User talk:Amerindianarts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please limit comments by directing me to the appropriate article talk page.

Contents 1 Objectivity 2 Casuistry 3 RFM 4 Nietzsche 5 Need help in discussing a list 6 your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk 7 Welcome! 8 Kant 9 Help 10 Feedback requested 11 re: Kant abandonment 12 Outside view requested 13 Seid nuechtern und wachet. 14 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia 15 Biography Newsletter September 2006 16 False Subtlety 17 Objectivity 18 Apologies 19 Sorry 20 Hello 21 Objectivity (philosophy) 22 informal vs formal fallacies 23 Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies 24 Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

[edit] Objectivity

hi, i just checked the objectivity page discussion and history. I am not qualified to have a serious opinion on objectivity but i think no-one would fail to remark that you have done some really good additions to the article and that its a pity that instead of being congratulated you had to cope with criticism. By the way what do you think of the introduction to the article ["Objectivity may be considered as a synonym of neutral point of view..."]best--Greece666 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My objections to "Objectivity may be considered as a synonym of neutral point of view" are well documented on the talk page and in the history of the article, which I deleted because of the the originality of the research, and which is also not allowed at Wiki. I believe the article in its current state is malarky. Thanks. Amerindianarts 02:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also might add that a "neutral point of view" in reporting, journalism, and editing according to Wiki policy is fine, but has little to do with the term "objectivity" in philosophy. In writing an article on objectivity in philosophy for Wiki the author should follow the guidelines for Wiki and the neutral point of view demanded for journalism. But such notions have little to do with objectivity as a concept of philosophy. You can check the various Encyclopedias and Dictionaries of philosophy and you won't find much on the concept, and there is a reason for this. The term is basically indefinable according to philosophic standards. For this reason it would be extremely difficult to write the article according to NPOV and without any original research, and the content of the article would also erroneous if referencing NPOV.Amerindianarts 21:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casuistry

Dear friend, many thanks for your clear and quick reply.

• I agree with you that the article as it is now makes little sense.
• since wikipedia is not the right place to post original research, i think the article is close to a dead-end.
• i would also like to add that i found the section on plato highly misleading. i doubt that plato had the objectivity/subjectivity distinction in mind when he talked about episteme and doxa.
• by the way, an effort is taking place to ameliorate the article on casuistry- as it is now it is quite confusing. maybe you would like to help a bit.

best--Greece666 20:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll take a look but don't know if I can help. You are also absolutely correct on the Plato section.Amerindianarts 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Nietzsche

Hello, Ameridianarts. I noticed your attention to the Nietzsche page and how you added a little to the discussion there. If you'd like, you're more than welcome to the fray. The article could always use more competent people to contribute to it. Anyway, it's only a suggestion. Have a fun time editing and all that jazz.Non-vandal 00:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(Text cluttering this talk page has been moved to talk page at prior link.)Universitytruth 17:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I figured you could revert if you wanted all this on your talk page after all, but moved it because you had expressed a wish not to have your talk page cluttered. Best, Universitytruth 17:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for your excellent work on List_of_German-language_philosophers Anthony Krupp 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 14:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Kant

Sorry that it took me a while to get to the third paragraph you were asking about. When I first saw your request on my talk page, I just saw "Kant" and jumped right in to the article. Eventually realized what you were asking for. :) I hope that my suggestions have been helpful for improving the article. Working on wikipedia is certainly a strange experience, as it attracts some strange editors (duck's breath, etc.). I can see why people often give up on wikipedia. Anyway, please let me know if I can help further with the Kant article. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks. And yes, I have come close reaching the point of no return on WIKI a couple of times. The Kant article has a ways to go for 'A' quality and I will be quite busy with other responsibilities the next few months. Citation should be top priority for any editor since the article is considered "core". I am again looking at the 1st and 2nd of Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, re: deises Begriffs, and the translations by Meiklejohn of 1 and Smith of 2. The difference being the former translates it to "conception" and the latter to "concept", which makes a considerable difference when deciding if the statement in the article "time and space, which are not concepts" is verifiable without footnoting or qualifying. I will post the change to the talk page for comment. Amerindianarts 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why not the cambridge texts in the history of philsophy edition (Guyer and Wood trans.)? They too use concept for 'begriff'.

Also, I'm coming to agree more and more that citation is paramount for the Kant article; but the article has so very far to come in terms of substance that I think it'll be awhile before its anywhere near 'A' quality anyway.... Li3crmp 20:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason for tough scrutiny of new edits.

I have the Meiklejohn and Smith editions handy for one thing. Second, to translate it as "conception" seems a better illustration of the genitive case as well as Kant's own writings (despite the "improvements" claimed for the Meiklejohn translation by others). Kant was explicit that the "original" representation of space is not a concept, and that there is but one space. Smith and translator's use of "concept" seems to contradict Kant's explanation of the construction of concepts when they use "concept of" to describe both "space", and "spaces", and Smith does. You can refer to the "concept of spaces" because in Kant the concept is a collection of intuitions, and spaces are intuitions of things where limitations are placed by the understanding within the "one space", but to use "concept" and "space" seems confusing at the very least, and "conception" better captures this point. So, comparison of these two translations suffices to illustrate this point as well as comparing Meiklejohn to Guyer, I think. I think also that the sentence in the article should be modified to the "original presentation of space is not a concept" and then a footnote added with an explanation.

Some time ago it was I who pushed for the addition of "not concepts", and it was a hot topic of discussion for awhile among the original editors of this article's current form. But I also think a detailed explanation is warranted. Amerindianarts 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. It seems that we were both editing the Immanual Kant article at the same time, and I caused your correction to disappear. Sorry! The vandalism that I was trying to correct was the "contribution" by 86.21.23.109 a few minutes ago. I will stop editing this article to allow you to work without interference. Please do try to eliminate that vandalism if it is still there. Again, my apologies. —Aetheling 00:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I realized what was happening. I was trying to revert the vandalism also which must have been made just prior to my first edit, but you beat me to it. Thanks Amerindianarts 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

{helpme} At the Immanuel Kant article there is a user User:Spinoza1111 continually adding unsourced entries. On several occasions they have been warned about Wiki policy and "if you read it, you can cite it", otherwise it must be original work. What is the best manner to proceed with a complaint against this user?? Amerindianarts 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes describes the options.--Commander Keane 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll help mediation, if you want to. You guys seem to have the problem more or less under control, or is this merely a lull? --Marinus 07:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is a lull. Haven't heard from the user since their last tirade. It would probably be helpful to watch us for awhile. Thanks. Amerindianarts 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Concensus on the article is clear and unilateral. If Spinoza1111 rears his head again, give the folks at AN/I a shout and they'll give you some help. There's really nothing to mediate since consensus and policy are clear on the matter. If things continue, run over to my talk page, give me a shout, and I'll send in the cavalry. CQJ 14:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Amerindianarts 19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111, your reply from both me and the mediator is at the Cabal page. As for your comments here, they have been forwarded to an administrator. Amerindianarts 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback requested

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Criteria Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Kant abandonment

Sorry I haven't been involved lately. Wiki editing is a particularly deadly form of dissertation procrastination, and I have been trying to be more disciplined lately. I have been loosely following some of the latest issues on the Kant page, but not closely enough to contribute. For better or worse, I'm sure I'll be back at some point. fi99ig 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thread involving AdamBiswanger1 was moved to its appropriate talk page. Further comments here will be ignored/deleted. Amerindianarts 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view requested

Greetings; if you have time and are inclined, please provide comments in the Outside Perspective section of this conduct-related RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seid nuechtern und wachet.

Greetings, you might want to keep List of German-language philosophers on your watchlist for a while. Francis Schonken recently made a significant revision, which I reverted. We could of course talk about it. I really don't feel I or we own the article, but what he did to it is just ugly, IMO. It might be good for several of us to intervene as necessary. Best, -Anthony Krupp 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia

I was hoping I could get you to opine there. I've seen your good work at the list of german-language philosophers, so thought this general topic might be of concern of yours. LotLE×talk 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Subtlety

I don't understand what you're doing. The title of Kant's essay is Die Falsche Spitzfindigkeit der vier Syllogistische Figuren Erwiesen. This is correctly translated as The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved, which is the name of the Wikipedia article that I am trying to gradually create. This essay can be easily found in the small, inexpensive Barnes and Noble paperback entitled Introduction to Logic, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article's "Reference" section.Lestrade 01:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Relevant replies to this have been posted at Kant's talk page, and to user Lestrade at their talk page. English titles do not include the term "Proved". Amerindianarts 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity

Heh, yes, it does appear that the search engine needs to refresh first. Sometimes it can be your computer, but most of the time it's the server. — Moe 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

My apologies for not weighing in on the Kidman discussion when you asked. I have been dealing with a personal issue at the moment which has made it hard for me to focus on the Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I have added my comments to the mediation request that you started, and I hope my statements help a little. --Yamla 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

My apologies for eliminating the tag. I looked at the history of the article and saw the reason why you eliminated the tag. I added the tag because I saw similarities in the definition and the explanations. I understand. Sr13 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello, I have taken the Nicole Kidman case as a volunteer mediator. Also, I removed a comment from the case page that could have otherwise implied I agreed with it. Regarding the personal attacks, I thought you handled the situation very well. Hope this clarifies the situation. Thanks, Addhoc 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't realise that I deleted more than I meant to. Thanks for raising this... Addhoc 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. See my reply at your talk page.Amerindianarts 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity (philosophy)

Don't whether you checked the history but the article survived because I rewrote it completely. Peer review is likely to be negative because the term cannot and is not universally applied in philosophy. The lack of resources and the amount of original research needed to make the term comprehensible without actually defining it is the reason it was nominated for deletion-twice.Amerindianarts 06:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the topic. One of the reasons I nominated the article for peer review is that I find that having multiple interested editors working on an article tends to make it more well-rounded and neutral than having a single dominant author. If you think the article is in bad shape, then all the more reason to request assistance, I guess. Certainly there are many concepts (e.g. evil, saint) that have no universal definition, but for which there are quite adequate NPOV articles. When there are multiple points of view, instead of attempting to reconcile them into a universal definition, we simply give an overview of the various schools of thoughts, usually with links to other articles for more details. -- Beland 18:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] informal vs formal fallacies

I was wondering if you could help me out on a matter of logic, is there a difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy? It relates the the article on Begging the question which appears to contradict itself Talk:Begging_the_question#This_article_appears_to_contrdict_itself_tag. Thanks, Grumpyyoungman01 05:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The best way I can describe it is that formal fallacies are a violation of a rule of logic, see e.g. the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent or Denying the Antecedent. Informal fallacies I would describe as intuitive, e.g. Ad hominem arguments can be a matter of opinion as to if the content is actually attacking the person, or the person's argument, etc.Amerindianarts 08:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)