User talk:Pollinosisss/Archive 1

Cosimo de'Medici wikiproject banner

re this edit: why is Cosimo de' Medici under the philosophy wikiproject? Is it solely for his little academy? --Gwern (contribs) 14:17 14 September 2009 (GMT)

He also commissioned the first complete translation of Plato which had an inestimable impact on philosophy as a whole. I suppose that in the end he didn't really contribute directly to philosophy though.

I have removed him from the philosophy project. Pollinosisss (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hypatia

You didn't follow WP policy and state the reason for the reversion on the Hypatia of Alexandria article. My edit was valid. MithrasPriest (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I should have discussed it on the talk page before undoing your edit.

I just added a reference to the original statement.

Dear Pollinosisss - Yes, I have Watt's book. The book (p. 198) specifically says that Cyril spread lies about Hypatia, essentially calling her a pagan witch. We know the decree by Theodosius I is what originally incited the masses. The WP article is still misleading; the citation you placed doesn't support the text "...mob who blamed her for religious turmoil." It still either needs a citation supporting this, or a text change. Thank you. MithrasPriest (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

List of ancient Platonists

Why 'ancient'? It's a very vague term, but even in a more specific (Western) sense it doesn't work, since some of your entries are from the 5th century. Please reconsider renaming to List of Platonists. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion but "List of Platonists" would be too broad. I would need to include all the Christian([1]), the Islamic([2]) and the modern platonists.Pollinosisss (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, could you specify in the lead, then, what the constraints are of "ancient" in the title? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aesthetics task force

Isn't it time to wind this up in fact? There has been next to no activity in 2 years is it, beyond adding & fiddling with banners. It's very hard to see what purpose it serves, certainly not article-writing, & it is surely not the best place to raise a query about any but a handful of the thousands of articles it has tagged. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. It doesn't really serve a purpose as it is.

I suppose that if all aesthetic philosophy articles were to be properly assigned to the taskforce it could provide a nice starting point for those interested in aesthetics somewhere down the line?

Pollinosisss (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, I don't think there are many such. There are few enough good visual arts editors, & AFAIK none with any particular interest in aesthetics. I am just working on Hierarchy of genres, which has remained essentially untouched, despite needing a lot of work, since 2003. Anything you can add on classical notions here would be most welcome - I won't attempt it. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice article. I'm happy to see that at the very least the article gets viewed quite a bit [3]. As for classical notions..... I can't think of anything to add at the moment but I will happily contribute if anything comes to mind. Pollinosisss (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Anarchist task force

Yo Polinosisss, unlike the above, the anarchist task force is well-established and active, and retains scope over all anarchism-related articles, so while I understand you might feel some of these topics are not philosophical, removals of this sort are problematic. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll abstain from removing any more anarchism-related articles. Pollinosisss (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Keep up the great work tagging; the metadata is of crucial importance! Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Moishe Tokar

Hi, I was curious why you changed the class rating for Moishe Tokar from B to C. The article contains everything that has ever been written about Moishe Tokar in English (and some additional material added for historical context). Additionally every paragraph is cited to a source. If you have any ideas for how the article can be improved, I'm very interested, as the article was researched exhaustively. Kaldari (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the class because I didn't see any structure to the article(sections). I suppose this doesn't really matter if this is all there is to say about Moishe Tokar. I've undid what I did. Pollinosisss (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry...

Before I begin, Just so you know, I am open to Trout slapping. I accidentally saw your blanking of a talk page as vandalism...but only before I saw it was that of redirect page! Agh! DaL33T (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. The trouts may go unmolested today. Pollinosisss (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

+rollbacker

Added rollback for you -- Samir 06:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Pollinosisss (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

South park- Atlas

Hi, I would like to know why you removed a cultural reference of the article Atlas Shrugged. This book was mentioned in South Park's episode Chickenlover. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Sanchez.

A work being mentioned on a television show does not seem to me to be worthy of inclusion in an article.

Pollinosisss (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

South Park has been watched by billions of people around the world. Many of them believe it or not will be able to know about Atlas Shrugged after watching South Park. That therefore is worth enough of inclusion. Most articles have a Cultural reference, why is it that this one shouldn't ? because you say so? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of those "cultural reference" sections should be avoided as per WP:TRIVIA. Pollinosisss (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is not trivia. Is a cultural reference!. Include it in the article. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment to the talk page asking for more opinions. Please feel free to add to what I said Pollinosisss (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a 30 rock cultural reference for "Rat King" and you promptly removed it. I noticed that you had a similar argument with a prior user about South Park. I don't know why you don't believe that Emmy award winning television shows constitute as culture. In fact, I would argue that a mention on a Emmy Award winning television show is much more culturally significant that a mention of a subject in some obscure book that no one has ever read. I would like the reference back in the article please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.52.181 (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern influence (Valhalla)

Read it, Polinosisss. Nicolas.le-guen (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Category edit

Hi, Pollinosisss. I notice that in this edit to Category:Objectivism, you took it out of several other categories (e.g., Category:Metaphysical theories), but left it in Category:Political theories. Having reviewed the content of the categories, I don't object to you removing them, but is there some particular reason you left the political category in place? --RL0919 (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello RL0919, I must of overlooked it somehow. I just removed it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. -Pollinosisss (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories

You are removing several categories which are more specific, and there fore more useful. That consists in a net loss of information expressed. We should be finding and identifying ways to put articles and categories in a more specific place. In any category which has a {{catdiffuse}} tag we should be diffusing its members to more specific categories. In any articles below such a category, it may the case and preferable to have several applicable subcategories (i.e. "contemporary philosophers" and "peruvian philosophers", "philosophers of law" etcetera, with as many as applicable). I think I'm going to revert some. We are trying to help populate categories like "metaphysical theories" and those other specific ones.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The categories that I removed were inaccurate. Dualism, materialism, naturalism, and reductionism are clearly not metaphysical theories for example. ‎I suppose these may have metaphysical aspects to them, but if we start filling a category like "metaphysical theories" with every single belief system that might have metaphysical implications don't we water down that category to the point of uselessness? -Pollinosisss (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree. Dualism is obviously a metaphysical theory because it is making an explanation about the nature of substance (a metaphysical question.) The dualist believes there are at least two fundamental substances mind and matter (or however else you want to term it). There is no way to be a dualist without taking some metaphysical position. Similarly obvious case for materialism, a subcategory of monism. So I am puzzled by your claims. The goal here is not to be as exclusive as possible, it is to be inclusive. This is the case at any level below a category with {{catdiffuse}}. This way new categories can come to be created as the need arises. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"There is no way to be a dualist without taking some metaphysical position"

Could one not talk of a good/evil dualism from a naturalistic point of view where both principles are strictly physical? Can't both parts of a dichotomy be physical?

As for materialism, I would argue that it should not be under monism. Although there is such a thing a material monism, materialism as a whole is not monistic and thus shouldn't be under it.

-Pollinosisss (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of the article associated with the category keeps shifting in its emphasis, however, that is ordinarily a guideline. It is okay if other forms of dualism are housed under cat:dualism under cat:metaphysical theories. At some point, if enough articles accumulate within a category to justify creating a new more specific one, or moving some articles out to a newly created catgeory then that is just natural evolution on the wikipedia. To make the process smooth, it is a good idea to identify a general version of the category which will catch all, and then later move articles out to more specific categories if they exist or can be created.

However I don't think its okay to move the category dualism out of metaphysical theories just because there exist other formulations of dualism. The categories should be inclusive, not exclusive when at a level below a {{diffusecat}}. Otherwise we lose informational content, productive evolutionary edits, and overall organization. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Ideally, these type of categories (Category:Philosophical theories) will be as tight as Category:Philosophical concepts is right now with only subcategories within some academic field of philosophy.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Category:Philosophical concepts is quite nice compared to many of the other categories.

If we are to improve Category:Philosophical theories, perhaps it would be better to start at the top?

Should something like Category:Kantianism be a subcategory of Category:Philosophical theories? -Pollinosisss (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Originally it may be. However the goal is to eventually have it under "metaphysical theories", "epistemological theories" and all others that apply. There may be some articles that don't apply like about Kant's social theory, but that's okay. Eventually, there will be a level of detail sufficient to deal with it like Category:Kantian social theories, Category:Kantian epistemological theories... (This is all for example. I don't know that there will ever be a demand for "Kantian social theories." But that is how things evolve in theory.)

Very often there is a category that acts as a collector, and then when enough articles of a certain type show up in it, a pattern arises and then it is obvious that a new more specific category is needed.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I have in mind. Please tell me what you think.

Using Kantianism as an example, what if we looked inside Category:Kantianism for pages that could be considered theories, and then placed these pages in Category:Philosophical theories. If some of these were metaphysical theories, we would move them down to that category. Eventually we would keep creating further sublevels, as long as they made sense. Perhaps eventually getting something like this (Philosophical theories > metaphysical theories > idealistic theories > Kantian idealistic theories).

Category:Kantianism would be left out of Category:Philosophical theories. If we include Category:Kantianism in Category:Philosophical theories, we would need to include every other philosophical school or tradition since they all had theories. This would be highly redundant.

If we eventually reach the level of Kantian idealistic theories , we would place it in both philosophical theories and Kantianism. -Pollinosisss (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Stub ?

What leads you to list the İbrahim Hakkı Erzurumi article as a stub? It has sections, six in-line citations and an illustration of his work. Editor Grutness wrote an essay on the Croughton-London rule of stubs which is referenced by the style guideline at Wikipedia:Stub. I would very much like to see the İbrahim Hakkı Erzurumi article expanded; however, I do not think that there is that much additional information that is available about him. Maybe I am wrong. Please help me understand your edit of 7 December 2009. --Bejnar (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bejnar, I classed it as a stub due to the length of the content. I don't feel very strongly about this rating. I agree with you that the stub class is inappropriate for a well crafted article that contains most of what can be said about the given subject. Please change the rating to something more fitting. Thank you. Pollinosisss (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Project edits

In aggregate, I think I've seen dozens if not hundreds of your edits pass through my watchlist; yet none of them have turned out to be worth checking out, though I can't refrain from looking at them on the off-chance you are asking a question or raising an issue I could address. Would it be possible for you to use a bot account for those project edits, or at least use an edit summary so I know to ignore them? --Gwern (contribs) 05:17 12 December 2009 (GMT)

Welcome

To the death project - please feel free to quiz at the project talk page - or to pass comment on any aspect of the scope or the processes of the project - any input into the issues of death in the classical world would be very much appreciated SatuSuro 00:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC) And btw - thanks for the cat tagging - there is a lot out there we need to capture SatuSuro 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome. I look forward to contributing to this very interesting project. -Pollinosisss (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to it and any advice or clues as to dead philosophers/philosophies/greeks (with or without monty python theme music) would be appreciated SatuSuro 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

wow we have jumped in number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NA-Class_Death_articles - I consider that we are going to go that 3 times if not 5 just to cover all the directly related 'death' articles by country and etc - if you come across any difficult or questionable ones it would be appreciated if you could throw em onto the project talk page for all to see - I think we need to keep in mind a possible guideline - causes/processes/consequences - and the possibility of some that need dual project tags to fit - thanks anyways - hope its not too gory :( - some parts of the projecct category tree leave me wondering... SatuSuro 09:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a few content questions in mind. I'll make sure to post them in the near future so we can make sure to be all on the same page. -Pollinosisss (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)