Petr Matas (talk | contribs) →Fallacy: new section |
MPants at work (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
Hello, I am trying to improve the article [[Fallacy]], and as the first step I have [[Special:Diff/829258899|restructured]] it (shuffled sections and paragraphs around). I would like to ask for some feedback on its [[Talk:Fallacy|talk page]] to see if I am going the right way. Thanks :) <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Petr Matas|Petr Matas]]</span> 15:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC) |
Hello, I am trying to improve the article [[Fallacy]], and as the first step I have [[Special:Diff/829258899|restructured]] it (shuffled sections and paragraphs around). I would like to ask for some feedback on its [[Talk:Fallacy|talk page]] to see if I am going the right way. Thanks :) <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Petr Matas|Petr Matas]]</span> 15:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
: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 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). <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 16:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:07, 7 March 2018
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Any philosophical insight that would be useful for the improvement of Draft:Comparison would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Missing topic
When researching polychora, I came across the idea that spirits are four-dimensional beings. However, I do not see this anywhere on Wikipedia. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Unity in diversity
Could I get some feedback on Unity in diversity? 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 Ibn al-Arabi and his followers. Would anyone else have any leads on good sources to expand this article? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
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 least something on him now. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Value theory needs your help
Value theory is overly essay-like and needs more citations to sources.
Would anyone here care to review and improve this article?
Thanks -- 189.60.63.116 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Topics in Metaphysics
Someone has been repeatedly removing much of the content of the article Metaphysics 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. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Critique of Pure Reason
Hello. I have a dispute with Διοτιμα at the article Critique of Pure Reason. 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. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- This user has also tampered with Fundamental ontology. Their latest additions seem to be a personal interpretation of Being and Time. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Omnipaedista. I would appreciate it if you could comment about the dispute on the talk page of the article Critique of Pure Reason. There is a similar dispute at Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) 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. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
A link to a DAB page
Index of philosophy articles (I–Q) contains a link to the DAB page Pien which has me baffled. Can any expert here help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Pien refers to the concept of gradual transformation in Confucian or Taoist philosophy; see for instance Bianhua#Later_usages. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Mark viking: In that case, can you repair that bad link, and perhaps also update the DAB page? I don't feel competent to do so. Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done. --Mark viking (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- TY! There may be more links like that which need expert attention, but I haven't started to collect them yet. Narky Blert (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Done. --Mark viking (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Mark viking: In that case, can you repair that bad link, and perhaps also update the DAB page? I don't feel competent to do so. Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
RFC involving the demarcation problem
Please see Talk:Faith healing#RfC about inserting content and category about pseudoscience. There seems to be some confusion about whether all empirically verifiable facts are (properly speaking) "science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to improve the article Fallacy, and as the first step I have restructured it (shuffled sections and paragraphs around). I would like to ask for some feedback on its talk page to see if I am going the right way. Thanks :) Petr Matas 15:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- 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 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). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)