User talk:271828182

Heidegger

Excellent rewrite of the introduction! I looked at this article a few days ago and noted how gawd-aweful it was. You have made it intelligible. Thank you. Zeusnoos 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A/A & C

Sure thing. Thanks for asking for my opinion. CHE 22:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for thanks on the AfD for that article. But you might be interested in commenting on its deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17. I hope you'll continue to patrol and clean up the often nonsensical additions to Wikipedia's continental-philosophy articles – it's a big job. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want to make a difference?

Language: http://uh.edu/~psaka/IEPlist.htm

Logic: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~klement/IEP/desired_logic_articles.txt

History of Analytic: http://www.malone.edu/2909

Continental: http://www.utas.edu.au/philosophy/staff_research/reynolds/IEParticles.html (note that existentialism and Bergson are already reserved, articles such as *Deleuze* could be suggested to JR)

Epistemology: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jbeebe2/DesiredIEP.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeusnoos (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits

On Analytic philosophy. I'd almost forgotten what those felt like. And splendid work on the problem editors page. I hadn't realised it had gone on so long. Dbuckner 19:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Citizendium

Hi #27. I am almost certainly moving to Citizendium. There's a good community there, a number of good philosophers, and (apart from some questions I have as to whether the Ludvikus problem could theoretically occur there) seems a good home. I would very much welcome your involvement. Your writing is first class, and you have a firm grasp of areas of philosophy I have never even approached. Let me know if you have any questions about login &c. It really has got too mad here. Dbuckner 08:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK not moving yet

I checked Citizendium out, and there is no one there - yet. Meanwhile, thanks for the support on the philosophy page. I see you are still having to revert the analytic/continental nonsense.

Did you say you were planning work on the continental philosophy section? I'll support you on that. I'm not an expert, but can provide tail-gunning work and trench-digging and call air-strikes from time to time. Best Dbuckner 10:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hegel

Note the 'dubious claim' was not mine! I left the material about Hegel in as I don't know the subject. Do check over any of the rest. Thanks. I note it mentions 'absolute idealism' without any explanation of what it is. edward (buckner) 08:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continental philosophy

I liked the new introduction. Good work. And now I need to look at the Analytic philosophy article! edward (buckner) 12:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Modern Philosophy

Phew - thanks. edward (buckner) 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influences/Influenced

Thanks for your note about removing the influences/influenced sections from the philosopher infobox. I seem to recall it generating a lot of opposition, however, so I think we may have to drop the issue and just enforce the rule that was suggested (and which someone said was already the rule): if it's not supported in the text of the article, it shouldn't go in the infobox. RJC ^Talk 15:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI there

In fact I have been indefinitely blocked, with one admin asking that I be community banned. I shouldn't even be on your talk page, as very very serious offence punishable by death. Don't know how much you know about the alleged offence that has led to this death sentence. Happy to provide more detail, you can email me from my talk page, or d3uckner AT btinternet.com. Very good to hear from you and very cheering, glad you liked the Medieval philosophy, except I never got round to the second section, as you see. Would love to hear from you, I think some order has gone round from high. Indeed, you had better delete this from your page in case they spot it - two other people tried to get in touch but were threated with block. Many thanks again. 81.151.183.93 (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and if I did Barnstars I would give you one for the excellent work you have done on Deleuze. As you know, I don't sit on that side of the fence, but I recognise good work when I see it. In place of a Barnstar, here's a link to an incredibly crap article for your amusement. The best bit is "In 453 Attila died in bed with his new wife. As a result, the Hun Empire collapsed." but it is all good value. 81.151.183.93 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleuze links

Hello,
Sorry about messing up links on the Deleuze page. I normally check every external link I remove but I was a bit to fast this time.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings friend

I thought after a suitable time I would come back. Made considerable additions to Medieval philosophy, and tidied up Philosophy as far as is possible (I moved the sections back to the traditional order of intro, branches, history, &c. Best. Renamed user 5 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Deleuze

271828182, you recently restored this passage, 'A parallel in painting may be Bacon's Study after Velázquez—it is quite beside the point to say that Bacon 'gets Velázquez wrong'.[29] (Similar considerations apply to Deleuze's uses of mathematical and scientific terms, pace Alan Sokal.)' to the article on Deleuze.

I stand by my comment that the part about Bacon shouldn't be there. It might be very interesting in an essay about Deleuze, but it certainly isn't right for an encyclopedia article. And yes, the comment about Sokal is snide and inappropriate in tone. You say that this is conjecture; all I can say in reply is that most people know a snide comment when they see one. Also, not all readers would understand the use of the word pace in that sentence; this isn't how an encyclopedia should read. Skoojal (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

I remind you that we comment on the article, not the editors, when discussing on an article talk page. DGG (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existence precedes essence

This Existence precedes essence seems rather odd. I'm not an expert in the existentialist bit I know but this seems a bit dubious. Can you comment? Peter Damian (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleuze

I know next to nothing about the man, but this seems wrong on purely stylistic grounds. Is there a problem here? Peter Damian (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this I prefer as it was. Peter Damian (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi left a reply on mhy own talk page per the new guidelines. Peter Damian (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

271828182, if you think, as you wrote in one of your edit comments, that there are better things to do than war with me, could you please try to convince Peter Damian of this? Looking through the history of the Deleuze article, I see that you added a reference to Deleuze's comment being 'oft-cited' as a replacement for the reference to its being 'famous.' That was a sensible thing to have done. Damian has insisted on adding 'famous' as well, which does not make the least sense. Skoojal (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it up to 271828182. If he reverts, so be it. I personally prefer 'famously'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

271828182 suggested on the talk page recently that some outside involvement may be needed. I second this. Skoojal (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. There is a long list of people who have left messages on your talk page, I'm sure some of them would be more than willing to help. Peter Damian (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation on philosophy talk page

271828182, some of your recent comments on talk:philosophy have been removed, since they were both off-topic and contained a BLP violation. I have left a comment about this on the administrators noticeboard/incidents. Skoojal (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit, which also can be taken as a personal attack, which no editor should be put through on Wikipedia. Please don't do that again. If you have worries about how Wikipedia has handled something, please talk about them without stooping to personal attacks and stay within the bounds of WP:BLP. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooo. Truth hurts. Skoojal, this would be funny if it weren't commentary on your character. 271828182 (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should block you for that personal attack, after you'd been warned, but you lucked out, I'm not in the mood. Please don't do that anymore. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the no personal attacks policy is to improve the quality of Wikipedia. The problem is that many of Skoojal's edits routinely hurt the quality of Wikipedia, by needlessly antagonizing editors with captious applications of policies to drive his POV agenda (such as his publicly expressed desire to use Wikipedia articles to make people look bad, or his attempt to replace the word "gay" with "homosexual"). He hides behind fine points of policy, but all too often (note I am not saying always) his edits serve destructive, rather than constructive, ends. His edit history on the Deleuze article is a case study of this: he has no knowledge to share, he simply finds content he disagrees with and then seeks out any available policy which allows him to remove it. His reporting my comment about Jimbo Wales on the Talk:Philosophy page is another example: my passing comment about Wales (which was based on incontrovertible matters of fact) was hardly likely to tarnish Jimbo's image (or in any way bother him), especially as it occurred in a Talk page rather than an article. But Skoojal evidently sought it out by following my edit history (he is not a regular or even occasional editor on the Philosophy article, and has little to no knowledge or interest in philosophy, so I presume he followed me), and seized upon it as a pretext to subject me to potential blocking. This borders on stalking and harassment, but unlike some, I frankly don't care and am not going to cry about it to the nearest admin. It is not a personal attack to point out that someone is a disruptive editor. I would suggest, Gwen, that your energies as an admin are better used monitoring Skoojal's edits rather than warning editors who have disinterestedly contributed expertise and knowledge to numerous articles. (—Since I assume that you are interested in improving Wikipedia rather than merely enforcing policies, of course.) 271828182 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to show me you canny know the difference between a personal attack and a scathing take on someone's edits. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

271828182, you aren't accomplishing anything with this. You're free to dislike me as much as you like, but the issues you mention, and your comments on my editing in general, have nothing to do with your BLP violation on Talk:philosophy. A BLP violation is a BLP violation, regardless of your personal opinion of whether it's actually likely to hurt anyone's image or not. You're perfectly correct that I followed your edit history. Big deal. Your comments about my knowledge of philosophy are pretty silly, given that you obviously have no way of knowing whether they're correct or not. Skoojal (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal, I don't care about you. Unlike you, I don't sift through your edit history to seek out technical infractions of Wikipedia's policies for the express purpose of subjecting you to admin threats (though I have in the past browsed your edit history to see if you are a consistently disruptive editor, which I concluded is glaringly true). This entire incident is merely further evidence that you purposely violate the most fundamental policy of all: you edit in bad faith. You are not interested in knowledge, you are pushing an agenda and trying score points against "enemies", and using Wikipedia to do so. That makes you the worst kind of editor, in my view. Vandals are comparatively harmless and easily correctible. You are someone who exploits the letter of the law the better to corrupt its spirit. If I was an employee or admin of Wikipedia, I would actively find ways to deter you. But I'm not; and I've got better things to do with my life. But I will resist your attempts to disrupt and degrade the small handful of articles that both interest me, and have attracted your baleful attention. And I am happy to say I largely have. Because I have the truth on my side, and I (and others) will happily provide that truth in the form of citations to refute your polemical edits. The paragraphs you have assailed in the Deleuze article are more securely hedged with verifiable references than ever. So who's "not accomplishing anything"? At least I'm making Wikipedia better. Maybe the constant friction from your axes keeps you warm at night. Go harass somebody else and come back when your life is momentarily empty again; I'll still be here. 271828182 (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

271828182, my removal of your BLP violation was not "harassment." If you think that the spirit of BLP policy is that one cannot remove BLP violations by someone one has disagreements with, or that anyone who does so should be deterred from doing it, then you have a serious misunderstanding of BLP policy. Regarding the Deleuze article, I don't have a problem with the 'famously' part, now that there appears to be a source, but your past edits could look like an attempt to violate the No Original Research policy. Skoojal (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Skoojal, you're just disinterestedly applying Wikipedia policies. Suuuuuure. You're not fooling anyone who reviews your edit history. 271828182 (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum for anyone reading this: Skoojal was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia six days after his last comment above. Shocking, I know. 271828182 (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist liberation of Paris

On "Continental Philosophy" the funny idea is defended, against all my friendly erasures that France was liberated (not by the US army , not by De Gaulle), but by the communists. For a time, the communists were the strongest political movement there, it says. a) even if this was true, what has it to do with anything? b) it reinforces the stupid impression that "idealist" philosophers simply have not the brains to do real philosophy--Radh (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you're talking about. The current revision refers to "interest in communism" in post-war France, which is not the same as what you are alleging. 271828182 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the last time I had a look (and I also changed a bit) it spoke of the role of the communists in liberating France and of communism as having been for a time the strongest political force in France. Perhaps I am having anticommunist visions? --Radh (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desire v. pleasure

Should this not be in the "reception" area of the the Deleuze page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand011892 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be there, but am looking up a better citation, based directly on Foucault. 271828182 (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article I cited speaks explicity of Foucault and desire v. pleasure Anand011892 (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's about Foucault's criticism, there needs to be a reference from Foucault, not from a secondary source. 271828182 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomism and Marxism in the Opening Paragraph of Analytic Philosophy?

The last line of the opening paragraph now states: "Analytic philosophy is sometimes understood in contrast to other philosophical movements, such as continental philosophy, Thomism, or Marxism."

This is bizzare. I believe it once just compared analytic philosophy to continental philosophy, which makes sense considering how analytic and continental philosophy are often defined by contrasting them with one another. To mention Thomism and Marxism is just random. Why not rationalism and empiricism? I tried to re-write it without the mention of Thomism and Marxism but then you undid my revision. I want to avoid an edit war, so why do you think Thomism and Marxism should be mentioned here?

- Atfyfe (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Thomism and Marxism are neither analytic nor continental. I shall provide multiple references to verify shortly. 271828182 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Atfyfe (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Philosophy

Your edit summaries do not make your justification clear. I think it best to start a discussion on the article talk page: [1]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Philosophy. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are made following WP policies, in particular WP:V. You have twice refused to answer my simple question about whether the edits you keep re-inserting are well-sourced. That you have reacted so violently to a request for better sourcing betrays that you are the one pursuing an edit war, not me. I engaged you and Lancaster in discussion; as I said in my last response on the Philosophy talk page, I've given reasons, you've given no justification for your edits, beyond that you don't like it. Your melodramatic templating of my talk page is childish. 271828182 (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

continued

You seem to have picked up the habit of making an edit regardless of the talk page position after leaving things for a few days. You are also throwing around ownership accusations without justification. In the most recent case a majority of editors are for keeping Popper, and on Lewis the debate is open. You have not responded to questions raised on the talk page, or engaged with other editors. Its a form of slow edit war. Please use the talk page, edit the article when you have agreement, abide by WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 04:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wait at least a couple days to allow other editors ample time to offer suggestions or objections. When no one responds or objects, I edit. As WP:V supersedes WP:BRD, and no one has ever presented any source-based justification for keeping Popper or excluding Lewis, I am unimpressed by your preferences. As I just wrote on the talk page: "the content of WP is not a matter of a five-person vote of a likely-to-be unrepresentative sample. As WP:V clearly states, inclusion of content is not about what editors think is true, it is about whether "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". As I have repeatedly pointed out, the sources on Popper merely say he is an important "philosopher of science". That is an insufficient claim, as it would entail adding persons such as John Hick, Jerry Fodor, and Paul Feyerabend to the list, and as it fails to match the sourced material in favor of the persons already on the list (who are described as important philosophers of the 20th century simpliciter). There is no reliably sourced reason to include Popper on the list. If voting mattered, Ayn Rand would get on this list. Please stop reverting my efforts to make this article better sourced." 271828182 (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your claim that I "have not responded to questions raised on the talk page, or engaged with other editors" is demonstrably false. 271828182 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Dossier on User:Lucaas

This is archived from Ed Buckner's page:

Case of Lucas

There are a handful of problem editors on the Philosophy page and its neighbourhood. One has been blocked for a week. The other is User:Lucaas. Lucas has a history of ungrammatical and unsourced edits, and persists in a confrontational attitude to other editors, many of whom have expert knowledge in their subject area. He also fundamentally misunderstands WP:NOR.

User:Rbellin sums up the problem as follows.

Again, User:Lucaas, your opinion here is just not correct. Because WP:NOR is such a fundamental policy, and because your editing shows that you don't understand it (though I and several other users have now tried to point this out to you), I'd like to ask you, politely, to read the policy again and reflect more carefully on why it exists. This is not meant as an attack, but an observation about a repeated pattern in your edits -- I've seen many cases now where you've introduced a 100% original synthetic interpretation or historical explanation, and then tried to defend it by either (a) derailing the discussion into interpretive minutiae and simple airing of opinions or (b) inventing new terminology and wildly misinterpreting specific passages of policy (often the examples rather than the rules themselves) to justify your insertion of your own views. (The second is what you've done above by inventing a new and idiosyncratic jargon about "canonical" and "academic" sources when you've been presented several times in the last day with a completely simple distinction between primary sources -- philosophical texts -- and secondary sources like textbooks and histories of philosophy.) This is not how Wikipedia works. Since Wikipedia is primarily a project to create an encyclopedia, it is most important that we avoid any original interpretation and synthesis of the material and stick to presenting familiar, well-established accounts (note that this means more than just relying on published sources, since it's easy to base a novel interpretation or synthesis on existing texts). I don't mean this as hostile in any way, and I won't use the word "troll" because it appears your intentions are good, but I have to say that I (and apparently several other contributors) am becoming increasingly dubious about whether your edits have been constructive or helpful at all. Again, I'd like to ask that you re-read the original research policy carefully, and consider why your contributions have seemed like original research to many Wikipedians. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Lucaas

I believe Lucaas has been described as incorrigible. This is the precise term for what Lucaas is. My experience of his editorial practice is confined to the entry on Being and Time. It may be summarised as follows: He knows he lacks knowledge of the topics he chooses to write about, but defends the idea that it's fine to write about things you know little or nothing about. He knows his writing is poor, but defends the idea that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to produce "compelling writing." On this basis he grants himself free license. Add to this his propensity to falsely imagine himself the defender of "minority" positions, and what results is not merely a license to ignore others, but an insistence on doing so. Working on the entry is presently unrewarding to the point of being impossible, due to the efforts of this user. Mtevfrog 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Constant mindless reverts

Reverting an version of an article which had been agreed by three editors.

here, here and here.

Lucas' first 3RR warning, coming four hours after his very first edit under this account, followed promptly by Lucas' removal of said warning from his Talk page and a retaliatory complaint by Lucas. These violations resulted in a 48 hour block on Lucas in his first day of contributing to Wikipedia.

Lucas removing his second 3RR block from his Talk page.

Four articles whose opening sentences Lucas edited to insert a POV judgment, all of which provoked multiple reverts and acrimonious Talk discussion:

Philosophy of mind Philosophy of mathematics Philosophy of language Philosophy of science

User:Tercross

Note the above was not actually the day of Lucas' arrival in Wikiland. Previously he logged up a horrendous record of edits as User:Tercross, after which he was blocked.

(note from Lucas: this user tercross is actually another person, a guy who was a roomate, and who started using wiki and then passed it on to me. -- Lucas (Talk) 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

See here where Tercross was blocked for 24 hours for using it to avoid the block on the User:Lucaas account. The block log is here. And here is Lucaas removing the record of the block on Tercross. Dbuckner 12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to comply with OR

escalate all you want.

refusal to comply with WPNOR

refuses to comply again

complaint by rbellin that Lucas misunderstands WPOR.

tendentious claim here

abuse directed against expert editors ("stick to philosophy and leave translation to those who are qualified for it").

An early transgression of OR.

[[2]] - Another diff showing the insertion of the Lucas OR agenda into a philosophy article (the claim that philosophy of mind is a branch of analytic philosophy only). KD Tries Again 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Complaints

Complaint by user 271828182

complaint by Rbellin

271828182 forced to undo revert

kd's comment on history of philosophy article

kd's comment on strange edits by Lucas

further complaint

An early warning against personal attacks

A warning (promptly ignored) about reverting his Talk page

A warning about removing warnings from his Talk page — n.b. that Lucas' current "archive" includes no mention of his blocks or warnings.

Complaint by User:The hanged man

An editor gives up on an important article after his edits go to the winds.

Talk:Being and Time 8 February 2007. More problems here, here and here.

Articles nominated for deletion

The Afd on an article by Lucas

N.b. Lucas's attempt to moderate the Afd, not to mention his prolix and dismissive comments generally.
N.b. also KD's giving evidence of Lucas's shoddy use of references.

The deletion review on said article, including evidence of Lucas's multiple re-creations of the deleted material.

Articles which haven't been nominated for deletion

Sublation, started by Tercross and still maintained by Lucas. Mostly rambling, disconnected nonsense. Dbuckner 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

One of the things most concerning to me is that you have removed all reference to Machiavelli and Bacon as well as the 1500s. Surely you aren't claiming that there is no source for calling them modern, or at least predecessors of modern philosophy? In other words, that aspect of your edits looks like POV pushing, and is frankly a little inexplicable to me. I write here wondering if it is just something you didn't notice?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli is mentioned in the preceding section on Renaissance philosophy, and, as he died in 1527, it is very hard to justify inserting him into a section on 17th and 18th century thought. Bacon is a borderline case, but he doesn't get prominent mention in the 'canonical' lists in the secondary literature (though I did not check the Cambridge History for my last edits). All the recent scholarly literature seems to have settled on 1600 as the approximate "start date" of early modern philosophy. That is artificial, but it does reflect expert consensus, which is supposed to be Wikipedia's guide. 271828182 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "canonical" lists are you talking about? Are there "canonical" lists? Of course Bacon and Machiavelli are modern and of course this can be sourced. That the sub-section title that we Wikipedians wrote implies that modern philosophy starts in 1600 is obviously not meaningful for this discussion. We Wikipedians can adjust it. Modern philosophy is a notable term used in a more or less consistent way and that can be reliable sourced. And Bacon and Machiavelli are two of the most important starting points according to a plethora of strong sources. Seriously, are your arguing otherwise?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I will be happy to provide you with multiple references from scholarly sources. Hang on a bit. 271828182 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have sources that say that I do not have sources that say that Machiavelli and Bacon are recognized as beginning points of modern philosophy? :D (I think you misread my question.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of your final question was unclear. I was taking it to cover all your questions. The term "early modern philosophy" is now used in a more or less consistent way among professional philosophers and historians of philosophy to cover western philosophy from 1600-1800. It is not an invention of Wikipedians; rather, as Wikipedia should be, that term and its usage is a verifiable reflection of expert consensus. Bacon straddles the line in the literature, and is more often included among early modern, true, but is not a "canonical" figure on par with the Descartes-Spinoza-Leibniz-Locke-Berkeley-Hume-Kant sequence. Machiavelli chronologically and thematically belongs to the Renaissance (which is where he is already mentioned in the article). What sources you may have I don't know, of course. 271828182 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked how you feel justified using the word canonical. Certainly the series of people you mentioned tended to mention Bacon especially as "canonical" in the type of philosophy they represent. Philosophy does not work strictly according to chronology either. The main controversy about Machiavelli is only whether to consider him as a philosopher. His position as a critical influence upon the method followed by Bacon, Descartes etc in contradistinction to classical, medieval and renaissance writers is non-controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "canonical" is readily justified by the sources: I added two that explicitly use that word today. As for Bacon, I added him as well, in a more inclusive ... list (fortunately, I think there will be less disagreement about a list where everyone has been dead for 200 or more years). I don't know what sources you have for saying Machiavelli influenced Bacon or Descartes, except in a very vague, Zeitgeistlich sort of way. I do know that Machiavelli is extensively discussed in the Oxford History of Western Philosophy, vol. 3 (Renaissance Philosophy), and in the Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, whereas he is not discussed in the next volumes in either series. 271828182 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your canonical works say anything like the material I moved from Renaissance to Modern, and which you reverted, then it was more or less saying that apart from typical Renaissance philosophy, new things were starting to happen. In other words, Machiavelli, Bodin, Grotius, are normally see as a new trend. Please check your canons and let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you are driving at. I didn't say the sources are canonical, merely that they use the word "canonical" to describe some philosophers and not others. Machiavelli and Bodin are extensively discussed in the cited sources on Renaissance philosophy, and identified as being part of that broad category, not being "apart from typical Renaissance philosophy". By contrast, Machiavelli and Bodin do not figure in volumes on early modern philosophy (though Grotius also gets mention in the Cambridge History, which is a more strictly chronological work). 271828182 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are setting up distinctions in a more absolute way than any fair reading of literature on the subject of philosophy would justify. In effect you are imposing original research. Machiavelli, Bodin and Grotius are quite obviously mentioned in many works as early modern philosophers, even if they are also mentioned as Renaissance period authors. Don't forget that the term renaissance philosopher is generally chronological, renaissance referring to a period, so it is like the term "16th century philosopher" and not (despite your way of editing the article) a clear category that everyone distinguishes concerning the nature of the philosophy being practiced. To revert me in such an uncompromising way concerning this matter does not appear to be justified by any source you have because even your own footnotes show that there is no canonical way of categorizing some of these men.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "Machiavelli, Bodin and Grotius are quite obviously mentioned in many works as early modern philosophers", like much of what you have said above, is unwarranted by the literature, at least for the first two. It is silly to accuse me of original research when I am presenting multiple verifiable sources for my edits — reference works from the most prestigious university presses, reflecting the most recent scholarship — while you have presented no sources at all, just empty proof substitute hand-waving about what you regard as "quite obvious". As I said, Grotius does turn up in reference works on the early modern period. If you wish to relocate him to the long list in early modern, I will not object. (I had him there when I was drafting it myself, but moved him when I noticed he was already mentioned in the earlier section, and felt a specific tie to political philosophy was more desirable than the current, temporary laundry list in early modern.) Yes, there are no sharply-cut boundaries in the history of philosophy, but given the current structure of this section of the article — which is by its nature chronological — choices have to be made about where to mention philosophers. I suggest those choices must be guided by verifiable sources, preferably of the reference work variety that WP guidelines suggest. I have given such sources to answer your criticisms. What else do you want? 271828182 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference and Repetition chapter title

I was just composing a talk page comment outlining the contention. It seems to me that we'd require a source that points it up. I don't think that the original French-language edition satisfies that. I doubt you are the only one to have noticed the difference. So I've left a talk page comment to see if anyone else may be aware of a source we could use. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted, claiming In Search of Lost Time as a precedent. But there are English-language translations that use that title. Unless you have a source that offers the translation you want to use, it should appear as published. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Williams uses "the ideal synthesis of difference" in his book on DR (pp. 139ff.). 271828182 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Vered

Hi. Just wondering, how do Vered's winnings add up to 496,602? The numbers provided in the article don't add up to that. Are some of his winnings not mentioned in the article? Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 17:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Thanks for the reply! Zagalejo^^^ 04:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophy Article

You are mentioned here. 86.180.187.79 (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, 271828182. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informing about SPI

When you start an SPI, you should inform the involved parties. I have done so for you on User talk:Barnabas2000. LK (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, 271828182. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]