Talk:Proper name

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Why is the plural used in the title of this article? Michael Hardy 14:07, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some examples of usual and unusual kind of proper names will be useful here. Kowloonese 08:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The introduction paragraph here is terse, poorly worded, and inappropriate for the layperson. It needs more of a lead-up.--Johnsm2 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My main objection to the intro paragraph is the word “recalcitrant” is there. Surely there is a more easily understandable word that would be appropriate. Any objections to changing that “recalcitrant” to “difficult” or “complicated”? --EarthFurst 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PLAGIARISM

the part after the referential theory is taken from a book called'philosophy of language' by william lycan without even touching a comma. and there is no citation for it. i dont know how it works but isnt it plagiarism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.97.174.13 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

  • I can affirm this.. Lycan's book is right in front of me right now, and I came to the discussion area to point this plagiarism out. 150.216.121.90 04:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the copyright violation and I will work on rewriting it, unless someone does it before me. There are arguments that Frege was not a descriptivist, and the reference (and sense) theory was more of his idea anyway. Pomte 10:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope, POV, and style

This article reads like a philosophy essay, not an encyclopedia article. It needs to use the third person, rather than the second person and first person plural. The title of this article does not seem appropriate to its scope; it reads like what I would think of as "proper names in philosophy". I came here looking for a more precise definition of "proper noun" which is not given in the article noun, which the disambiguation link points to.

The article is also very dense and confusing to the average reader. It would benefit from a rewrite in more accessible language, being careful to explain technical terms used in philosophy. Avoiding the passive voice would also help. -- Beland 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)