Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

WikiProject Philosophy was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 25 July 2011.

This page was nominated for deletion on 21 January 2013. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

FAC of Metaphysics

The article Metaphysics is currently a candidate for featured article status. So far, there has been little response, so I was wondering whether some of the editors here are inclined to review the article or comment on it. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metaphysics/archive1. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see here. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of link to Colin Murray Turbayne to the article Truth

Ciao fellow editors in the Philosophy Project! I have initiated a discussion on a proposed addition of text referring to the work of the modern philosopher Colin Murray Turbayne within the article Truth --specifically in reference to his contributions to the field of epistemology and the search for objective truth through the use and misuse of metaphor. Several reliable and credible sources have been provided from various international journals, Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR=-- all of which review his work in considerable technical detail within a specialized philosophical niche. Perhaps a participant in the Philosophy Project could participate in the discussion to delete the proposed text since it references several technical Epistemological themes which might require the insights of an expert.

You can add your contribution to the discussion on the talk page Talk:Truth Thanks in advance for your help. Respectfully 160.72.81.86 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)GCL[reply]

O.K. Thanks for the tip.68.129.171.69 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)PWL[reply]

Good article reassessment for Consciousness

Consciousness has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for epistemiologist Mioara Mugur-Schächter

The notability of Mioara Mugur-Schächter is being discussed in its talk page. If somebody has some evidence of the notability of her work in philosophy (epistemiology) please consider joining the conservation. ReyHahn (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Mind

I was hoping to get some feedback on the article Mind to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. The peer review can found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mind/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking for a consensus regarding the "philosophical pessimism" template

Greetings, all.

The user "Paranakyaa" has recently argued against me in these edits (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Philosophical_pessimism&action=history) that many of the links to the template "philosophical pessimism" should be in red merely because they do not have a Wikipedia article still existing for them.

I, on the other hand, tried to argue against them by stating that such red links are unnecessary and make the template look aesthetically unpleasant.

After that, he appealed to the supposed fact there is a "consensus" that such links should be red (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates).

I still maintain my original position, but have no further intent nor energy to engage in any kind of "edit war" with them. If there is still no Wikipedia article existing for these works, the fact that they are not dyed in the color blue already indicates this; there is no need to make so many works in the template dyed in the color red.

I am curious as to other users think about this. Please do share your opinion so that we might, in fact, reach a "consensus". Alice793 (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Universal dialectic

The article Universal dialectic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Spam bucket. Vandal bait. Not enough information to merge, and no obvious targets for a redirect. Delete and salt, please.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) Bearian (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You lose" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect You lose to the article Godwin's law has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 14 § You lose until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.30 (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Jean Laplanche

Was he notable enough that he should have a separate page on his works at Jean Laplanche bibliography, which was recently created by Honigfrau. I have seen these for nobel laureates, but I feel as part of WP:NPP this question should be asked. I will also post to psychology. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)#Requested move 7 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for discussion

There is an ongoing merge proposal for Statement (logic) into Proposition that may concern collaborators of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help disambiguating several "Mental object"-esque articles

Currently "Mental object" redirects to Mental world, which seems to be a philosophy-related stub. However, there are several articles that seem to be talking about roughly the same concept, and I'm not sure why these are all seperate:

Object of the mind

Mental representation

Mental image

and possibly

"Mental world" seems like It should be more about a representation of reality, rather than an individual object.

So, for a start, I think "Mental object" redirect should be changed to "Object of the mind", which I can go ahead and do. But other than that, I think there needs to be some discussion about clarifying what these articles are about, adding {{About}}/{{For}} hatnotes to each of the articles to clarify their distinction, and possibly merging some.

Sidenote: It seems reasonable that WikiProject Psychology might be interested in this discussion. I might make a post there directing here. Farkle Griffen (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Teleological argument

Teleological argument has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]