Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ionian School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Keep. --Titoxd(?!?) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ionian School

This article refers to a non-existent 'school' of philosophy, and causes unnecessary confusion WhiteC 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Many Google hits for "Ionian School" as a pre-Socratic school of Greek philosophers. 70.122.87.59 04:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe the concept began as a reference to the Ionian philosophers and got transferred to an mythical school by analogy with the Milesian school.Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep real encylopedias have articles about this. Kappa 06:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Is not Wikipedia a real encyclopedia?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even the puny Encarta encyclopedia mentions this school of philosophy [1]. The article looks good to me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
If it looks good to you, then you ought to be able to say what the school platform is, right? Would you care to enlighten us?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. What the hell is wrong with you? Five seconds on google proves this is real. Night Gyr 09:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Very emotional. But what do you mean by real in this context?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. *ahem* Looks like someone is confused alright. —RaD Man (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying you are able to judge what is confused and what not? If so, care to fill us in?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but please, please, please, let's not go off insulting nominators. AGF applies to all edits, including nominations. It's sufficient that the article will be kept. Geogre 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
But I thought that was what was to be decided!Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica had an article on this school. Google books comes up with 10 books mentioning them including two by Karl Popper [2]

27 results from Google Scholar see [3]. Notable philosophy school. Capitalistroadster 17:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that this article was in several encyclopedias does not mean that it is not inherently misleading. Referring to any group of philosophers whose only common attribute was geography as a school is misleading--they didn't all agree with each other, and were from several different time periods in Ancient Greece. Perhaps this usage is sufficiently common that it should be retained in Wikipedia as a stub to point at schools of philosophy which are not arbitrary classifications. Anyway, I challenge anyone to come up with a different reason than geography for including all these philosophers in a 'school'. WhiteC 02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Almost all of them were physicalists and proponents of monism. Also, besides the geographical region they shared, they obiousvly shared a cultural background, and a mythology that they tried to keep out of their philosophies (makign the the first true Western philosophers). Isn't that enough? Karol 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Accepting for the moment your argument that there is nothing that can actual be called an "Ionian school" of philosophy, the fact that this term is in several other encylopedias makes it inherently likely that users will try to look it up in this one. If usage is inconsistent then we should do our best to describe this inconsistent usage in an NPOV way. Kappa 03:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
There is something to that argument, but does Wikipedia want to be in the business of overtly correcting error in other encyclopedias? I say, no. Let those in error correct themselves.Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Karol 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if other encyclopedias cover it, we should as well. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia should strive to be independently excellent and in so doing provide information that is fresh and not always to be found elsewhere. Why should I not get my Britannica or MS Encarta off the shelf if Wikipedia is only a parrot?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WhiteC, I can understand your logic, but it appears that so many other sources call this group by that name, that that's what people would search for. If you'd like to add something to the article pointing out their differences, that's your perrogative. Jacqui★ 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
But what if they should decide to search for sky-hooks. Is it our business to provide an article on sky-hooks?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, immo vero! I had a lengthy section in here but someone altered it without any indication of who, and no record of the alteration in the history. That can only be a Wikipedia sys admin. It is pretty hard to answer tactics of that nature. This is beginning to sound like Plato's ideal state, where only the few get to do any thinking and talking. I hope that will not be the case, but it will be if you let it.
Let me retiterate and summarize, there is no Ionian school. I have no idea who on the Internet is promulgating the notion, but you know, once something gets said once, it gets repeated over and over. The pre-socratics are not physicalists, neither are they all monists. As for the panmetabolists, that term is incomprehensible to the general public and certainly is not ancient. Wikipedia seems to be having a lot of trouble with its philosophy. I suggest that getting back to basics will improve things considerably. Don't we have to think about the public? As a bottom line, I would like to say, if you have to start out by saying there really is no Ionian school, you aren;t building any confidence that what you say is true.Dave 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
PS I'm really talking to you, aren't I , Karol? No, the reasons you cite are not enough to distinguish an Ionian school. The coast of Anatolia was diverse, Different dialects of greek and different languages were spoken there. So there is no geographic unity. As for the cultural background, it was Hellenic. The Ionians came from Attica and bronze age Peloponnesus. Why not call the Athenians Ionian? And the mythology, they didn't believe anything no other Hellene didnt believe. Where's the distinction? And physicalist? A very obscure neologism I dare say. It is nowhere defined. I don't see ANY method at all here, sir. No way to distinguish an Ionian school is presented.Dave 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I am replying upon request. I don't doubt there were substantial differences between the particular Ionian philosophers, and we know they didn't "collaborate", but they had alot in common, at least in my view of them. I can't argue specifically about cultural backgrounds and history, because I don't feel knowledgable in that area. In any case, grouping philosophers into schools is really a post factum job, chronologically speaking, so the concept of "school" goes beyond who they were and what they spoke/wrote/thought to include our contemporary interpretation of their philosophies. I'm probably writing more than needed. Let me just add that physicalism is not a neologism (you can also find references outside Wikipedia), and I know I used the term "off limits", but that was intended, becuase I couldn't find a better one at the moment - perhaps materialists? Karol 08:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The discussion seems to be centering on the concept of materialism. See the next comment. My main doubt is that I do not see the "materialism" as distinctively Ionian.Dave 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The "Byzantine Empire" never considered itself that. To it's subjects, it was the Roman Empire, and they considered themselves Romans. They preserved Roman culture for nearly a thousand years after the Western Roman Empire fell. But historians have a problem with calling it the Roman Empire, because the original territory of the Roman Empire was lost. Oh well. They can call it whatever they want. It's a convention. That's what names are. Conventions. "Byzantine" makes it easy to differentiate the later Roman Empire from the earlier. Which brings us to the distinction of the Ionian school of philosophy. So what if it's geographically based. It's also called the Melesian school, also a geographical distinction. It was started by Thales of Melitus, so go figure. Thales had a couple really cool disciples (well one disciple and one sub-disciple), and some contemporaries who no doubt benefited from all their wisdom. Between the lot of them they pumped out enough philosophical material to be considered a school. For this, maybe we should call them "materialists". Hey, I can make any distinction I want, but that won't get it in an encyclopedia until it becomes some kind of consensus. But they are already materialists by another more popular distinction, and Ionians, so let them stay in our wonderful encyclopedia!!! We can work on my new definition of materialism later. Go for it! 16:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I recognize that the term 'Ionian School' has widespread usage. But I thought that since the 1911 Britannica article recognized that the term did not refer to a coherent classification scheme, perhaps it might be time (after almost a century) to remove it. I suppose I will have to keep the article, and try to stay NPOV in a (hopefully brief) discussion of classification schemes for philosophical schools in the article. I will start a discussion over on the Philosophy tasks, since this seems to be more specialized than just deletion.
Out of curiosity, what kind of criteria would an article from 1911 Brittannica have to meet in order for it to be deleted? Factual error and/or extreme bias? WhiteC 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
More on materialism. I like the way this discussion is centering in on materialism, which is partly at the heart of the problem. I grant you many of the philosophers - Thales, etc. and the pluralists - DO seem to be concerned with the explanation of nature. 1) What do we moderns call their interest? I'm not sure materialism does the job, as our materialism (I think - maybe I'm wrong) implies that there is no spirit, no God even, and that matter and the laws of matter are supreme. None of the philosophers thought that. Also, we want to avoid any connection with our physics, as the only one who thought numerically was Pythagoras, and he is not an Ionian. 2) What do you do with the incipient skeptics - Heraclitus and Xenophanes etc. The latter is not in the article but he was an Ionian. Is Ionian to include all Ionians or just some of them?Dave 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep It is considered a school. --FranksValli 20:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Is this some sort of vindictive joke? Banno 20:38, 26 November 2005 (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.