Talk:List of publications in philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-16. The result of the discussion was withdrawn to allow discussion regarding inclusion criteria..

Contents 1 Description 2 Is this page a good idea? 3 problem w/ introduction template 4 "Jewish philosophy" 5 The Subheadings? 6 Summaries, etc 7 Categories 7.1 Ethics 7.2 Category:Ethics books or Category:Ethics literature? 8 Upanishads 9 Seriously 10 Lacatosias' cleanup 11 Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles 12 Revert Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 13 standards for inclusion 14 mediation 15 Names, purpose and criteria 16 Need help in discussing a list 17 proposed resolution 18 Related AFD 19 The criteria for entries 20 Proposed for deletion 21 Buridan, stop please 22 Name of article 23 Works of Rand 24 Categories of important publications 25 Move of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to the metaphysics section 26 Content Wipe and AFD Nomination 27 Removal of "methodology" classification scheme 28 Notability as the sole criterion 29 afd 30 "sourced" list items 31 Inclusion criteria 32 What is to be added next.

[edit] Description

I don't think that the title fits the description. The description seems to be about books in philosophy. Using the word publications is more appropriate for a list of journal articles, and journals. (There are many fine journals of philosophy and religious philosophy out there.) RK 17:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The word publications is used in the title. We want articles to be included and not only books. Why do you think that the list is a list of books? APH 05:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is this page a good idea?

According to the description, all important publications are appropriate for inclusion. Even if only books were included that several people thought were very important, this could make for an enormous page, and one with nothing in particular unifying it. A collection of a few lists of books considered seminal by certain people could be short, and might be interesting, but could not be NPOV.

I cannot think of any way that this page could work out as it is currently described that would be an asset to Wikipedia. Perhaps some way of collecting lists of seminal works can be figured out, but in the meantime, I suggest that this page is not linked to. ---- Charles Stewart 16:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chalst, I agree that writing such list must be done carefully. I think that creating a classified list of important publications is very important. Such a list is very useful when one is trying to learn the major achievements in a certain topic. A list of publications isn't more NPOV than a list of philosophers, authors, books or any of the many other lists in wikipedia. Look at List of publications in computer science. This is the oldest list and currently the best (I have a background in cs, not philosophy). The computer science list is already considered to be a valuable asset by many people, including wikipedians. PS. In the talk page of the cs list some of issues regarding such lists were discussed. APH 04:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me to give the page the benefit of the doubt. One thing, though: the CS inspired classification is not appropriate for philosophy. ---- Charles Stewart

I note that this 'list' only contains one book for Western Philosophy, and less than ten books in total. Several sections don't have any books listed at all. Perhaps the section headings need a major workover with sub-sections (for existentialism, and other schools of W Phil, for example), or perhaps the idea of a list of authoratitive books for philosophy just isn't very good. The list for Comp Sci looks pretty good, but this one really does not--and CS is a modern discipline, most of which is less than 50 years old. Philosophy is a very old topic, with much more depth than is shown on this page. Even if this page has potential, it doesn't look very good to me yet. I'll have to think for a while about this... WhiteC 04:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm the one to blame regarding the difference between this and the computer science list. I know something of computer science while I hardly know anything about philosophy. I created this list as a seed, hoping that other will improve it. Feel free to change it. APH 09:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article only lists two or three books, and hasn't been edited for months. Does it have any real potential for development? -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 14:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi FS, I read that you study philosophy. Why don't you take care of the list? It defiantly could use your contribution. Moreover, as for your question. From my experience these list develop slowly, but do develop. Sometimes someone appear and really boost them. APH 15:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This page seems like a bad idea to me. For one, the selections for large portions of the current list of publications are unprincipled and senseless. Works almost any philosopher would consider seminal are left out. What is included is a hodge-podge of big fish in small pools and small fish in big pools, an indiscriminate mixture. (To a reasonably well-read student of philosophy this page is a little bit ridiculous.) But more to the point, even were the list updated to an acceptable standard of quality (which would require an unlikely collaboration of philosophers well-read in the various and often professionally isolated areas mentioned), it would likely be too long -- or too sparse -- to be of much use. Much better, in my opinion, would be a page linking to specialised pages on the main areas of philosophy, each with an appended biography. Elfvillage 24:55 06 Septemer 2005 (PDT)

I don't have a proper background in philosophy so I cannot tell whether the current selection of publications is suitable. I agree that in some areas there are too many publications. I think that creating sub lists in these areas is a great idea. As I see it, at the end we should have a page for each publication and categories (and sub categories) instead of lists. The list are a convenient way of gathering the publications until we will reach this phase. APH 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] problem w/ introduction template

Possible problem in the introduction template, where it says "Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly". Philosophy is not a science (or to be more precise, this is open to dispute, depending on the philosopher, but ethics and metaphysics are definitely not scientific). I would rather it said "...that changed philosophy significantly." Should I go off and change the header so that the subject is always the word before "significantly", or would this cause problems in other fields?

[edit] "Jewish philosophy"

Why does this have its own section? I was not aware that "Jewish philosophy" was a discipline. --Malathion 10:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it was created when the page was initially created with all empty categories. I had never heard of it either, but what do I know? If you like go ahead and remove it. --Kzollman 20:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Correction, there is such a thing. Its not really an academic field like the other categories, but it exists. Please leave the category. Thanks, --Kzollman 23:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Subheadings?

I don't really understand the subheadings on this page, and there doesn't seem to be any convenient way to just add a publication (like a normal list), so I'm creating a temporary page at List of publications in philosophy/temp where anyone can come along and add a text without feeling like they have to do a complete writeup. KSchutte 08:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I liked the list you created. It looks impressive. I created most subheadings. Maybe they are not convenient/ correct - I do not have a proper background in philosophy. Please modify the subheadings and try to add the publications to the proper place. I think that the structured document is better to understand and use. Thanks, APH 06:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've improved it significantly in terms of organization, and I've added some of the texts from my list. I'll get back to finishing that up tomorrow (or later today). I don't really want to add all the details about the text, so I'll leave it to someone else to do that. KSchutte 20:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the additions and addition of categories. Not to be a stick in the mud or anything, but one thing I appreciated about the old organization that is now lost was the distinction between continental and analytic philosophy. The fact of the matter is that while Being and Time (for instance) has influenced many people, it is almost never cited in all of analytic metaphysics (at least from what I understand). I actually think that of all the divisions in comtemporary philosophy this division is the most salient to all those practicing in the field. Perhaps we can have an entry under each publication (after Kant) that lists on which side of the divide it falls? Otherwise I think new system is great! best, Kzollman 21:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the analytic/continental divide myself. It's an artificial chasm brought about by some rigamarole in the early twentieth century that has long past. But if you really think it's that important, maybe we could make a pair of icons to put next to each publication, kind of like the flags that are used on the pages of sports teams. KSchutte 21:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sports teams is a great analogy. If I get a chance I'll create such icons. Perhaps for the time being we might use [C] or [A] after the publication and have a note at the top indicating the what they are for. As an aside, whatever you think of the divide, it certainly seems to be having an effect today. I can't remember a the last time I have read something for my research or in any of my classes that positively cited a continental philosopher. Anyway, when I get a chance I'll go through and add the flags. Go Analytic! :) best, Kzollman 22:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The opinion isn't unique to me. Go read analytic philosophy and continental philosophy and their talk pages for confirmation. At this stage in history, the divide is largely pedagogical. Today's professors lack the familiarity with both sides of the divide to teach the material comprehensively. If you look at books philosophers are writing in the 21st century, however, it's not especially uncommon (at least in the analytic tradition) to find a lot of crossover citations. And continental philosophy has surely adopted much of the rigor its early proponents were chided for lacking. At any rate, I suppose only tomorrow's teachers will determine if this distinction persists. KSchutte 03:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not like the analytic / continental divide, because it is largely POV. I started with submitting some contributions to this page, and I may continue to do so, but I think it is a catch-all that ought to be accounted for by original pages. Aside from this, a may there be a requirement that articles are attributed to authors? Some of the articles I find are by no means obvious, and while I'll continue to specify where applicable. Also, please continue to add more where the works cited are all of one school. Many of these seem lopsided. Amicuspublilius 04:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Amicus, thanks for adding to this page its good to have lots of people looking at it so that it doesn't just represent a few people's favorite publications. The reason that some articles don't have authors is that User:KSchutte came by and added a whole bunch of articles, but didn't add authors. I went through and added some of the authors, but since I've been distracted by other things. I agree they should have authors, maybe I'll get back to it in the next few days. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean about the analytic/continental being POV. It is a distinction that, at least from my experience, is widely used to describe two different methodologies of philosophy. While I have an opinion about which form of philosophy is better, I don't think one tag or the other is universally used to disparage a particular viewpoint. (For instance, you will find as many people who think the tag "analytical philosophy" is negative as you will that think "continental philosophy" is bad.) Is it that you think that the label introduces POV or that choosing which one is a POV choice? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries, etc

KSchutte - I would be happy to help with your overhaul by adding the extra matter to the entries (like author, summary, etc), but I didn't know if you were leaving those out for a principled reason. Would you mind if I went through and added some? --Kzollman 02:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have no principled reason other than laziness (which is one principle I abide by!). I leave it to your discretion to add the accompanying material. I would like to warn that this list, if we take it seriously, has the potential to be intractably long, especially if we have so much accompanying information with each selection. It may be best to leave such worries to the future. KSchutte 03:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I'll add some in my spare time. I share your worries about length, but its always easier to delete than add :) Consider such worried left to future generations. --Kzollman 04:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to delete all of the summaries and "influence" text. We are merely repeating what the article introductions say (or should say). I would simply put the author, title and date on a single line and let people click on the links for more info. This would make the entire article less unwieldy. --goethean ॐ 15:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Go ahead and do it. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you guys prefer:

After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory by Alasdair MacIntyre (1981)

or:

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 1981

--goethean ॐ 15:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind...I went with the latter. --goethean ॐ

[edit] Categories

Oleg, I see the category system as a method that help the readers finding related articles on a certain topic. When one is reading about Jewish philosophy, he might be interested in the related entry in the list. Using only the philosophy category is not helpful. I think that we should use the relevant category for each entry or potential entry. Note that I didn't simply added the list to all sub categories. I don't think that the chosen categories were an abuse of the system. Most articles shouldn't be in 20 categories. Some articles should. Unless you have any other objection, I'll return the other categories. Thanks, APH 07:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a proper background in philosophy. If you think that a specific category should be removed or other should be added, please do it or tell me about it. APH 07:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You are referrring to this edit of mine. I see your point. However, please note that putting that many categories is not the way to go. Besides, I don't think that a list of publications in philosophy is that important that it is indispensable in all relevant categories. Anyway, I would be interested in other opinions on the issue. Oleg Alexandrov 15:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I must say I agree with APH on this issue. It is usually not correct to put one article into a thousand categories, because one article rarely deals with all of those. However, this article does. And putting it in a bunch of categories serves some use, somebody poking around in Category:Epistemology might find this list and make use of it. To be honest, I don't see the harm (sine this is a special case). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I would like to ask you to not put this list in Category:Philosophy of mathematics. The math section of this list is empty anyway, and refers to List of publications in mathematics. Oleg Alexandrov 19:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

So, we have reached an agreement. I returned the categories and left out the philosophy of mathematics. APH 05:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Due to the same logic as above the article should belong to the philosophy category too. We shouldn't send the reader to look for the list in the German philosophy sub list. APH 07:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It does appear in Category:Philosophy, in Publications. Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy is in the process of developing guidelines for top-level categories - come and discuss this issue there. Banno 08:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. Where is it? Maybe we should use the sub categories of articles and books instead of the philosophy category. APH 10:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It's were it should be:Category talk:Philosophy. (My apologies: I should have made the location clearer) Banno 10:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. What do you think about adding the list to the articles and book subcategories? Though it is not a book, the list contains books and I think it fits in these categories too. APH 05:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It sounds a sensible thing to do - is there a way of making it appear at the start of each category? Banno 09:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I added the list to these categories. I notice that when you give blank as the entry name the entry is entered at the beginning. APH 09:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course this article will be useful to someone browsing Category:Jewish philosophy, but so will almost all articles in Category:Philosophy. Surely an article like Philosophy will be relevant to Jewish philosophy; so will Philosophical method, List of philosophers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, etc. By your logic, we would surely add all of these to Category:Jewish philosophy, as well as dozens of other philosophy categories. More than that, an article such as Science would have to be added to literally thousands of categories, every single category dealing with science.

The entire point of having subcategories is that everyone should realize, while browsing a category, that there are other categories which would be of use to them, conveniently listed at the bottom of the page. This is to keep things tidy; what you're trying to do, applied consistently, would require someone looking at Category:Economic historians to wade through dozens of articles dealing with history, historians, economics, economies, social sciences, and science in general.

Regardless, if you believe the guideline should be revised, I suggest you argue for it at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. If you develop a consensus to change the guideline, fine; for now, however, the consensus as reflected on that page is the opposite of your view. —Simetrical (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the list of publication is not related to Jewish philosophy than other general topics in philosophy. However the Jewish philosophy section in the list is very related to the topic and this is the reason to the use of the category. One reading about Jewish philosophy will be interested in the section and shouldn't be sent to search in the general category.

Please note that the current state of the list is temporary. The lists is part of the science pearls projects. In further phases of the project, there should be a article at wikipedia about the publications. The publications of the Rambam will be categorized as notable publications in Jewish philosophy, a situation that I believe both of us will be satisfied of. APH 07:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point. Only, there doesn't seem to be any section about Jewish philosophy here. —Simetrical (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice that Jewish philosophy is missing. We had it in earlier versions. Do you know were in the hierarchy it should be added now? I'm not familiar with the common classifications in philosophy. APH 07:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Not the foggiest. —Simetrical (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics

SteveWolfer, you wrote below: "I believe it is critical for Wikipedia's long term success that it/we learn a better way to handle POV without edit-wars...". That doesn’t square with your latest reversion, for which you did not indicate a reason. The reason why I removed Category:Ethics is the prominent request in that category: "If an article exists in both this category and a relevant subcategory ... remove its category marker." (See Category_talk:Ethics for details). Since I see no reason to disagree with this request I'm going to remove the category again. Common Man 18:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm not pushing a POV. I have not started an edit war. I didn't do a 'reversion' (I left your addition in place). And, remember, you left no explanation for your change in the first place. Did I get all of that correct? Here is what happened. I saw that you had changed "Ethics" to "Ethics Books" - that made sense to me, but I thought "Ethics" also applied so I included it as well. Now that I've read your your explanation, I'm fine with with your reversion. I agree. Have a good day. SteveWolfer 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I replied on your homepage. Common Man 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Ethics books or Category:Ethics literature?

In the meantime, I created Category:Ethics literature, which, judging by the title, fits better to this list. However, there seem to be only books in the list. For the moment, I'm keeping it therefore. Common Man 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upanishads

I see that there's been a minor tussle over the inclusion of the Upanishads. I can see both sides; they're not clearly philosophical in themselves, though they represent both the results and the source of much genuine philosophical thought. My feeling is that they should stay. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Upanishads so I cannot judge. I returned it since no reason was given to its removal. I won't object to keeping it or removing it but if it is to stay I think that its entry should be extended. I propose to consult the Science pearls philosophy people - Kzollmanand Amicuspublilius. Agreed? APH 09:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously

If you guys ever want this article to be taken seriously, you need to remove the section on "Quantum philosophy". No contemporary philosophers of any regard hold this "theory" of consciousness to have any merit. KSchutte 19:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lacatosias' cleanup

In a cleanup move over in the article Philosophy, a substantial list of sources/resources was removed from that article. If anyone here would like to copy and paste anything valuable from that edit, they can find it in the page history of 3 March 2006. I'd link the edit, but I'm not sure how to do so. KSchutte 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles

List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. I am putting this paragraph on all the other talk pages of this project. --Bduke 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology was removed from the list with a claim that it was "ideology" and not epistemology. The person making the removal either made an error, hasn't read the book, or has political disagreements with Rand. SteveWolfer 00:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

or the person is neutral on the position and identifies the book as it is. it isn't a book of epistemology that you would find used in any philosophy classroom of distinction. if you can find someone other than Ayn Randians that thinks this is a book of philosophy, then your attempt at inclusion is just a NPOV violation based on your current sympathies. Barring such evidence, it does not belong here. --Buridan 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an "Ayn Randian" and my inclusion is based upon the book's merits. A book doesn't need to be found in a classroom to have merit. Please don't revert this entry without presenting material from the book that you believe disqualifies it or something other than an unsupported opinion that it is "ideology".

I'll include a quote here in hopes that you aren't an "anti-Randian" (I've found that they listen as poorly as "Randians"). "Concepts and, therefore, language are primarily a tool of cognition - not of communication, as is usually assumed. Communication is merely the consequence, not the cause nor the primary purpose of concept-formation - a crucial consequence, of invaluable importance to men, but still only a consequence. Cognition precedes communication; the necessary precondition of communication is that one have something to communicate." page 69 2nd ed. SteveWolfer 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

what disqualifies it as a work of philosophy is that no major philosopher recognized it as such. was it reviewed in philosophy journals of merit? no. is it taught in philosophy classes? no. what is it? it is a book that you find next to astrology books in bookstores. unless there is a reason to include it beyond the assertion of one person, it probably should not be included. err on the side of conservativism. philosophy books that belong on this list are those that form the core of philosophy as a discipline. rand is at best at the periphery and as i've asserted mostly considered 'not philosophy' except by people who are promoting her as a philosopher. but then, we refer to the philosopher's index. it is mentioned in two articles in the index. one by peikoff, which is dismissible as promotion. the other in 1972. if it was a work of philosophy... it would have more... even moby dick has more. please take your rand promotion elsewhere. --Buridan 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of you have reverted a previous edit more than three times in 24 hours. This is a serious lack of proper WP behaviour and I am surprised that both of you have not been blocked. This addition of a new entry should be kept off the article and discussed here until a consensus is reached. Both of you should be trying to attract more comment and work towards consensus, not having an edit war. --Bduke 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

i disagree, the change should be removed until the author of it can demonstrate that it is philosophy by some reasonable standard, or until he finds consensus from the editors of the page that it needs to be considered philosophy. if there is no evidence, there is no inclusion. if there was significant evidence, i would agree with you bduke, it would stay on the page. --Buridan 12:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh, did'nt I say it should it be removed while debate goes on? I agree with you, but your comments are less civil than your opponent on my my talk page. Cool it. --Bduke 12:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

oh, read that wrong, sorry. as for my rhetorical stance, it is there for a reason. today, I have tried to attract more comments and i have just set up a proposed standards for inclusion. --Buridan 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke's comments and I have no desire to engage in some kind of edit-war. I'd like to propose the following: 1. Put the links back for a 10 day period, 2. Encourage people to make comments, 3. Solicit evidence for or against them, and 4. We work with others on a proposed standards.

I believe it is critical for Wikipedia's long term success that it/we learn a better way to handle POV without edit-wars or defacto-censorship by one party or the other. SteveWolfer 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Britannica calls Rand a philospher, as do the American Heritage Dictionary, the APA, the Wadsworth Philosophers Series, and more. Academic articles have been published on Rand's philosophy in general (and on her epistemology in particular) in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, produced by New York University. At Duke University, there is a course on her philosophy that uses excerpts from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. LaszloWalrus 03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

we've discussed this below as not significant in comparison to the rest of the list of books. also most philosophers do not seem to consider her a philosopher. given that there is a dispute as to whether she is or is not a philosopher, it does not seem right to include her works on a list of philosophy works.--Buridan 12:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press published a book on her ethical system, which cites the books I've mentioned. Likewise, Robert Nozick considered her a philosopher, as do Tara Smith, Gary Hull, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Robert Hessen, etc. LaszloWalrus 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

we've had this discussion before. one book does not make it philosophy, neither does 500 books, citation by one philosopher or 5 does not make it philosophy. as I've noted else where, Moby Dick is not philosophy and it is cited more frequently by philosophers than Rand's texts. If you have an argument that establishes Rand as a philosopher, that is fine, but so far no one does. At most they have, look these book says so, to which the response is, how do you differentiate her from Melville, who also is espoused a philosopher and is mentioned as a philosopher in some books, or do you include mellville and then include everyone like melville? the thing is that you are going around making an argument on evidence that you find acceptable, but the ship that you are building, when others research it, is specious at best. We need to have clear standards about what goes on this list. Until we have those standards, those people who are disputed should be left off the list, and when we have those standards, anyone that meets them should be included. At this point in time, that means that because Rand is disputed as a philosopher, she should not be included in this list.--Buridan 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, clear standards would be nice. But until such standards have been put in place and are being applied fairly to all entries, you should stop your deletions where people have provided citations and references. Again and again different people have supplied legitimate citations and references and you have reverted their entries. Until your 'proposed' standards are in place please respect the rights of those who are following Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, it appears that you are exercising a personal POV and cloaking it with calls for a standard that hasn't been put in place. If you count the citations provided and what little evidence does exist for a consensus, you are on the wrong side of this dispute. SteveWolfer 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

if there is a pov being pushed it is by the people that are promoting non-philosophers into philosopher categories. so far all of the posts of 'authority' have been discredited as insubstantial or non-philosophic. there is no consensus that rand is a philosopher, unlike every other person on the page. to promote her until there is consensus seem to me to be pushing a pov. --Buridan 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] standards for inclusion

I propose the following standards for inclusion for a book to be included in this list:

1. widely recognized as a work of philosophy by professional philosophers

this can be demonstrated/tested in several ways:

1. citation count of philosophy journals of over 500 as found in the philosopher's index
2. 10 citations of the work as a 'seminal' or similar distinguished by noted philosophers
3. the work is taught in more than 10 different philosophy professor's courses
4. if published prior to 1900, is the work widely accepted foremost as philosophy, is the author part of the canon of philosophy?

if a work cannot meet standard 1 by passing one of the tests, then it should not be included as a work of philosophy. --Buridan 12:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Philosophers have to work out how to do this themselves, but on several of the related articles there is a requirement that each entry has a "description" and an "importance" sentence. This focuses the editor adding an entry to think why it is being added. On the chemistry page, which I am involved with, we leave each new entry on the page, but debate whether it should stay or go over a 10 day period. If you did this, the criteria you want could be part of the debate. --Bduke 12:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

while i see the merits of discussion, i'm not sure that given the diversity and contentiousness of the philosophy that it would be a strong heuristic for inclusion. i think what we need more for philosophy is an equally applicable standard, so that we can debate as to whether something fits the standard or not. but i'm sure more people will chime in over time. --Buridan 13:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Buridan and Bduke make valid points: An objective standard is needed and philosophy is diverse and contentious - which makes setting a standard difficult. We are trying to decide when something should be deleted. Vandalism, by its nature, is easy to spot. Items that are well-intended, but far from meeting any reasonable standard aren't as easy but Wikipedia is not having any problems there. The problem is with material that is serious and with-in a subject area but falls outside of the current main-stream. Academic philosophers were strongly criticised by Ayn Rand. She has few friends in those circles. So, how then do we determine if a work of hers should be treated seriously if there is evidence that the main-stream sees her the way fundamentalist Christians see Darwin? We must, I believe, remain aware that what is main-stream today will change and we need to include all serious challenges along with the main-stream views. To do otherwise will be engaging in a kind of defacto-censorship. Let me ask this. Does everyone believe that only philosophers approved of by academic main-stream should be mentioned or included? SteveWolfer 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

there is no other stream. there is philosophy it is done worldwide by philosophers. there are popular culture books like ayn rand's works that just are not philosophy. The comparison to darwin is not quite the same and in fact it is opposite to what is going on here. Instead of fundamentalist talking about Darwin, what we have is evolutionary scientists (philosophers) being confronted with fundamentalists (Rand). It is not censorship. There is plenty of room for Rand in the world, no one is saying that her books should be burned or anything. Just that we need a standard for inclusion for this list, and given the standards that I've proposed, she would not make it. However all of the books on the list and many thousands others would. it is like defining what science is or is not, what is philosophy is defined by the philosophers, if it is not defined by the practices of philosophers and their products, then it is meaningless. To put Rand on this list is very much to put the cartoon Snoopy on this list, because Snoopy has quite a few more citations than Rand in terms of philosophy. Does Snoopy belong on the list? --Buridan 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Buridan does not address the question raised; "Does everyone believe that only philosophers approved of by academic main-stream should be mentioned or included?" Unless we take his statement, "there is no other stream" to be his answer. Comparing Rand to Snoopy lacks the kind of respect for others that might lead to useful discourse. I'll repeat my point. When there is a strong, negative emotional reaction from some of those in the academy, we need to fall back to another method. A method that doesn't rely solely on academic approval. That emotional reaction may be justified and the material should be excluded or the reaction may be a product of a disagreement with thoughts that are worthy of an audience. To not have a separate method for making an examination in those cases where this kind of conflict arises is to have put a filter in place that might work 99% of the time, but would guarantee anything that challenges an academic position would never be heard. He says that "what is philosophy is defined by the philosophers..." but it is a little trickier than that. Eric Hoffer, author of True Believers, was a philosopher, but made his living as a longshoreman. Einstein penned the Theory of Relativity while working as a patent clerk. What someone does for a paycheck does not necessarily define them. Its clear that Buridan has a strong bias against Rand. Put simply, he doesn't like her. That is not a reason for him to exclude her and to act as a censor for the rest of us. His language has been more ad hominem than useful. He has not given any form of evidence for removing the links I had added beyond his appeal to authority. I ask that we all work towards finding better ways of including serious matterial even though it is controversial. If material from the book was quoted and show to not be serious epistemology, then the question would be solved. Ask yourself why that simple expedient hasn't been exercised. SteveWolfer 15:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

the answer is that i did answer the question... i said very clearly that there is no such thing as philosophy that philosophers do not recognize as philosophy. thus rand is not philosophy. that is the end of the story. it is unclear that hoffer was a philosopher, i know that i've never heard of him, but i've not checked to see if his work is thought of as significant by others in the field either. Einstein is not usually thought of as a philosopher, except when he is going beyond cosmology. it is not that i do not rand, it is that rand is not doing philosophy, nor is she even an antiphilosopher along the lines of sartre or nietzsche. the question is 'what should be on the list?' the answer is 'philosophy books' then 'how do we determine what is and is not philosophy?', then we turn to those that do philosophy professionally. what mr. wolfer thinks is or is not philosophy might conflict with what philosophers think is philosophy, then... which should we choose for guidance in an encyclopedia? mr. wolfer? or the combined judgement of philosophers? I'd say philosophers. Again, it is not censorship to not be included on this list of publications in philosophy, as the material is included in the wikipedia. also, this is to the best of my knowledge not controversial, it is just the way it is in philosophy using the best tools we can to determine what is and is not philosophy at this current juncture of history. as for 'material from the book' there are many books in the world that look like they might be philosophy, but are not. --Buridan 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Buridan states that "rand is not philosophy" he has claimed elsewhere that her name isn't found anywhere in academia. How wrong that is:

"...the authors and editors of the following works recognize Rand as a philospher..."

Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440.

Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Routledge, 1999).

Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, edited by J. J. Chambliss (Garland 1996), p. 302.

"The following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher..."

Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)

Tibor Machan, (Stanford University.

Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)

Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)

Eric Mack (Tulane University)

Aeon Skoble (Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts)

Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)

Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)

Roderick Long (Auburn University)

Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)

Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)

Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania)

Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)

Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)

Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh? (...not sure of this affiliation ))

Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).

Andrew Bernstein, (Duke University (... not sure this one is up to date))

Gary Hull, (Duke University)

"By the way, the list above is of course a partial list. And also, one may list professors in other humanities fields than philosophy."

Here is a journal reference and by the co-editor of the publication in question...

Leonard Peikoff, Aristotle's Intuitive Induction, The New Scholasticism, Vol. 59, p. 30-53, 1985.

Further, "...Ayn Rand has been discussed in the following scholarly journals..."

Philosophical Books

Review of Metaphysics

The Monist

The Personalist

Social Philosophy and Policy

Catholic World

American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Germano-Salavica: Canadian Journal of Germanic and Slavic Comparative and Interdisciplinary Studies

College English

University of Windsor Review

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, Impact of Science on Society

Journal of Popular Culture

Cycnos

Aristos

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

The Occasional Review

Reason Papers

Critical Review

Journal of Libertarian Studies

The Humanist

Commentary

Nomos

English Journal

Journal of Thought

Journal of Philosophical Research

New University Thought

Journal of Business Ethics

Library Journal

Choice

Journal of Canadian Studies

Social Justice Review

Teaching Philosophy

Resources for American Literary Study

Policy Review

"And she is the topic of articles in the following encyclopedias..."

Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Encyclopedia of Ethics

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

Encyclopedia of New York State

American Authors and Books

American Novelists of Today

Encyclopedia of World Literature

Contemporary Authors

Contemporary Literary Criticism

Contemporary Novelists

A Handbook of American Literature

Contemporary Women Philosophers

Oxford Companion to American Literature

Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature

Twentieth Century Authors

Thanks to Michael Hardy for the lists above. I put quote marks around those sentences where I have copied some of his words introducing or explaining the lists.

Early on Buridan said to either produce cites or leave his deletion in place. The cites are here and if honors his word and is at all gracious, he'll restore the links himself. SteveWolfer 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the list above is more than adequate to demonstrate that she is not a philosopher, but is one author amongst many, as I noted before you can find the same sort of list of books for Snoopy or Moby Dick. That is why the standards of inclusion are written, to differentiate between Snoopy, Moby Dick, Ayn Rand.... and philosophy. --Buridan 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From Stanford to Harvard - I've listed 10 university professors of philosophy who consider Rand an important philosopher. SteveWolfer 22:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

the gentleman from stanford is a self acclaimed public intellectual associated with the hoover institution... not a philosopher as best as i can tell. the harvard you mention is the name of a law and policy journal, not a philosophy journal. this is the whole point... you are not differentiating philosophy from other disciplines or interests. I'm not going through the whole list, but i suspect it won't be as strong as it appears on first sight. --Buridan 23:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you didn't even go through those two very well, much less the whole list. Tibor R. Machan, Ph.D. (b. 18 March 1939), is professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University, holds the R. C. Hoiles Professorship of Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics at Chapman University in Orange, California.

Machan is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Machan is also an adjunct faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Author of more than one hundred scholarly papers and more than thirty books. He was a visiting professor at the United States Military Academy (West Point) in 1992–1993. I pulled all of this directly from his Wikipedia page.

As you can see, Machan is a philosopher and having an intellectual, political association doesn't change that.

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy's interest comes from Rand's writing on law as it relates to legal philosphy arising from philosphy proper.

Here's another one. Wayne A. Davis, Ph.D. - Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department, received Ph.D. from Princeton in 1977.

His research interests are centered in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, epistemology, and logic, and are focused mainly on the nature of mental states (particularly belief, desire, and thought) and the concept of meaning. Professor Davis has taught at UCLA (1976), Rice (1977), Washington University (1978), and Georgetown. (1979-Present). He has been Department Chair since 1990, and Faculty Senate President since 2001. He served as Executive Faculty Chair, and was a member of the Council of Deans, from 1994 to 1997.

Professor Davis is the author of An Introduction to Logic (Prentice-Hall, 1986), Implicature (Cambridge, 1998), Meaning, Expression, and Thought (Cambridge, 2003), Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference (Oxford, 2005), plus articles on logic, philosophy of science, epistemology, philosophical psychology, and philosophy of language in Philosophical Review, Mind, Philosophical Studies, Noûs, Linguistics and Philosophy and other journals. He is a member of the editorial board of Philosophical Studies and Philosophical Inquiry. All of this taken from the Georgetown University web site.

At this point a rational person would have to question your confusing Rand with Snoopy. SteveWolfer 00:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

nah, i don't think the harvard counts, it isn't a philosophy journal, and i'm quite skeptical of Machan still, having not heard of any major work of his. it seems like his fame and reputation might arise from non-philosophical means. However even if you counted rand as a philosopher amongst these esteemed philosophers, her work is not on the same level as the rest of the works in this list. that is why we have a standard for inclusion. the work you want to post is not a significant work of philosophy if it is even philosophy at all. in any case, my argument, i think you'll see was whether the whole of the field recognizes any book as of merit to discuss and if they do, then it is included. the book you want to post has 2 citations in the philosophers index. it isn't a major work, or a significant work. indeed to post it here amongst significant works seems to be a npov violation. in short, none of the 10 people you mentioned have mentioned your book. the journal that published a review of it is not highly regarded. of the journals that you list only 3 or 4 are going to be universally considered philosophy. it is unclear to me why you persist in this argument other than you want to get your way. it does not seem that this book should be in the list. it is precisely the same sort of book as moby dick or snoopy comics. it is a classic book in its genre. it's just not a classic work of philosophy. many philosophers cite non-philosophical works, as i demonstrated with the moby dick example. that philosophers deal with it doesn't make it philosophy. if philosophers deal with it in significant numbers and produce significant amounts of scholarship surrounding it, then it is clearly philosophy. --Buridan 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here's a very basic test: is it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the pre-eminent (and constantly updated) reference for all things philosophical? That would seem to qualify as a Wikipedia reliable source. For all the supposed citations that desciples of Rand/Objectivism may posit as "proof" of their philosophical credentials, there's nary a mention of Ayn Rand in the SEP. A book called Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand is listed in the Bibliography under "Feminism Approaches" but never actually referenced in the article.--Leflyman^Talk 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediation

it is my position that non-philosophy should not be added to a philosophy list. it is also my position that the current list needs a rubric for inclusion that excludes non-philosophy. it is my position that philosophers know what philosophy is and is not, though individual philosophers may use non-philosophy texts. the current list of publications of philosophy are all philosophy books. the book being added is non-philosophy and ideological. the path to resolve this is to define an adequate standard for inclusion that includes philosophy and excludes non-philosophy. that my colleague wants the book to be philosophy should be dismissed. that the argument about parallel books, snoopy, etc., he finds insulting, is problematic, and i apologize, but the argument is valid and holds. personally, i think putting any text that is not broadly supported as philosophy by philosophers on this page is likely a sort of promotion, which seems to me to be a npov issue. --Buridan 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Buridan's argument is fatally flawed. He states, "it is my position that non-philosophy should not be added to a philosophy list". Of course. I assume we ALL agree on that! He goes on to say that this book is "non-philosophy and ideological". His claim that it is non-philosophy is nonsense and easily disproved.

His statement that it is "ideological" makes no sense. That word is defined as "concerned with ideas. a set of beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system". Well, that pretty much describes a large portion of many philosophical works. This book has but one intension - to address the problem of universals - and that is what it does.

I have in front of me a copy of Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy" which is linked to from the Epistemology section (and rightly so). I also have a copy of Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". As I read them, it is clear that nearly ANYONE reading these two books would find a strong similarity in style, subject matter, and the level of quality.

If anyone wants to type in a short quote (say a paragraph or so) from Russell's readily available, wonderful, little book, I'll try to reply with a more or less matching quote from Rand's book. It will be obvious at that point that it IS philosophy. Just choose the quote from the area of Universals.

There is only one non-npov at work here and it not coming from me. This is a serious work of philosophy from a recognized philosopher. It is a work on epistemology and introduces new approaches to that most important topic of Universals. Those links should be restored. SteveWolfer 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

it is not flawed. there is one proof that it is philosophy and that it is used by philosophers in philosophy journals. if it is used by philosophers in non-philosophy journals that speaks to its status. there is an easy way to test if it is cited by philosophers in philosophy journals and that is to check the philosopher's index. It has 2 citations of this book. Almost any other book on the list will have more, some even into the tens of thousands. as i noted in other places, other books of non-philosophy have more citations. style does not matter. topic does not matter. what matters is whether the book is or is not philosophy.... I proposed a standard of inclusion that says that until it reaches a certain point of use by philosophers, it is not philosophy. It has not reached that point. If you want to argue that there should be a different model of inclusion, please do. However, make sure that that model of inclusion also excludes non-philosophy. I suggest that it is likely that any standard for inclusion that includes this book will include a substantial portion of non-philosophy. However, I could be wrong. --Buridan 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is such a heated (or lengthy) argument. The top of the book list gives the criteria for something being included. If a philosophy book is worthy of a wikipedia article, it should meets at least one of those criteria. In this case, the book is an introduction and kind of a topic creator. Case closed. uriah923^(talk) 21:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make ultra-strict rules for inclusion... you should call this list "List of renowned publications in philosphy" or something. A true list of philosophy publications would include any and all books that are even remotely considered philosphy. Only allowing "mainstream accepted" philosphy books would, technically, be considered non-neutral. As with Uriah, I really don't see why this is such a big deal. Sorry, this really isn't the normal way I mediate issues, but this is a content dispute that really doesn't need a mediator. Compromise or bicker for eternity. Thank you. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the book meets several of the existing criteria for inclusion. If Buridan proposes and gets a consensus for different inclusion rules, its a new ball game, but until then it is a valid link. SteveWolfer 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked for mediation since I wanted to follow Wiki policy and felt the exchanges on this page did contain too much 'bickering' as User 'Prophet Wiz' pointed out above. I made a formal request for the mediation. But opening a section called "mediation" here wasn't my doing. I had asked for it to take place on the mediator's talk page. I'm still hoping to have some mediation if it would be helpful. SteveWolfer 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I opened it here because this is where it is supposed to happen. In any case, the book doesn't meet the current criteria either. It doesn't introduce a topic as listed. it is inserted under epistemology, yet it is not an introduction to epistemology. it is on face value an attempt to reintroduce concepts that have found disuse, no? which of the current criteria does it meet? as it won't meet my standard. now, if you create a new subtopic like objectivism, then perhaps it could be included there as that would be the category for it. it would not be confusing to people looking for the philosophical topic of epistemology. it would not be certifying it as a book of note in epistemology, which it clearly is not. it would only certify that it is a book in the objectivist canon. --Buridan 00:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is part of the Science Pearls Project, with articles for many disciplines. Unfortunately the coodinator of that Project has not been active on WP since April and seems unlikely to comment on this issue. The idea was to have publications that have had a significant influence on the discipline. Let me try to mediate, although that is probably as Margaret Thatcher once said like walking in the middle of the road. You get hit by both sides. Anyway, here goes:-

• Buriden. I think you are over strident about what is philosophy and what is not. Philosophy is a broad church. I think Rand is a philosopher. The question is whether she is a good one. I will not address that and I suggest neither of you do, as it should now be for other philosophers to come in and comment. It certainly seems she is not mainstream and that many philosophers hate her with a passion. You would help your case if you used capital letters appropriately to make your comments more readable. Until more philosophers join the debate, I think your comments do not carry too much weight.
• SteveWolfer. You are rather naive to think that adding a book by Rand to this page would not cause at least a minor fire storm. You are also over strident. Is "totally flawed" appropriate? You seem to know the book, but are you a philosopher? Would you accept what appears to be a compromise from Buriden and include it under a new heading of "objectivism"? I do not think you have been able to demonstrate its importance to be listed where you originally put it.
• Conclusion. I think the compromise should be agreed to. Otherwise, in spite of my criticism of Buriden, I think that importance has not been sufficiently demonstrated for its inclusion in this article and that SteveWolfer should aim to add something more to WP about the book elsewhere.
• OK, now boths sides can run me down. --Bduke 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the mediation. I promise not to run you down :-)

I understand and agree with keeping books out of the list that:

• are not epistemology or
• are not philosophy or
• aren't written by a philosopher or
• don't have significant value to offer in epistemology.

Without that kind of filtering Snoopy could indeed end up there. But this book does meet ALL of those criteria. I would suggest our mediation focus on those items (do they describe a book worthy of the list?, and, does this book meet those critera?)

I believe I can demonstate all of the above. But in the interests of making this more palatable for those who don't like Rand, my suggestion for a compromise would be to restore the link, but marked as in dispute. Perhaps with a comment like this, "(This publication's significance is in dispute)", on the hyperlink. SteveWolfer 02:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

objectivism is fine for a category in philosophy where this book can go. if you don't agree, then i don't think it should go here. so far, you are the books only advocate. --Buridan 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

the other real option that we have is to get rid of the listing and transform it into a category. there is no reason to have a listing like this unless it is canonical in some way. if it is not going to be canonical to what is philosophy, then a category functions better because people can tag 'snoopy' as philosophy until someone else removes the tag.--Buridan 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest caution on this. It is true that this page is different from the others in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project in terms of number of publications and being the only one in the humanities. However many people have been involved in this page and you should wait until some of them come here. You and SteveWolfer are the only two people argueing. Also not all publications on the list have a WP article. Steve, what is wrong with Buridan's compromise? Buridan, what is wrong with Steve's compromise? Surely you can agree on one of them. --Bduke 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

well, for one, i don't think that he can prove the criteria that he thinks he can to my satisfaction. if it can't meet my satisfaction, then to me it is unclear to what extent it is proven at all. secondly, if the book is not philosophy, which is likely given my definitions, then it doesn't really belong here. we could just as easily have a page of 'publications in objectivist philosophy' with a note that says '*not philosophy'. The work in qurstion doesn't really belong on this page at all as best as i can tell. my solution was to make a category that allows this work to fit. his suggestion is to ignore the significance of the other works and to put a minor work(at best) stridently next to some of the giants in the field. in my mind, this raises the work's status immensely and unwarrantedly (which i think is just what mr. wolfer wants to do). this would a. confuse people who are new to philosopy and b. cause people familiar with philosophy to be more skeptical about wikipedia than they already are. however, in comparison to other works of objectivism, i'm sure that this work is a fine example and thus, in its own category, those that are interested in this somewhat obscure topic could still find it, no one would be confused about quality, and no one would be given more reason to question the list.--Buridan 11:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

as for categorizing the content, it seems only 3 people have worried about this page for over a week, thus be bold could as well be a guiding principle. we delisted the list of humanists and categorized.--Buridan 11:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry I couldn't help more... content disputes isn't really what I can decide here... I can only deal with behaviour and such. Does anyone object to me closing the case page for the Mediation Cabal, and you can continue your compromising without external help? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 07:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Buridan is very clear about one thing. He sees himself as the sole decider of truth in this issue. He says, "if it can't meet my satisfaction, then to me it is unclear to what extent it is proven at all." Then he goes on to say, "secondly, if the book is not philosophy, which is likely given my definitions, then it doesn't really belong here." and, "The work in qurstion doesn't really belong on this page at all as best as i can tell." This goes to the very heart of Wikipedia's non-NPOV policy. That attitude goes along with his unilateral removal not only of the link from the Epistemology section, but the removal of the categories from the book's article. Even the Library of Congress has it categorized as "Philosophy" but Buridan, by personal decree, says it is no more philosopy than Snoopy.

I see no balance - no fairness - no give and take. He can remove what others have entered, but they can't restore what he has deleted. He doesn't appear to be open to any form of proof.

• I offered to post, here in discussion, a side by side comparsion between Russell's book which is without dispute a proper link and Rand's book.
• I supplied the names of journals
• I supplied the names of colleges
• I listed distinguished philosophers that consider Rand to be a major philosopher
• I named encyclopedias listing Rand as a philosopher

But he doesn't accept those as meeting his standards.

He says that I appear to be the books only supporter, as if that made it okay to delete the link, and ignoring the fact that he appears to be the only force at work deleting the link. He worries that the list would be desecrated with addition of this link, but then he threatens to delete the entire list. Is that the proper way to respect the efforts of all of those who have created the list or those that are using it?

Because the Humanities in general and Philosophy in particular do not have an agreed upon core set of beliefs as do the hard sciences, and because even the most basic concepts going back as far a ancient Greece are still in debate, we must be more tolerant and more inclusive. I have offered evidence, he has offered his personal opinion. Throwing out a link because of personal dislikes violates NPOV. SteveWolfer 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That also goes against WP:OWN. Unless he has some sort of agreement upon his criteria for inclusion, it's not really valid criteria, just his preference. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

my position as stated above is pretty clear. It is not my position that i am arguing. It is a general position of a field of study that numbers around 10k people of which do not see Rand as much of anything in philosophy to the best of my ability to measure. This book has 2 citation in philosophy journals. I looked it up in the philosopher's index. Many fiction novels have more citations. What Steve is arguing is that Rand is a philosopher and not whether this book meets the criteria that I have proposed or the criteria on the page. I am not threatening to delete anything, that would be a matter of discussion. But removing the list and migrating the content to a category system works very well for this sort of content. If we cannot use some standard to differentiate what is philosophy from what is not philosophy then the tag-type categorization is the best way to handle it. Of course, I worry about those things Steve, the question is why you don't recognize my worries as valid and why you aren't willing to compromise. You want x to be y because that is your evidence. I say it is not y from my evidence. I put forth two compromises and both times you rejected them without consideration because you want things to be your way. Given your fairly recent history with wikipedia, perhaps the best way to resolve this issue is to put it on hold for a few months and allow opinions to be posted that supports one position or another. We can wait until a consensus develops around the article one way or another. If you gain support of the philosophy project of second life to add the book here, then it should be added, but that will take time. Until you do have consensus for the addition then, it should not be added. When all else fails defer to the broader community. --Buridan 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For my money, lists such as this are NPOV traps. It is not possible to come up with criteria that will ac hive general agreement, and so the list will be a continual source of conflict - the present is a case in point. Another example: the second criteria - built into the template - is quite inappropriate here; another: the distinction between Continental and Analytic philosophy is increasingly irrelevant. I think that lists such as this would be better removed; the task they might perform is better served by Category:Philosophical literature. This cat ought contain all such items for which there are Wikipedia articles. Time spent on this pointless debate would be better spent on improving the cat, or improving the article on Rand's book. Banno 23:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Buridan. I think you are right that we should sit back and see what happens. We are not writing an encyclopedia overnight. However, Steve, would you accept putting the book in the new section as suggested by Buridan? That keeps it in the article and it may draw attention to it. Someone in a month or so may suggest moving it. Banno, it is good to see someone else joining in. A category here might be the most appropriate, partly because there are so many entries and most do have an article. This is not the case with the other Science Pearls articles. Why not start the category but leave the list for now? --Bduke 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cat already exists - Sorry about the curly parenthesis. A quick look will show that the cat is already fairly substantial. In comparison, this list is a POV fork ;-) Banno 00:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So far as this being related to Science pearls, perhaps this list should be re-named "Philosophy of science publications"? But again, i think that the project is misguided; resources would be better spent on fixing cats. Banno 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be only two people who feel very strongly on this. Buridan and Me. I'm comfortable waiting for a consensus to form, or for a change in the rules of inclusion that would offer more clarity - with the link in place. Buridan has not been willing to accept either of the compromises that I've offered. He keeps offering categories as an alternative, but he has deleted the categories from the article as well as the link in the list. I have the book in front of me and I have a copy of Bertand Russell's Problems of Philosophy in front of me (which is in the epistemology section of the list). Anyone spending 5 minutes browsing the two of them will come to the same conclusion I've come to - that link should not have been deleted. Again, I have given sufficient evidence to support the link and I'm willing to accept an "in dispute" disclaimer on the link. And I'm comfortable with finding a better way of vetting inclusions, And I'd be happy to offer suggestions in that area. But until there is a change in the rules, the link should remain (with a disclaimer). This is a reasonable request. Buridan is deleting the link (and the categories) based upon his own, personal criteria instead of the one used to establish the list. I'm asking him to get his criteria accepted before using it to delete the link. SteveWolfer 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

no, i have not done that. i rejected it the first few times on basis of the current criteria. then i proposed criteria that could be operationalized so that you could understand more clearly what is and is not philosophy. bertrand russell's book is bordering on popular philosophy also, but it is a classic of philosophy because it introduces a few importantant ideas and has been used in hundreds if not thousands of classes. rands book is a popular literature book, it is not a classic of philosophy and we would be lucky to document its use in one class. you think they 'look the same', but they are not the same at all. one text introduces classic questions of philosophy to the novice reader. the other does not. kindly stop your ad hominens until you can tell the difference between what russell is doing and what rand is doing. --Buridan 03:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I stated that your criteria for deleting the links were improper - that's not ad hominen.

Banno makes a good point. This kind of list will always be a trap for non-NPOV editing. Improvements in the rules for inclusion could help. But the bigger part of the problem - which may never go away - is an unwillingness to be more tolerant in a an area of knowledge that will always have controversial differences. It will come up when trying to determine what rules to use, it will come up when assigning articles to categories. I don't have an answer for that problem. SteveWolfer 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

we do have an answer to that problem, just operationalize and make measurable, 'what is philosophy?' we do that by setting a reasonably high citation count for a book in philosophy so that we exclude non-philosophy. if something gets 100 citations in the philosopher's index, it can be added, if it does not, then it isn't. that is a very easy way to measure whether something may be philosophy or not. there is no disputing that if it gets significant attention by philosophers, then it is probably philosophy. however, at what point do we distinguish classics of government from philosophy, etc. is another question. because the magna carta or bill of rights certainly get 100+ citations and it is unclear whether they should be on this list or not. --Buridan 03:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We are repeating ourselves and this doesn't feel like it is going anywhere. Let me just ask you straight out. If I add that link, with a disclamer, will you delete it? SteveWolfer 04:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

if you put it under epistemology yes i will delete it or perhaps i'll just move it to objectivism/objectivist philosophy, if you create the topic objectivist philosophy or objectivism and put it there, no i will not delete it. however, the operating principle is that you should not add it until consensus is reached that it is philosophy of some sort, which alas we do not have. --Buridan 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• See my comment about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the prior subsection. As this is Wikipedia, editors should not need to create new, exclusionary criteria. The basic standard is this: can a Reliable Source be found which makes the claim we wish to include verifiable? Both the positive or negative proposition is in effect; if such a claim can not be found in a reliable source-- e.g. "Ayn Rand's X book is an important and recognised philosophical text"-- then it doesn't belong. What this list article needs, IMHO, is perhaps a clearer description of what "counts" as a reliable source in this specialised context. (And citations of such sources for possible disputed entries). --Leflyman^Talk 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names, purpose and criteria

As I mentioned above, the criteria that books be included if they are a "Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly" (my emphasis) is quite inappropriate for a list of philosophy books.

This would be fine if, for example, this page were titled "List of publications in philosophy that influenced science". But it isn't. Given that the title implies that this is a general list of philosophical publications, arguably the template that provides this wording assumes scientism, and as such is POV. It assumes that the purpose of philosophy is to be the handmaiden of science.

One solution would be to remove the template, and make this a general list of philosophical publications. Another solution would be to change the name of this list to something more restricted and appropriate.

It should be noted that if the template is removed, then the suggestion that the criteria for inclusion be citations in the philosopher's index would need to be re-considered. The definition of Philosophy is not so simple as the definition of physics or chemistry. The general reader would expect to find books by Rand, Ken Wilbur and the like in such a list. One might get around this by renaming this article a list of publications in academic philosophy.

Again, the list is superfluous, since there is already a comprehensive catalogue at category:Philosophical literature; but there are those amongst us who seem to enjoy these sort of compilations.

So the alternatives are:

1. leave the name, remove the template and include Rand
2. change the name to reflect the selection criteria in the template and exclude Rand
3. use the philosopher's index, change the name, remove the template, and exclude Rand.
4. delete the article as a POV fork.

Banno 22:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I support 3 or 4 more than 1 or 2. --Buridan

There is no reason why you can not add extra criteria as we do over on the similar chemistry list, or even alter the criteria. If you do any of the above 4 choices you need to remove this page from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls by editing that page. I think removing it from that propect is appropriate. There should not be a humanities section in Science project. --Bduke 23:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad Banno opend a new section, especially with the word "Purpose" in it - that ought to help is in making a determination on criteria. I too noticed the word "scientific" in one of the criteria and thought it inappropriate. And the concept, "Breakthough" doesn't work well for philosophy where we like to chew on some things for centuries.

He says, "The general reader would expect to find books by Rand, Ken Wilbur and the like in such a list" - Yes, that would be a purpose of the list. If I'm interested in epistemology I want to see a long enough selection to be able to click lots of different links and pick and choose from all the different schools of thought.

But then he says, "One might get around this (meaning exclude Rand and Wilber) by..." And that is the problem. We should not throw out a school of philosophy because it isn't "Analytic" or because it isn't PC with all academics. To do so defeats the purpose the readers bring to the page. Wilber drives me nuts with his mysticism and eastern approaches but his work in attempting to create a framework that might unify many different kinds of 'ism's' is a striking idea and I was tickled to see him bring Koestler's concept of the Holon back. Rand would have hated him, but they should both be included. That's really been my only point. If you rename the list something like "academic philosophy publications" than you will need a list of all philosophy publications that points to that list and to other POV lists. SteveWolfer 00:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

but we should also be aware that some of this work fits into other categories better than philosophy, like mysticism for wilber, though actually he gets a fair number of citations depending on the work as philosophy of religion is a rather active area of enquiry. --Buridan 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to express a preferred outcome for this article, since I have no use for such lists; I'll leave it to the authors. Both Wilbur and Rand are crap, but I can see no simple way of ruling them out; perhaps one only sees the problems with their work after one develops a critical eye; and that is one of the reasons for doing philosophy. Just as one does not learn to appreciate literature without reading a few pot-boilers, one needs exposure to bad philosophy in order to appreciate the good stuff. Banno 01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But, you have to consider that this is not the "list of publications in philosophy that some editors of this article consider good philosophy and the only worthwhile philosphy around".... we're just doing philosophy... not good philosophy, bad philosophy, weird philosophy, crap philosophy, or any other adjective. Excluding the "bad philosophy" is working towards a biased point-of-view in this list. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

the thing is... there is no category of 'bad philosophy' per se. bad philosophy is not philosophy. even anti-philosophy is philosophy, but there is no philosophy that is bad philosophy, because the criterial that are necessary for that which contributes to the 'love of wisdom' cannot have a 'bad', as best as i can tell. you can be illogical, and have a hundred other qualities, but as soon as the body of philosophers don't see your work as philosophy, then it is not philosophy. --22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Banno 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

as soon as the body of philosophers don't see your work as philosophy, then it is not philosophy.

This is a circular definition. — goethean ॐ 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So what is to be the consensus? which of the four options can you agree on? Banno 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If those are the only options, then number 1 - the only one that keeps the list and isn't exclusionary. SteveWolfer 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm closing the medcab case. Sorry, but this isn't really in my scope.. I can't really tell you what's best for Wikipedia, I can only help you find it. If you need to tell me something, make note on my talk page. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:19, 23 July 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 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed resolution

I propose marking those works that are no agreed to be works of philosophy with the letter D for disputed. It is pretty clear that there is a dispute about these works inside academia and outside it also. It seems to me to be a reasonable solution. It conveys the position that I think needs to be conveyed because it is the case, unlike general inclusion which would include it and not indicate that many people think it should not be included.--Buridan 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. It adds value to list. Readers are forewarned that a publication may or may not belong here. It is an even-handed approach as well. Hopefully it will at least partially reduce the contention surrounding controversial entries. I would only request that the wording be changed somewhat on the explanation of the letter D. I suggest the following: "[ D ] notes that the publication's inclusion in this list has been disputed." After all, anyone that disputes a publication can state their reasons in the discussion area. SteveWolfer 17:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

i think D has to refer to its nature as philosophy or not as that is what is disputed. --Buridan 21:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the heart of the dispute is about inclusion or not; which is a wider category that includes 'not philosophy'. There ARE reasons behind a dispute other than "it is not philosophy." SteveWolfer 21:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

the inclusion dispute from my point of view is one of is or is not philosophy. Amongst the community of philosophers, very few label any of her works philosophy as best as I can tell, and the ones that do are no where near the core or top of the profession. There are other reasons for things to be disputed, but this is the one that needs to be indicated. if you don't like D for dispute we can use PnP for Probably not Philosophy.--User:buridan 02:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

PnP wouldn't work since that represents only one side of the dispute and wouldn't be even-handed. The letter D is fine. And I'll accept the wording you have at this time. SteveWolfer 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a template for something described as "dubious", perhaps a template for each [A], [C], and [D] would be helpful here. In each case, it would lead to clearer identification, and maybe even some movement towards getting those publications that are disputed into a discussion for consensus either way... - Sam 17:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination) Kappa 08:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The criteria for entries

Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. --Bduke 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed for deletion

I have removed the 'prod' notice that was placed on the article by User:Buridan. They are not to instigate a discussion. In any event, since some of the other "Lists of important publications in .." were put to AfD (and not deleted), this really should go to AfD. However, I urge you to not do this yet, for two reasons:- (1) the holioday season is upon us and many editors will not be watching WP; (2) it would be nice to discuss my proposal immediately above on improving the template and see whether this can lead to better criteria for removing entries or keeping entries on this page. Deletion of one of these lists of important publications will have effects on the others. --Bduke 03:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

prod is used when you don't think that anyone will dispute the proposal. if you are disputing the proposal for some reason, that is fine. but if you don't have a reason, then the template should stay. the template should stay in any case, to see if anyone is actually paying any attention. --Buridan 13:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In your edit summary you called on people to discuss the deletion - "proposed for deletion, please discuss". That is not assuming that nobody will dispute the proposal. Once the "prod" tag is removed, even if no reason is given, it should not be put back. I did give a reason. I said "If you really want to delete this it really should go to AfD but please leave it until after the holiday period when people can give it more attention". I added more here. I do dispute this deletion. This list is one of a series of lists. I think these lists are valuable but the criteria for inclusion should be tightened. Two of these lists have recently been put to AfD, one of them twice, and in all three cases, the debate was closed with no consensus so they were kept. These were the lists for Biology and Computer Science, by the way, in case you missed the debates. There are arguments for deletion and arguments for keeping and I'm sure the same will occur if you put this list to AfD. If you decide to do this, please wait until after the New Year. You can already see less activity as the holiday season for many of us approaches. I still welcome comment from you on changes to the template that gives the criteria for these lists. --Bduke 23:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, you prod and then people discuss and if there is a dispute, then it needs to go to afd. that is the way it works. --Buridan 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion that way. It does not mention discussion. It talks of "uncontested", "deletion after 5 days", and if contested just remove the tag, stating a reason. You do not need consensus to remove the tag and the deleting admin does not need to see consensus to delete; they just do it. I note that 5 days from you taging it covers the Christmas holiday period pretty well. Not a good time for a discussion. Please leave the Afd to January. --Bduke 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't actually going to afd it any time soon. it probably should stand, but for reasons completely unrelated to the other ones. this one is fairly indiscriminant.--Buridan 03:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buridan, stop please

I don't agree with the deletion proposal and I don't agree with Buridan's removal of links to Ayn Rand, her philosophy, or her works from the various lists from which Buridan has removed them. The Transhumanist (AWB) 04:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

The change to "List of important Publications in philosophy" was done some time ago, along with similar changes to all the articles under the Science Pearls Project after this change was a clear conclusion of the AfD debate on List of important publications in biology even though the conclusion of the debate was "no consensus". There should be consensus for all these articles. I'm not sure when the name was changed back. --Bduke 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the change to "List of important Publications in philosophy" was done by me in October. The move back was done without discussion and without consensus. --Bduke 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Works of Rand

By what standard are the works of Ayn Rand suitable for inclusion on this list? I don't dispute that she was a philosopher, and her writings were obviously of a philosophic character (to say otherwise is simply a smear), but her influence as a philosopher is creeping at best. What's more, most who like the works of Ayn Rand probably haven't even read any of the works listed here. Would anyone object if I were to remove them? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By what standards? That they are philosophy publications? That they meet WP standards for an entry? I began studying philosophy, decades ago, by reading from the 'Harvard Five Foot Shelf' - many of the books in that collection are listed here - and - I also like the works of Rand. So, your characterizations felt condescending - may I ask if that was that intentional? Her influence is as a philosopher is actually increasing in many areas - despite a hostility to her works that one frequently finds in some academic quarters. To answer your question, Yes, I would object to their removal. Steve 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"That they are philosophy publications" and your personal anecdote are neither Wikipedia standards nor the criteria given in this list's introduction. Could you show how her works meet those? Also, I meant no condescension in what I said; it is a simple assertion of a matter of fact. I gather that you disagree with what I said, but try not to read too much into it. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Simões. The tone of my reply was a little snippy and the content not as clear as it should have been. Let me start over.

1) My personal anecdote wasn't offered as a source. I was addressing your remark that those who like Rand's work don't read any of the other the other books on the list. I was just saying, "Hey, not true - I read and enjoy both."

2) I'm not clear what you refered to when you said, "it is a simple assertion of fact."

3) Just so I'm clear, the "hostility" I refer to wasn't meant to imply that you are "hostile", it was a reference to an antagonism between Rand and some members of the academy which has been documented elsewhere here on WP.

•  ::::4)I hope you can see that WP:AGF doesn't apply to my remarks (as clarified) - I was up way too late last night.

5)The issue of including some of her works on this list has already been fought long and hard with many sources cited. You can see what I'm referring to at the following sections above - Revert Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; standards for inclusion; mediation; Names, purpose and criteria; proposed resolution; Proposed for deletion; Buridan, stop please.

6)A compromise was reached (see above) where the works were left in place, but a 'D' was placed after each entry designating a footnote stating that Rand was actively being disputed as a philosopher.

I hope I've done a better job this time of explaining why I'd object to the removal of these works. Best wishes, Steve 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I buy this compromise. It's more than ridiculous to say her works aren't philosophical in nature, and I question the qualifications of anyone who thinks such a claim is even prima facie defensible. I'm contesting her works' inclusion here because there's no standard by which they can be considered important, influential, etc. in the history of philosophy. There are plenty of "streams" in academic philosophy. Analytical philosophers (especially ones who self-identify as such) often do not take continental philosophy very seriously, but it's still important enough that every North American philosophy department has at least a "token" continental philosopher in its ranks. American pragmatism is "stream" nestled somewhere between analytical and continental schools. Rand doesn't even meet this standard. She's comparable to Ken Wilber or Robert Pirsig: there's a small, lay following but hardly a blip on the academic radar. And unless we're going to go by book sales to the general public (which will make for a very different list), there's absolutely no justification for including her works here. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: In the interest of moderate inclusionism and a more sensical compromise, how about we replace the "D" indicator with an "L," which will stand for "Influence is primarily found among lay audiences." We can then also throw in the more popular works of Wilber, Pirsig, etc., too. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the inclusion approach. I think that's important for Wikipedia. But there are two important differences between Rand's works and those of Wilber or Pirsig. Rand wrote serious philosophy addressing issues like the problem of universals. But for many different reasons she estranged herself from the academic mainstream (and others). Her are just some of those factors:

• She wasn't credentialed (no Ph.D.) and never worked as a professor
• She was a woman (not an insignificant fact back in the fifties and sixties)
• she was assertive and abrasive in her manner
• She advocated Egoism
• She was an athiest
• She advocated Capitalism
• She ridiculed aspects of academic philosophy - as an outsider
• She wrote for the public rather than for the academics and academic journals
• She was massively successful

These all contributed to a strong, emotional dislike and an out-of-proportion negative reponse to her work. But in recent years academicians are starting to see value in her work despite the dislike they may have for her style or approach. Here are two quotes from articles critical to significant aspects of Rand's philosophy. Each of the authors holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy and one was for many years a professor of philosophy. Neither is a 'Randian' - Neither is a 'Supporter' or 'Syncophant' - read their opinion of Rand as a philosopher.

"The author must admit that he so often finds the stately elegance, the extraordinary depth of courteous analysis, and most especially the profound temperament of reason exhibited on every page of the Nichomachean Ethics a welcome relief to the incessant bombast and continuous venting of Randian rage. None the less, the author considers the objectivist ethics a most immense achievement, the study of which is vastly more fruitful than any other in contemporary thought." Jack Wheeler, Ph.D. in Philosophy, University of Southern California - taken from the article Rand and Aristotle, Den Uyl and Rasmussen, ed., The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), p. 96.

"There are many interesting and helpful points in Ayn Rand's philosophical writings that I have not mentioned. I have been guided by a desire to state clearly my reasons for disagreeing with her central argument concerning life and the theory of value. I believe that I have shown reason to reject her argument that man's life is the standard of value. If, however, one respects and admires Ayn Rand's works as I do, one feels a special desire to point out that reasoned criticism is a high complement to pay to the work of a philosopher. When criticizing the work of most philosophers, such a disclaimer is unneccessary, but Rand has been treated with such predjudice and disrespect by most intellectuals that I feel it is important to make it clear that my disagreement is not of that order. I have been moved and instructed by her fiction and have read her philosophy with profit." This is from J. Charles King, former professor of philosophy at Pomona College, Claremonte, California, from the article, Life and the Theory of Value: The Randian Argument Reconsidered,Den Uyl and Rasmussen, ed., The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), p. 120.

There is a small but growing ground-swell of appreciation for Rand's work inside of the academy. I can give you quotes from dozen's of philosophy professors. But even if that weren't the case there are two considerations. 1.) The academy isn't ALL of the universe of philosophy, 2.) Wikipedia's WP policy is still our ruling influence as editors - not our personal judgements. Steve 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost none of the reasons you give explain why her work is ignored in academia today, but that doesn't really matter. For the purposes of this list, it is irrelevant why she has almost no influence among academic philosophers (even if they're bad reasons). That a minute handful of academic philosophers think she's the greatest ethicist of the 20th century is also irrelevant. The point is she has almost no influence outside a considerable lay following. And if we go by book sales, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance trumps every Rand work on this list according to Amazon rankings. I'm sorry you don't think this book is serious philosophy, but some people obviously do.

If Rand's influence is "small but growing," then the pertinent point is that it's small. There's really no way around this. I still stand behind my compromise proposal. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 05:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are giving personal opinions, raising straw men, talking amazon statistics, and implying that your opinions get to count as some kind of standard. I'm providing respected, valid, verifiable sources. That is the difference in our approach. If you believe that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance belongs on this list, fine, provide sources. I will never delete an entry provided with a respected, valid, verifiable source.

Let me put this very simply. WP Policy says you have no right to delete properly sourced entries. Steve 06:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not speaking simply enough for me. This article has no sources. Anyone is warranted to wipe the entire thing per WP:CITE. Care to clarify? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict response to Steve) I have two problems with this if I can butt in. (1) Will any publication that is sourced be allowed in? (2) The source has to show notability in general and the more specific criteria on the top of the list. BTW, if all you want is sources then I agree with Simoes that Zen and the AoMM will match Rand, but you could still argue that Rand is better philosophy. The problem is'nt sources. It is what the sources have to demonstrate:-

• That it is a publication in philosophy.
• That it is an important publication.
• That it meets one of the criteria at the top of the list. --Bduke 07:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The source below establishes the publication in philosophy and it meets criteria at the top of the list, but the subjectiveness of 'important' is not likely to be resolved in an area as prone to contention as philosopy. It will make edit warring more likely, put the entire list at risk of being deleted as a whole, and just make it less likely that people will even feel like working together. That is why there are WP guidelines against that kind of naming convention. Steve 07:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wallace Matson, Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley, an Analytic Philosopher who disagrees with part of Rand's epistemology and agrees with much of it and stated that her work was worth serious study. He was referring to Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology which his article was reviewing. The article is entitled, Rand on Concepts'.' The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1986. Steve 07:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I rechecked the article inclusion criteria and didn't see "the work is worth serious study" among them (putting aside the fact that value judgments such as "X is worth studying seriously," strictly speaking, can't be verified). If we can had quotes of every PhD in philosophy listing off everything they find worth serious study, this list would have 100,000 entries. You really seem to be reaching here, on the border of tendentiousness. Finally, I'm really becoming inclined to settle this by wiping the entire article (again, per WP:CITE). If I do that, should I go ahead and agree to your Matson quote so that Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology becomes the only verified "important" publication in philosophy? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I summarized what he said to save typing... hold on and I'll supply a quote for you. Steve 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Introducing the section entitled 'In Praise of Objectivism' Matson says, "I shall point out what I take to be both right and important in the 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.'" (p.22) Following that are slightly over four pages of the major concepts he took to be 'right and important'.

Here is one short example from that section. Referring to Rand's statements that the faculty of concept formation is active, not passive; that concepts are not subjective or arbitrary but are dictated by the nature of things he says, "Rand explains lucidly how this can be so without having to postulate either Platonic Ideas or Aristotelian Forms." After a short quote of her definition of concept formation he states, "The notion of apprehending the particulars subsumed under a concept as its "units" which is "man's distinctive method of cognition" (p. 8) and of measurement (in a very broad sense) as implicit in the unit, are of great interest and and an improvement on other similarity theories, inasmuch as by this means the temptation to explain similarity itself in terms of identity of parts is resisted."

He has a section entitled "Objections to Objectivism" that is about six and a half pages. In the article's conclusion he says, "The foregoing is not, and is not presented as, anything more than a preliminary study of IOE" (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) "Much more needs to be said on all of the topics I have mentioned both in praise and in criticism; and I have omitted consideration of many questions that ought to be of interest..." Whereupon he lists a number of questions. Steve 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories of important publications

Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to the metaphysics section

As Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology has almost nothing to do with epistemology, I moved it to the metaphysics section. It's an ontology book. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content Wipe and AFD Nomination

From WP:CITE:

Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor.

I've done so here. There is just no way the above discussion is going to end in consensus. Even if we were to come to some sort of compromise, it wouldn't matter for the purposes of WP:V. This list is theoretically unverifiable and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science_pearls#Criteria_for_entering_the_lists_and_categories.

I hope that the discussion will help to reach some guidelines that will enable further developing the project. Thanks, APH 09:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Simoes - I don't understand how you are applying that rule. Are you saying, "there is no source that can be cited that would show any one of the publications is about philosophy."? I don't understand what you mean by "theoretically unverifiable". And an online encyclopedia is a good place to have lists of publications by subject matter. Steve 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are no sources at all. This alone licenses anyone to wipe the entire page. My own concern is that there are no sources verifying that any of the list items are important, breakthroughs, etc. And there can be none, no more than there can be a "List of good film actors." Value judgments cannot be verified.Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an important issue for Wikipedia. I agree with what you say about subjective adjectives that make it impossible to mediate contention - like the use of the word 'major' in 'List of major philosophers' or the word 'important' in describing publications. Those words would be helpful in an area where there was no contention. It would let Wikipedia present several lists or categories - one that was just 'notable' entries and another that was 'important' entries - that would be useful to readers of the encyclopedia. But the moment contention arises (valid or not, benignly intended or not) there is no way to resolve the conflict when subjective adjectives are present. But there are some things we can do that keeps us from throwing the baby out with the bath water:

• One is to keep Wikipedia's main purpose more tightly in focus as editors - lists are mostly navigational devices to make available a range of entries for the users (not to settle questions that have to do with the exact intellectual boundaries of an area),
• To be less exclusionary in lists and categories and let the articles carry the full weight of 'correctness' and exclusion or criticism.
• To work to reduce antagonism, expressions of ill will and personal attacks where ever possible since they increase contention levels which is where this whole problem lies.
• To leave the subjective words out of the titles of categories and lists and to provide npov guidelines at the top of the page and to stop anyone that attempt to use the guidelines to generate contention.
• To recognize, as some else pointed out, Boldness is only a virtue here when an edit is NOT objected to - when it is objected to, it is time to work together. Boldness, when misused, becomes Arrogance and just breed contention.
• To rely on respected, valid, verifiable sources - not fight them (they are only needed when someone objects to an entry and they need to be fiercely defended so that contention doesn't destroy the good will and overturn the good efforts. Steve 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - reply to Simoes) You can do what you did only if you are challenging every single entry. Are you challenging Plato, and indeed all the others that have articles on them that assert notability in the article. Only the Rand entry, if memory serves me well, as ever been challenged. The entry has to be challenged before it can be removed. However, my main problem with what you did, is that you did it after putting the article to AfD and that is unacceptable. --Bduke 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

actually, Rand is the only one that found stalwart defenders, people have removed things in the past. --Buridan 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My challenging of it was implicit in my removal of it. However, from WP:V

# Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. [emphasis added]

If you have a problem with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, this isn't the place to bring up your issues concerning them. To propose a change to WP:V and WP:CITE, you should go to their respective talk pages. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have raised this on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. I believe you are being over-strict in interpreting the policy, as "My challenging of it was implicit in my removal of it". It seems to me to be implicit in the policy, or at least the normal expected civil thing to do, to challenge before deleting. We even have a template - {{fact}} for individual claims, as well as templates for the whole article or sections of an article - that does exactly that. If everything that is unsourced was deleted, we would lose half or more of Wikipedia and I am sure anyone who set out to do that would be stopped. However, this list is rather different in some respects, so let us just see how the AfD debate goes. --Bduke 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The {{fact}} template is not applicable when every item is unsourced. Furthermore, I haven't simply swooped in anew and wiped the entire list. This has been a longstanding problem. SteveWolfer continues to make the bizarre claim that the entries are sourced, but there isn't a single reference in the entire article. I'm giving this list until the end of the AFD nomination (I expect there to be a no consensus and therefore keep ruling), whereupon I'll be rewiping the list. I challenge every last entry. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not remember ever saying that all entries are sourced, certainly not 'continues to make' claims like that. I have said two things repeatedly: 1) Sourced entries should not be removed; 2) I (and others) have provided sources for Rand. That is not the same as claiming that all of the entries on all articles, lists or categories are sourced. If I ever made such a statement it certainly is a typo. All entries should be sourced if they are in contention. Your statement that you challenge every last entry is closer akin to vandalism than it is to an honest dispute over any particular entry that lies within your mass deletion. Please don't try to say that I made some bizarre claim which somehow justified your mass deletion. Steve 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to attribute to you the claim that all the entries are sourced. You have, however, incorrectly and repeatedly stated that some are sourced (including when the anon guy went in and removed all the Rand entries). There are no sources in the entire article. Do not label the removal of sourceless content "vandalism" as you have done here. My own reason for challenging all the entries is that it is impossible to verify "importance," that a work is among the "latest and greatest," etc. Verifiability, not truth, is the overall, governing standard for inclusion of content on any Wikipedia article. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Our misunderstanding here is that I thought I was providing sources in answer to requests made on the talk page. And I did provide them, on the talk page. After all, no one has ever placed cites on this list. Part of an understanding to be reached on the criteria might include a sample format and description of the cite - to eliminate that as a problem (it should be made part of CMummert's new 'Inclusion Critera' section - near the bottom of this page.) Steve 22:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "methodology" classification scheme

Someone rightfully pointed out on the AFD page that the methodology classification scheme is especially unverifiable. I've removed it thus. Note that this also means that the "[D]" indicators are gone. Since the only way this article is going to continue to exist is by eschewing "importance" for notability, the Rand stuff is going to have to stay at least by virtue of book sales. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability as the sole criterion

Okay, so I think how we're going to have to do this is by mere notability. That means sheer crap (in some people's views) can be included so long as the work is notable. I propose the following:

Books:
One of the following:

1. Cited in a printed encyclopedia of philosophy (a general, not specialized one), excluding articles on individual philosophers (to avoid cases of their entire corpora being "cited")
2. The encyclopedias themselves
3. Amazon book sales rank of less than 100,000

Articles:

1. Included in at least three printed anthologies (can be specialized) published by academic presses

This will privilege works that have been out for a while (immediate bestsellers excluded), but I think such criteria (or something closely resembling them) are the most workable. As far as I know, the only printed encyclopedias are The Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so that should keep things manageable. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

is that a list of publications in philosophy, or a list of major/important/niftygood publications in philosophy? I am not fine with the sales rank, as it is biased. i would say use the philosopher's index instead. --Buridan 11:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] afd

the afd text instructs us not to remove it until an administrator closed the afd. so don't remove it.--Buridan 11:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I closed it. The table has been removed again. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 13:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But you aren't on the List of administrators, and since there was at least one other user in favor of deleting the article, it seems inappropriate for you to close the afd. I'm going to ask for another opinion at WP:AN/I. CMummert · talk 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There were delete votes, yes, making it not completely in line with the guideline on it, but the impending result was unambiguous enough. Everything else was done correctly, and I think an admin will agree. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

once opened, it is to be closed by an admin, it has to stay on this page until the afd is officially closed. --Buridan 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "sourced" list items

I know it is rather suspicious that anons are coming in and removing entries not to their taste, but they cannot be restored with the argument that they're "sourced." The article has no sources. Anyone doing this should stop and familiarize themselves with WP:CITE. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a way foward, could I suggest that you revert every change (or move here if new) until the AfD is closed with an edit summary saying "Leave as is until AfD is closed" (Yes, I realise there is no policy supporting this, but it may be for the best). After the AfD is closed, I then suggest you move everything in the article that is not a publication that has a WP article to a subpage of this talk page. You can then debate here, first, about the criteria for entries, second, whether the ones with articles in the list should remain there (I suggest leaving them while (1) goes on just so the article has something), and finally debate whether the entries in the sub-page have sufficient notability under the new guidelines to be added back to the main list. In discussing criteria you might want to collaborate with others in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. Other lists need better criteria also and two of them have been to Afd (one twice) with a "no consensus" conclusion. --Bduke 08:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an untenable solution. You are right that it has no support in policy, but the very AFD plate also says, "Please improve the article if possible..." Simões (^talk/_contribs) 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Those deletions most certainly can be restored. Those anons are out of line making deletes. So is anyone else that supports that kind of out of policy action. I will revert every anon deletion of Rand's works as simple vandalism until we have finished with the AfD and until there is a consensus on criteria. And if they continue I'll ask for Admins to do a user check and to block anons temporarily. Simoes, sources have been provided - far more so than others on the list. If there is something wrong with a specific cite, show good faith and fix it (that's what they say at WP:CITE) or provide some guidance as to what is wrong with the cite. Steve 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve, please look at the article and note that there is not a single reference in the entire thing. I'm not sure you understand citation policy. That there are sources "out there" (wherever that is) is insufficient. There needs to be reliable sources in the article text. Please give WP:CITE a good read, especially WP:CITE#How to cite sources. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 09:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put the cite on the page because there is not a single entry with a cite in the list - it just makes the lists two to three times as long. I assumed good faith and supplied information in the discussion (where an informal cite is appropriate). You are acting in bad faith to request a cite on the list page for just Rand entries despite the many sources provided here in the discussion, despite the AfD nomination that you initiated, then attempted to withdraw, despite your deletion of every entry on the page, but only wanting to keep Rand entries off. Steve 09:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no place in Wikipedia policies or guidelines that says supplying sources on a talk page is sufficient (quite the opposite is true; see Wikipedia:List guideline#References for list Items). I removed the Rand entries because they're more frequently challenged than all other entries combined (and there are no references in the article validating their inclusion on the list). I'll be deleting every entry again once the AFD nomination is closed. I haven't done so again for the moment out of courtesy to those viewing the page for the purpose of contributing to the AFD discussion. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop it, you guys. This is completely unproductive. At least wait until the the AfD is closed. But even then, work together to get criteria that you can both agree on. Both of you, please calm down. --Bduke 11:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone reads the arrogant statement above (Simoes, not Bduke). Simoes is going to delete EVERY entry on the list, again. Then, one by one you can try to put them back, but he will delete them again if they aren't sourced just the way he wants. When you get them sourced in the proper style, he still might delete them if he doesn't like the source. He has decided to be the God of all pages he surveys - and to create the rules - and to enforce them. Steve 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

When the AfD expires, the appropriate thing to do is to make a subpage such as Talk:List of publications in philosophy/Sandbox and move the list there. Then items should be returned to the article a few at a time. Before they can be returned, it is necessary to agree on objective criteria for inclusion. Bduke has already pointed this out.

Consensus, not unanimous approval, will determine what stays on the article and what doesn't. Repeated removal of material against consensus is vandalism. There is no policy that requires inline sources must be attached to everything in a list, so long as good-faith challenges are addressed. I don't see how a challenge could be in good faith if a source has already been provided on the talk page, unless the challenger has consulted the source and disagrees with its interpretation. CMummert · talk 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CMummert on every point. But there is one more thing that needs to be said. If the challenge of a source is not in good faith, but rather an excuse to continue a campaign of deletion then all of the efforts of everyone have been for nothing - because nothing will have changed. And there is only one cure for that problem. People need to be more forceful in standing up for the dismissed source and against those that try to use flimsy and continual source squabbles as an excuse to delete while pretending to be inside of WP Policy. And the same goes for attempts to build a criteria that is really designed to achieve the aims of the deletion campaign. More than anything else, I think Wikipedians need to be bolder - not in editing, but in frequently, quickly, and forcefully speaking up, in numbers, when people are manipulating the rules or skating around them. Steve 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think wikipedia needs to represent the actual state of knowledge about a topic and not that of a minority promoting its own interests. In that, i think there is a difference between what steve is pushing and what is actually good for the philosophy project as a whole. you can find citations for just about any minor text in philosophy if you work at it, but that does not mean that any minor text should be on this list, but in short order, i suspect this list will turn into the list of publications of 'my favorite philosopher', instead of anything useful. --Buridan 20:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Buridan, you imply that I represent "a minority view promoting its own interests." Does that mean that when you said Objectivism killed tens of millions of people, you were speaking for a majority view? You have said that you would never accept ANY source that referred to Rand as a philosopher which makes clear your POV. Steve 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This back-and-forth won't help make any progress for the article. I think that a more productive discussion would be the criteria that ought to be used to decide what to include. I'll make a proposal below. CMummert · talk 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion criteria

This is supposed to be a list of publications in philosophy. I suggest that the criteria for inclusion should be:

• The author is a notable individual.
• The text is a notable publication and is clearly linked to philosophy by virtue of being discussed or published in that context.

Here, per WP:NOTABLE,

a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.

This seems like a good proposal to begin discussion. CMummert · talk 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. 'Notable' is the heart of an encyclopedia. Those criteria address exactly that issue. I predict, sadly, that the words 'non-trivial' and 'independent' will become the pivot point of arguments that will only be resolved by a concensus of people not party to the dispute speaking out firmly on good-faith, npov interpretations of those words. Steve 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a further specification of "clearly linked to philosophy by virtue of being discussed or published in that context." Can you tell me exactly how this is to be determined? I worry that the standard will be too weak, allowing for arbitrary, indiscriminant additions. KSchutte 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "Cited in a printed encyclopedia of philosophy" is a usefull criteria, but it may exclude very modern books in modern areas. I doubt the entry on philosophy of chemistry would meet this criteria but I think it should be included. On other matters raised above, I think you probably need to accept that a notability criteria alone is going to mean the inclusion of "Zen and the art of motorbike maintenance" (or whatever it is called) and other popularisations. They are notable. They are "clearly linked to philosophy by virtue of being discussed or published in that context". I think it would help if people came clean and state whether they accept this or not. If there is no consnesus to include them, then the criteria have to be very clear as to why they are excluded. If there is consensus to include them, a more general set of criteria is possible. My own view is that finding criteria to exclude them is likely to be impossible and they should be included. However, if you add sections on "Description" and "Importance" as the other Science pearls lists do, it will be clear to the reader that they are popular works. They might even be in a section of popular works. --Bduke 05:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To net publications that would be too recent to be found in a printed encyclopedia, we could also just go ahead and throw in cited works in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which, unlike the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is of some repute. This would possibly mean an eventual inclusion of Philosophy of Chemistry, since there is a forthcoming article on the topic. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 05:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good. I'll keep an eye out for it. The internet one does not seem to have an article on philosophy of chemistry. --Bduke 06:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that to mean "Cited anywhere in a printed encyclopedia of philosophy"? Because that means including lots and lots and lots and lots of stuff (potentially). KSchutte 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That would definitely be a problem, but I think some qualifications could bring it under control. We should probably require that the publication's author have a Wikipedia article (establishing the philosopher's notability). We could also not count publications by author P cited on P's printed/Stanford encyclopedia article. This would prevent every notable author's entire corpus from automatically qualifying for inclusion here. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to interpret the silence on this approach as a consensus. So are there any objections? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Where you see consensus, I see beyond all hope. This will never be a useful article. KSchutte 03:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. It keeps Steve on his toes restoring his Rand stuff. I bet hitting the undo button burns off a picocalorie every time. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

After all the typing I did on an RfC a while back I'm actually in pretty good shape... but burning a picocalorie here or there is all to the good :-)

Just out of curiosity, how do you imagine KSchutte determines the measure of "useful article" - by a vote we missed, by some kind of research he hasn't cited, or, is "useful article" just another way of saying 'rand free'? Me, I'd like to see actual use-stats on the page before I pronounced that it would never be a useful article and was beyond all hope. Steve 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he means it's a sourceless list of publications that has a single inclusion criterion of "Someone with a Wikipedia account read it and like it." Either that or he's talking about something completely different. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is to be added next.

I'd like to suggest that whoever decides to work on this page next add sources from the Bibliographies given in the Further Reading section of this article or resources similar to those. The London Philosophy Study Guide is probably the best place to start. KSchutte 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)