Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-American philosophy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete but redirect. W.marsh 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-American philosophy

Anglo-American philosophy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Dubious POV fork/original research written by someone using Wikipedia to grind some axe about the distinction between analytic philosophy/continental philosophy. There is nothing in this article which constitutes real, verified fact that is not subject to interpretation, and what little might be salvaged can be put elsewhere. Rosenkreuz 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Participants should vote "delete", "keep", or make a comment. "Support" is ambiguous. --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: The three short paragraphs which constitute the stub are all inaccurate and would need to be rewritten from scratch. I posted the reasons on the Talk page [[1]]. I also can't see the need for the article unless British and American philosophy are not going to be treated anywhere else on Wiki. If they are, then an improved article would just be duplicative. KD Tries Again 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD Tries AgainKD
• Delete: Needless to say. It is strangely written, inaccurate, and based on the eccentric and idiosyncratic thesis that geographical differences underlie philosophical ones. (Differences of language and culture maybe, geography, no). Dbuckner
• Support for Delete per all above. Johnbod 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (support) per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOR; entire article is original research. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fork per above. Linguistic distinction unsupportable. Even the content contradicts the title! "English-speaking countries of North and Central America" - I don't know where the author has been, but Spanish is spoken in Central America, Portuguese and Spanish in South America, and French is spoken in the most populated portion of Canada. Here in the U.S., English is the language of business but most products are turning bilingual (English/Spanish) due to massive immigration from Mexico and countries further south. What does "Anglo" have to do with anything? Zeusnoos 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: To be fair, "Anglo-American philosophy" is a term in use, but of course it doesn't refer to the language in which the philosophy is done, but the location (Britain and America). It can indeed have the connotation of "analytic" philosophy - but all this reinforces the point that even a correct account of the meaning can only be a dictionary definition with links to the main articles on Philosophy or Analytic Philosophy. KD Tries Again 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Comment: Agree, you also forget Jamaica, Guyana, large parts of Canada, amongst others where English is spoken. A comparable term I suppose is Latin-America.--Lucas ^Talk 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: But this is precisely the misconception from which the article starts - "anglo" in that phrase does not mean "anglophone". It just means English (although I would concede stretching it to British). So the article can only be a dictionary definition which redirects to articles dealing with British and American philosophy. KD Tries Again 15:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Comment: I would not stretch it to British, Britain includes Wales and there are also Anglo-Welsh relations. Not sure if there is a article on "American Philosophy". The word Anglo-American can mean governmental relations between the U.S. and the U.K. or their cultural commonality, but it can also include Welsh-American and also Jamaicans who live in the Americas and speak English. It depends on the context. I hazzard a guess that no one here knows what it means and that is why no one has been able to replace the bare two sentences on it given in the article and instead just say delete! --Lucas ^Talk 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of what you or I would stretch it to: as the term is actually used, no-one makes a pointed distinction between Scottish or Welsh and English philosophers. KD Tries Again 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)KD

• Delete the article is, as I commented, basically rubbish. In addition, wrongly equating analytic philosophy with anglo-american philosophy, it introduces a systemic bias. Analytic philosophy occurs in Australia, South Africa, and in non-English speaking countries. Banno 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article is, as I commented, basically rubbish. In addition, wrongly equating analytic philosophy with anglo-american philosophy, it introduces a systemic bias. Analytic philosophy occurs in Australia, South Africa, and in non-English speaking countries. Banno 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork rather than proper academic article. "Anglo-American philosophy" is more likely to refer to foreign policy or cultural imperialism than an actual distinct branch of Western philosophy (see Anglosphere). --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is a very strange request for deletion: are people denying the existence of Anglo-American Philosophy? If not then go and edit the article (all three lines of it) to your satisfaction. If you do deny it then maybe you should say the term is defunct or something like that.

As far as I've seen no one has tried to correct anything in the article and there have been no reverts. If it does not connote Analytic philosophy then go and clarify this fact in the article before others make the same mistake, it would only take two seconds to change the wording. Nor is there anything strange about geographic designations in philosophy, it does not mean the philosophy there is any worse or any different in a bad way, it is just a way of referring to it.

Judging by the number of delete supports above I'd say the article will get deleted, strange, 'cos there is such a thing as Anglo-American Philosophy, there is probabaly even Franco-American philosophy though I've not read any of it.

--Lucas ^Talk 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The distinction Exists. The views of Editors above are biased by the Editor's War at Philosophy. This issue is clearly a matter of Power, not Truth, Meaning, Rationality, or Criticism. Philosophy does not suffer by such sameful and disgraceful conduct. It is Wikipedia which suffers. This is another one of the instances of Truth by Voting, or Truth by the Majority. Noam Chomsky should see this. The Editors War should end first. This is not that different than Stalin, or Animal Farm. Oh, and it is highly unreferenced.

User:Dbuckner - so this is what you mean by Philosophy is Rational?

Looking forward to a better day, Ludvikus 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If folks believe there is a legitimate reason for this article to exist, please cite verifiable, reliable sources to show that this subject is notable. Right now, there's a single book cited, which appears to be a primary source. That's insufficient for a Wikipedia article, by any stretch. -- Kesh 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• deleteWe're voting on the conception of the article, which seems to be a POV fork or an essayDGG 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and KD's comments. This article exists solely to extend Ludvikus' edit wars. My (naively) good faith attempt to edit the article in a less contentious direction was summarily reverted by Ludvikus. This article and its edit history, however, does have the virtue of being further evidence to support a ban on Ludvikus. 271828182 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blatant WP:OWN Banno 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as POVFORK and insufficiently sourced neologism.-- danntm ^T _C 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but completely rewrite. [See below] The term "Anglo-American philosophy" is a standard one, and certainly no noeologism (it's preferred especially by those who feel that "analytic philosophy" is much too narrow a term); a just to give a selection from the first page of a Google search: [2] (PDF), [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. However, this article is a personal, poorly written, and largely inaccurate essay (and manages to get all that into two lines, at least as I write this). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The term would appear to be used in contrast to "continental philosophy". This makes more sense, in a way, than distinguishing "continental philosophy", a region, from "analytic philosophy", a method. But given this, what more would you have on the page than a re-direct to analytic philosophy? Banno 10:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I was in too much of a hurry. If I could, I'd rewrite Analytic philosophy so that it was about the school of philosophy that makes analysis the sole distinguishing characteristic of philosophical thinking, and make Anglo-American philosophy the main article. As that's unlikely to happen, I'll change my "vote". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:It seems we are caught between two poles, most editors here disavow talk of a distinction between Anglophone philosophy and Continental, more than they would disavow one between Analytic and Continental. Now we see proposed a distinction based on the geography of Anglo-American (which is really also cultural not just geographic) to ensure a method is not compared with a geographic distinction. The problem is that somehow both coincide, geography and method coincide in Anglophone (English-speaking countries but also those who partake of it in non-English speaking countries).

As to method, Analytic pretends to a method but you find all kinds of things there (trascendental arguments, ontological relativity, a denial of meaning to the word Analytic itself!, Wittgenstein II, ordinary language, new metaphysics, etc.), perhaps as many varieties as you find in Continental which may also be given as method, though not as clearly maintained as the original Analytic one, and with many changes in its history. One might say the method was initially a clearly articulated phenomenology, then existentialism, then structuralism and then deconstructive or post-structural. The three: Analytic, Anglo-American and Anglophone have also passed through such varieties in method. The heightened distinctions here between these three is inveitable when you are close up to them, but from the level of talking about Continental as one thing, these three also blur, and can be named as one, we just haggle over the name.

It seems the distinction we try to make here can be geographic, methodological, language-based, and/or cultural. So you cannot be faulted for mixing categories (eg, comparing method and geography) because in reality they are mixed and that is perhaps why there is such an issue as the schism in the first place.

--Lucas ^Talk 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Make redirect to Analytic philosophy (if necessary, as it probably will be, protect the redirect); it would be peculiar if looking up this standard term in Wikipedia should be fruitless. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  Question: An accurate definition with redirect to other philosophy articles - I am not sure why that doesn't fall foul of the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy? KD Tries Again 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD

  Just to add, based on the re-direct suggestion, it should also re-direct to pragmatism. Where else? KD Tries Again 15:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD

  If the first question was directed to me, then I didn't mention anything about a definition; I just said "make redirect" (note, though, that "Wikipedia isn't a dictionary" isn't a policy, but a guideline, and that such an approach would be possible as a meaty dab page). As to the second question: at least one of the links that I gave explicitly distinguishes between pragmatism, continental philosophy, and Anglo-American philosophy. I don't think that anyone uses "Anglo-American philosophy" to mean "pragmatism", though many people use "analytic philosophy" to mean "Anglo-American philosophy". But there is no wholly satisfactory approach that doesn't involve rewriting Analytic philosophy to some extent.

  To be honest, if proper discussion were possible on these articles, which at the moment it isn't, the place to settle this would be at Talk:Anglo-American philosophy. A case could be made for an article that explained clearly what the term means (that it includes analytic philosophy properly construed but is much broader than that, that it's misleading in that it isn't limited by geography or by language, etc.), and how it's distinguished from other philosophical traditions, including Continental philosophy. Failing that (and I hold out no hope for such a course), a redirect is the best of the bad options. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, easy to find references to Rorty as Anglo-American and also as a pragmatist. But yes, ideally we should be able to discuss this on the talk page (but not like this [[8]]. KD Tries Again 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Well, in so far as I'd bother with Rorty at all, I'd agree with Susan Haack that his supposed pragmatism is at odds with the real thing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect without merge to Analytic philosophy (and prevent re-creation of the deleted content as necessary). I concur with User:Mel Etitis: there's no reason for a fork here, though either name would do; the existing article can easily explain the situations where the other name might be used. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

May I draw attention again to the fact that analytic philosophy occurs outside of the UK/US; and that therefore equating it with with anglo-american philosophy introduces a systemic bias. Banno 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to a matter of Wiki policy or style rather than any factual dispute. "Anglo-American" is a phrase unquestionably used as if synonmous with analytic. Banno is obviously right that, strictly speaking, it's wrongly so used. Should Wiki follow common usage or strict facts? Note that this is not entirely trivial, because we have exactly the same problem with "continental". KD Tries Again 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)KD

I don't think there's anything systemic about this, nor do I think a redirect has to "equate" two topics (indeed, as I said above, it would be best for the existing article to explain when "Anglo-American" might be used instead of "analytic"). At most this is a slightly inaccurate redirect, and that's still the best possible option under the current circumstances (circumstances which have already rendered many quite bad philosophy articles effectively uneditable). If the redirect is really unpalatable to a significant number of Wikipedians, I'll change my vote to a simple delete. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree it is not systematic, the world does not happen to work that way. Am I no longer allowed to call Budweiser an American beer when it is made in Nigeria? The point is not that Analytic is done outside of the Anglo-countries, but that, institutionally, it has the stamp of U.S/UK origin. Almost all philosophy in its subject matter has a global appeal, and rarely is it strictly local (you'll find Eastern/Continental/Analytic all taught globally). We use the word to help us trace its origins that is all. But since Anglo-American philosophy was not always Analytic it might be an idea to explain this in the article. What I mean is to answer the question why many phil.depts. in the U.K. switched to Analytic and coincidently many of the U.S. ones did too. These U.S. phil. depts did not choose French or German philosophy and perhaps this is down to language, imitiation, vestiges of colonialism, or the "special-relationship" -- Lucas (Talk) 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some fair points. However, I will leave my vote at delete, since I think the term presents an implicit bias. However, I will not object to the page being made a re-direct. Banno 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A quote from the new Oxford American Dicitonary:

analytical philosophy ( also analytic philosophy ) → n. a method of approaching philosophical problems through analysis of the terms in which they are expressed, associated with Anglo-American philosophy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucaas (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

• Delete and redirect. An accurate explanation of the divide is attempted elsewhere, and much more coherently. KSchutte 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.