Talk:Anomalous monism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anomalous monism was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: September 27, 2006

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of mind

Nice job, Kripkenstein!! I had intended to write this one up myself at some point, but you've done a good job of getting down the fundamental idea and I liked your four-fold distiction (I hadn't thought of the mind-body problem in those terms for some reason) which helps to clarify the position of anomalous monism with respect to the other positions and makes it seem less.....dare I say,anomalous. I would just question your choice of the terms "mental objects and events" are idneitied with physical objkects and events. What are mental objects ?? I'm fairly sure Davidson prefereed to stick with a strict ontology of events and event properies, so that should probably be made clear. Other than that, I can see some space for expansion in terms of critisicm, arguments and so on. But thanks for the good work.--Lacatosias 14:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with your observation on objects! Thank you for the review, I will try to expand this one and, who knows, maybe get it to be as nice as the German article. --- Kripkenstein 14:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 I'm sorry 2 Hey, that's the best I could do 3 Nominated for Good Article 4 Anomalous monism (title) 5 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 6 It's about time!! 7 Self-delisted this article for the following reason

[edit] I'm sorry

I'm sorry!! I got carried away with this thing. It's like Davidson's argument was floating around in the back of my head for the last few days and I had to get it out. Then I got fascinatied with Honderich's argument and I had to find out the response to THAT argument.Anyway, I moved two of your paragraphs to a section called "The thesis of AM". If you think it is redundant I can take out "Davidson's argument for AM" and just leave in the section on objections and replies.--Lacatosias 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Great work, Lacatosias! Nothing like having a pro working on the project! -- Kripkenstein 22:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks K. I was actually afraid that you might have been upset that I was trying to hegemonize the article or something. Anyway, as is the case with most philosophical topics, the argumements and counteraguments almost go on forever. The difficulty is to find some cut-off point without seeming to favor one side over the other.--Lacatosias 08:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, that's the best I could do

I'm terrible with graphics. I took the image from DavidL's version and tried to modify it to English using Paint, for heaven's sake. Anybody care to rty to fix it up or replace it with a better image. There is nothing in the Ctageory:Images and the Web is full of copyrighted stuff. We NEED IMAGES as well as text. I'm working my ass off on the latter (take a look at my contribs), but I can do nothing on the former.--Lacatosias 14:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lacatosias, you have really done an exceptional work in some articles, congratulations! I will try to fix the image, although I don't have extensive experience with images. -- Kripkenstein 15:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Done! -- Kripkenstein 15:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice!! How did you do it? Photoshop or something?--Lacatosias 16:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a nice little freeware program, small and easy to use, here. By the way, if I can help making new translations of other images (or making up new ones), just say the word. --Kripkenstein 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for Good Article

I nominated the article for good article. I did this because I believe this is a better article than most articles about philosophical concepts and terminology. Since I contributed to the article, I listed the article under "self-nominations". --Kripkenstein 00:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{GA}} tag to this article. The content is pretty solid and it reads OK, however, if you want to have a prayer at becoming a featured article in-line citations or some similar alternative. But the references are good enough for a GA. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In-line citations is no problem. We need to add those to some of the other GAs as well.I will get around to it eventually (I've taken overhelming an amount of projects upon myself at the moment). One other concern though (as a partial self-criticsim since I helped develop the artcile) is the accessibility/readability of some parts of the article. Some outside advice would alwys be welocme in this regard.--Lacatosias 09:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anomalous monism (title)

I requested that the page Anomalous monism be deleted so I could move the current page there, since "Monism" doesn't need to be upper-cased. The incidence of upper-case "Monism" refers to articles and journals where the title is spelled with every word is like that. "Monism" doesn't need at all to be like that here, or we would have to change the articles Eliminative materialism, Property dualism and so forth. Please tell me if you agree with the move so an administrator will grant my request. -- Kripkenstein _{τ κ}

I don't have the slightest idea why this is necessary, but it's fine as long as all the links are shifted to one direction. Otherwise, it makes no sense. Some links are pointing here, others are pointing at the upper-case. What the devil does LC as per MoS ,mean?--Lacatosias 15:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It means "lower case as suggested in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style"; although really the reference ought to have been to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. And don't worry about the links; the upper-case title is redirected to this article. --Russ Blau (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's about time!!

I'm glad to see this small improvment in the GA process actually. It shuld not be limited to just references though. I was going to delist this myself, even though I wrote the whole thing!! I don't have the time or desire to do the in-line cites now though.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-delisted this article for the following reason

I like it the way it is; I'm not going to dumb it down to meet the silly Simple English criteria that now prevail for GAs as well as FAs. The rest is just nonsense. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)