions to rediscover them and to develop them into a more formalized logical scheme. In addition, the contemporary philosopher Paul Olscamp (President Emeritus: Western Washington University and Bowling Green University) was sufficiently impressed by his work to publish a memorium about Turbayne within the publication "The Berkeley Newsleter" (Nov. 17, 2006) In addition, Turbayne's contemporaries were sufficiently impressed by his work to successfully nominate him into Marquis' publication "Who is Who In The World" (1982-1983) and following his death into "Who Was Who" (2010). These references suggest that several other professional contemporary philosophers share a more objective generalized interest in Turbayne's work which surpasses the specific subjective interest which you ascribe to me above. Nevertheless, as I have indicated on the discussion page on the German Wikipedia and in the notes above, it is not my intention to "force" references to Turbayne's work into various articles about philosophy as you have indicated. In actuality, it is merely my intention to share some relevant content along with the necessary relevant reference citations for review by qualified editors such as yourself in the collaborative spirit of the Wikipedia project. (WP:CONACHIEVE). In fact, I find myself quite sympathetic to the observations by User:Phlsph7 who notes in a more pragmatic manner that the article about "Truth" cannot possibly include the numerous views of noted philosophers for logistical reasons and due to the immense scope of the subject 'Truth". With that in mind, fear not and rest assured that further efforts on my part to share content about Turbayne's work shall not be forthcoming in the future, for apparently "Truth really is stranger than fiction". For in the ancient Socratic tradition of "philosophical wisdom", as well as the words of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu "To know that you do not know is best and to think that you know when you do not know

is a dis-ease". Best wishes to all, many thanks for the fascinating discussion and Happy editing!160.72.81.86 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)GCL

Just a few technical editorial observations in reply to User:Chrisahn's general objection to citing Turbayne's work based upon Wikipedia:Relevance of content: and his hypothesis that Turbayne's work is "irrelevant" and consequently disqualified from inclusion within various articles within the Wikipedia Encylopedia. It should be noted that Wikipedia 's specific detailed guidance for citing this objection as noted in the lead paragraph at the top of the Wikipedia:Relevance of content page can be found in the page WP:Academic. Here one finds several different criteria for identifying notable academics whose works are considered to be notable, one of which is: "2) The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" which is further clarified in the section "Specific Criteria Notes" as shown here:

"2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. a) For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section)." The Criterion 1 states: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. See also notes to Criterion 2, some of which apply to Criterion 1 as well." As a documented recipient of the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1965, and a senior fellow at the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1979 Turbayne apparently meets the required standards for notability within various articles on the subject of philosophy in accordance with Criteria #2 and at least partially under Criteria #1 as described in WP:Academic. See These observations suggest that the general objections raised by Chrisahn are in doubt. I hope that this helpful. Once again Ciao 160.72.81.86 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)GCL

Agree--sort of.... A Good faith attempt: 1) Turbayne's notability OK & verified & good sources 2) but not (I guess ???) enough (???) need more... for mind-body dualism, phenomenalism, relativism, substance theory, materialism and meaning (philosophy) ???-- way too many subjects...so 3) use Wikipedia:Negotiation & Wikipedia:Consensus & Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to: 3A) drop Turbayne from mind-body dualism, phenomenalism, relativism, substance theory, materialism and meaning (philosophy) as by Chrisahn & 3B) use text up top as by 160.72.81.86 with a new opening: 'In the tradition of Socrates' appeal to wisdom, Colin Murray Turbayne offers a general critique of attempts by philosophers and scientists to discover "truth" solely through the use of language...."' Yep something for everyone...Just one of many ways to go....68.129.171.69 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)PWL

Please stop sockpuppeting on this and other articles. It's blatantly obvious and a further waste of others editors' time. Remsense ‥ 论 22:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)