Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Metaethics

2005-11-02T23:55:21Z

Logic2go: /* Applied Ethics */

== Cleaning up ==

The addition of the "in Philosophy" qualification is the start of my practical contributions to resolving the mess in the [[Ethics]] article. This article (meta-ethics) is excellent IMO, and is about Philosophy. The existing Ethics article says it's about Philosophy, but much of it is not. It's a bit of a mess, and possibly the [[Ethics]] article should be replaced by a [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] page. --[[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 21:20, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

== History/change ==

I believe it can be proven as fact, not opinion, that in certain academic philosophy circles, meta-ethical investigations or allied fields are increasingly far more privileged than traditional normative ethics. --[[User:Dpr|Dpr]] 03:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Then do so. --[[User:Marudubshinki|Maru]] 02:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
::I will attempt to at my earliest opportunity. Thanks ~ [[User:Dpr|Dpr]] 04:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

==PoV?==
"It is seen by many as a "default" (though not necessarily correct) view, as it is seemingly obvious that when one says "Murder is wrong" they are saying that the act of murder, or some consequence of it, is objectively wrong. However, many meta-ethicists (for example A.J. Ayer, C. L. Stevenson and R. M. Hare) have argued that this is incorrect [...]"

If not PoV, this is certainly an odd way of phrasing things. First saying that it is seemingly obvious to consider a moral utterance an utterance of matter of facts, and then claim that some people do argue against this "seemingly obvious" theory. Adding the word seemingly might seem like it is all taken care of, but it still sounds wrong in my ears. Is it really even seemingly obvious? Why not at least add "they argue that" before saying this?

Hello, anonymous contributer. Firstly, you might want to sign up for an account. It is quick, easy and safe, and means we are not talking blindly. Secondly, thank you for posting on the talk page before making an edit; a practice not enough Wikipedians do. To your point: it was my edit that you object to. I agree that it is a clumsy way of saying what I am trying to say. Basically, I am saying (roughly): cognitivism is the common-sense view. It is common-sense because what it says "sounds right" when you first hear it. However, there are other views, and one needs to appreciate the nuances of all of them to come to a proper decision. If you do not like it, would you like to sugest a better wording, and I will gladly re-edit and re-re-edit until we come to an agreement. HAppy editting! [[User:Batmanand|Batmanand]] 23:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

==Applied Ethics==
The introduction situates Meta-ethics as one of two areas of thought within ethics. My understanding was that a more accurate division could be made seperating meta-ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. The latter being a fairly large field in and of itself such a distinction would make sense. If this scheme is in some way outdated or problematic let me know. If I'm right change it or tell me that I'm right and I will.--[[User:Jsn4|Jsn4]] 02:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Mathematical logic

2005-10-28T23:50:03Z

Logic2go: add Godel's work as landmark pub

'''Mathematical logic''' is a discipline within [[mathematics]], studying [[formal system]]s in relation to the way they encode intuitive concepts of [[Mathematical proof|proof]] and [[computation]] as part of the [[foundations of mathematics]].

Although the layperson may think that mathematical logic is the ''logic of mathematics'', the truth is rather that it more closely resembles the ''mathematics of logic''. It comprises those parts of [[logic]] that can be modelled mathematically. Earlier appellations were symbolic logic (as opposed to [[philosophical logic]]); and [[metamathematics]], which is now restricted as a term to some aspects of [[proof theory]].

==History==

''Mathematical logic'' was the name given by [[Giuseppe Peano]] to what is also known as symbolic logic. In essentials, it is still the logic of [[Aristotle]], but from the point of view of notation it is written as a branch of [[abstract algebra]].

Attempts to treat the operations of formal logic in a symbolic or algebraic way were made by some of the more philosophical mathematicians, such as [[Leibniz]] and [[Johann Heinrich Lambert|Lambert]]; but their labors remained little known and isolated. It was [[George Boole]] and then [[Augustus De Morgan]], in the middle of the nineteenth century, who presented a systematic mathematical (of course non-[[quantitative]]) way of regarding logic. The traditional, Aristotelian doctrine of logic was reformed and completed; and out of it developed an adequate instrument for investigating the [[foundations of mathematics|fundamental concepts of mathematics]]. It would be misleading to say that the foundational controversies that were alive in the period 1900-1925 have all been settled; but [[philosophy of mathematics]] was greatly clarified by the 'new' logic.

While the traditional development of logic (see [[list of topics in logic]]) put heavy emphasis on ''forms of arguments'', the attitude of current mathematical logic might be summed up as ''the combinatorial study of content''. This covers both the ''syntactic'' (for example, sending a string from a [[formal language]] to a [[compiler]] program to write it as sequence of machine instructions), and the ''semantic'' (constructing specific models or whole sets of them, in [[model theory]]).

Some landmark publications were the [[Begriffsschrift]] by [[Gottlob Frege]], [[Studies in Logic]] by [[Charles Peirce]], [[Principia Mathematica]] by [[Bertrand Russell]] and [[Alfred North Whitehead]], and[[Godel's incompleteness theorem| On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems]] by [[Kurt Godel]].

==Topics in mathematical logic==

The main areas of mathematical logic include [[model theory]], [[proof theory]]
and [[recursion theory]] (often now referred to as [[computability theory]]). [[Axiomatic set theory]] is sometimes considered too.
There are many overlaps with [[computer science]], since many early pioneers in computer science, such as [[Alan Turing]], were mathematicians and logicians.

The study of [[programming language]] [[semantics]]
derives from [[model theory]], as does
[[program verification]], in particular [[model checking]].

The [[Curry-Howard isomorphism]] between proofs and programs
relates to [[proof theory]]; [[intuitionistic logic]] and [[linear logic]] are significant here.
Calculi such as the [[lambda calculus]] and [[combinatory logic]] are nowadays studied mainly as idealized [[programming languages]].

Computer science also contributes to logic by developing techniques for the automatic checking or even finding of proofs, such as [[automated theorem proving]] and [[logic programming]].

==Some fundamental results==

Some important results are:

*The set of valid [[first-order logic|first-order]] formulas is [[recursively enumerable]]. This follows from [[Gödel's completeness theorem]] (which establishes the equivalence of validity and provability), because the set of proofs for first-order logic formulas is recursively enumerable ("semi-decidable"). Therefore, there is a procedure that behaves as follows: Given a first-order formula as its input, the procedure eventually halts if the formula is valid or not valid, and runs forever otherwise. Some [[first-order theorem provers]] have this completeness property.

*The set of valid [[first-order logic|first-order]] formulas is ''not'' recursive, i.e., there is no algorithm for checking for universal validity. This follows from [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem]].

*The set of all universally valid [[second-order logic|second-order]] formulas is not even recursively enumerable. This is also a consequence of [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem]].

*The [[Löwenheim-Skolem theorem]].

*[[Cut-elimination]] in [[sequent calculus]].

*The [[logical independence|independence]] of the [[continuum hypothesis]], proved by [[Paul Cohen]] in 1963.

==Technical reference==

''This section is '''not''' intended as a crash course in mathematical logic. There is no doubt that the bare display of concise definitions is very far from an adequate encyclopedical presentation, but sections with more amenable paragraphs shall follow soon... Likewise, the several topics will be pertinently separated as soon as it makes sense, and when and where it is found a proper place.''

===First-order languages and structures===

<div id="Definition:FirstOrderLanguage" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' A '''first-order language''' <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math> is a collection of distinct typographical symbols classified as follows:

# The '''equality symbol''' <math>=\,</math>; the '''connectives''' <math>\lor\,</math>, <math>\lnot\,</math>; the '''universal quantifier''' <math>\forall\,</math> and the '''parentheses''' <math>(\,</math>, <math>)\,</math>.
# A countable set of '''variable symbols''' <math>\{v_i\}_{i = 0}^\infty\,</math>.
# A set of '''constant symbols''' <math>\{c_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in \Alpha}\,</math>.
# A set of '''function symbols''' <math>\{f_\beta\}_{\beta \in \Beta}\,</math>.
# A set of '''relation symbols''' <math>\{R_\gamma\}_{\gamma \in \Gamma}\,</math>.
</div>

Thus, in order to specify a language, it is often sufficient to specify only the collection of constant symbols, function symbols and relation symbols, since the first set of symbols is standard. The parentheses serve the only purpose of forming groups of symbols, and are not to be formally used when writing down functions and relations in formulas.

These symbols are just that, ''symbols''. They don't stand for anything. They do not ''mean'' anything. However, that deviates further into semantics and linguistical issues not useful to the formalization of mathematical language, yet.

''Yet'', because it will indeed be necessary to get some meaning out of this formalization. The concept of ''model'' over a language provides with such a semantics.

<div id="Definition:Structure" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' An <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-'''structure''' over the language <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>, is a bundle consisting of a nonempty set <math>A\,</math>, the universe of the structure, together with:

# For each constant symbol <math>c\,</math> from <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>, an element <math>c^{\mathfrak{A}} \in A\,</math>.
# For each <math>n\,</math>-ary function symbol <math>f\,</math> from <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>, an <math>n\,</math>-ary function <math>f^{\mathfrak{A}} : A^n \longrightarrow A\,</math>.
# For each <math>n\,</math>-ary relation symbol <math>R\,</math> from <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>, an <math>n\,</math>-ary relation on <math>A\,</math>, that is, a subset <math>R^{\mathfrak{A}} \subseteq A^n\,</math>.
</div>

Often, the word ''model'' is used for that of ''structure'' in this context. However, it is important to understand perhaps its motivation, as follows.

===Terms, formulas and sentences===

<div id="Definition:Term" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' An <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-'''term''' is a nonempty finite string <math>t\,</math> of symbols from <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math> such that either

* <math>t\,</math> is a variable symbol.
* <math>t\,</math> is a constant symbol.
* <math>t\,</math> is a string of the form <math>f t_1 ... t_n\,</math> where <math>f\,</math> is an <math>n\,</math>-ary function symbol and <math>t_1\,</math>, ..., <math>t_n\,</math> are terms of <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>.
</div>

<div id="Definition:Formula" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' An <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-'''formula''' is a nonempty finite string <math>\phi\,</math> of symbols from <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math> such that either

* <math>\phi\,</math> is a string of the form <math>t_1 = t_2\,</math> where <math>t_1\,</math> and <math>t_2\,</math> are terms of <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is a string of the form <math>R t_1 ... t_n\,</math> where <math>R\,</math> is an <math>n\,</math>-ary relation symbol and <math>t_1\,</math>, ..., <math>t_n\,</math> are terms of <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>\lnot(\alpha)\,</math> where <math>\alpha\,</math> is an <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-formula.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\alpha \lor \beta)\,</math> where both <math>\alpha\,</math> and <math>\beta\,</math> are <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-formulas.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\forall y)(\alpha)\,</math> where <math>y\,</math> is a variable symbol from <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math> and <math>\alpha\,</math> is an <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-formula.
</div>

<div id="Definition:AtomicFormula" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' An <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-formula that is characterized by either the first or the second clause is called an '''atomic'''.
</div>

<div id="Definition:FreeVariable" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\phi\,</math> be an <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-formula. A variable symbol <math>x\,</math> from <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math> is said to be '''free''' in <math>\phi\,</math> if either

* <math>\phi\,</math> is atomic and <math>x\,</math> occurs in <math>\phi\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>\lnot(\alpha)\,</math> and <math>x\,</math> is free in <math>\alpha\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\alpha \lor \beta)\,</math> and <math>x\,</math> is free in <math>\alpha\,</math> or <math>\beta\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\forall y)(\alpha)\,</math> where <math>x\,</math> and <math>y\,</math> are not the same variable symbols and <math>x\,</math> is free in <math>\alpha\,</math>.
</div>

<div id="Definition:Sentence" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' A '''sentence''' is a formula with no free variables.
</div>

===Assignment functions===

Hereafter, <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math> will denote a first-order language, <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math> will be an <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-structure with underlying universe set denoted by <math>A\,</math>. Every formula will be understood to be an <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-formula.

<div id="Definition:VariableAssignmentFunction" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' A '''variable assignment function''' (v.a.f.) into <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math> is a function from the set of variables of <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math> into <math>A\,</math>.
</div>

<div id="Definition:TermAssignmentFunction" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>s\,</math> be a v.a.f. into <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math>. We define the '''term assignment function''' (t.a.f.) <math>\overline{s}\,</math>, from the set of <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-terms into <math>A\,</math>, as follows:

* If <math>t\,</math> is the variable symbol <math>x\,</math>, then <math>\overline{s}(t) = s(x)\,</math>.
* If <math>t\,</math> is the constant symbol <math>c\,</math>, then <math>\overline{s}(t) = c^{\mathfrak{A}}\,</math>.
* If <math>t\,</math> is of the form <math>f t_1 ... t_n\,</math>, then <math>\overline{s}(t) = f^{\mathfrak{A}}(\overline{s}(t_1), ..., \overline{s}(t_n))\,</math>.
</div>

<div id="Definition:VariableAssignmentFunctionModification" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>s\,</math> be a v.a.f. into <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math> and suppose that <math>x\,</math> is a variable and that <math>a \in A\,</math>. We define the v.a.f. <math>s[x|a]\,</math>, referred to as an <math>x\,</math>-'''modification of the assignment funtion''' <math>s\,</math>, by

<center>
<math>
s[x|a](v) = \begin{cases}
s(v) & \mbox{if } v \ne x \\
a & \mbox{if } v = x
\end{cases}
\,</math>
</center>
</div>

===Logical satisfaction===

<div id="Definition:Satisfaction" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\phi\,</math> be formula and suppose <math>s\,</math> is a v.a.f. into <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math>. We say that <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math> '''satisfies''' <math>\phi\,</math> '''with assignment''' <math>s\,</math>, and write <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \phi[s]\,</math>, if either:

* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>t_1 = t_2\,</math> and <math>\overline{s}(t_1) = \overline{s}(t_2)\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>R t_1 ... t_n\,</math> and <math>(\overline{s}(t_1), ..., \overline{s}(t_n)) \in R^{\mathfrak{A}}\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>\lnot(\alpha)\,</math> and <math>\mathfrak{A}\mbox{ }\not\models\mbox{ }\alpha[s]\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\alpha \lor \beta)\,</math> and <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \alpha[s]\,</math> or <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \beta[s]\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\forall y)(\alpha)\,</math> and for each element <math>a \in A\,</math>, <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \alpha[s[y|a]]\,</math>.
</div>

<div id="Definition:ModelFormula" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\phi\,</math> be formula and suppose that <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \phi[s]\,</math> for every v.a.f. <math>s\,</math> into <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math>. Then we say that <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math> '''models ''' <math>\phi\,</math>, and write <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \phi\,</math>.
</div>

<div id="Definition:ModelSetOfFormulas" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\Phi\,</math> be a set of formulas and suppose that <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \phi\,</math> for every formula <math>\phi \in \Phi\,</math> then we say that <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math> '''models''' <math>\Phi\,</math>, and write <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \Phi\,</math>.
</div>

In the case that <math>\phi\,</math> is a sentence, that is, a formula with no free variables, the existence of a single v.a.f. for which <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \phi[s]\,</math> immediately implies that <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \phi\,</math>.

<div id="Definition:TruthInStructure" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\phi\,</math> be a sentence and suppose that <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \phi\,</math>. Then we say that <math>\phi\,</math> is '''true in''' <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math>.
</div>

===Logical implication and truth===

<div id="Definition:LogicalImplication" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\Psi\,</math> and <math>\Phi\,</math> be sets of formulas. We say that <math>\Psi\,</math> '''logically implies''' <math>\Phi\,</math>, and write <math>\Psi \models \Phi\,</math>, if for every structure <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math>, <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \Psi\,</math> implies <math>\mathfrak{A} \models \Phi\,</math>.
</div>

As a shortcut, when dealing with singletons, we often write <math>\Psi \models \phi\,</math> instead of <math>\Psi \models \{\phi\}\,</math>.

<div id="Definition:ValidFormula" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\phi\,</math> be a formula and suppose that <math>\varnothing \models \phi\,</math>. Then we say that <math>\phi\,</math> is '''universally valid''', or simply valid, and in this case we simply write <math>\models \phi\,</math>.
</div>

To say that a formula <math>\phi\,</math> is valid really means that every <math>\mathfrak{L}\,</math>-structure <math>\mathfrak{A}\,</math> models <math>\phi\,</math>.

<div id="Definition:Truth" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\phi\,</math> be a sentence and suppose that <math>\models \phi\,</math>. Then we say that <math>\phi\,</math> is '''true'''.
</div>

===Variable substitution===

<div id="Definition:VariableSubstitutionInTerm" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>u\,</math> be a term and suppose <math>x\,</math> is a variable and <math>t\,</math> is another term. We define the term <math>u_t^x\,</math>, read <math>u\,</math> '''with''' <math>x\,</math> '''replaced by''' <math>t\,</math>, as follows:

* If <math>u\,</math> is the variable symbol <math>x\,</math>, then <math>u_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the term <math>t\,</math>.
* If <math>u\,</math> is a variable symbol other than <math>x\,</math>, then <math>u_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the term <math>u\,</math>.
* If <math>u\,</math> is a constant symbol, then <math>u_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the term <math>u\,</math>.
* If <math>u\,</math> is of the form <math>f t_1 ... t_n\,</math>, then <math>u_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the term <math>f {t_1}_t^x ... {t_n}_t^x\,</math>.
</div>

<div id="Definition:VariableSubstitutionInFormula" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\phi\,</math> be a formula and suppose <math>x\,</math> is a variable and <math>t\,</math> is a term. We define the formula <math>\phi_t^x\,</math>, read <math>\phi\,</math> '''with''' <math>x\,</math> '''replaced by''' <math>t\,</math>, as follows:

* If <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>t_1 = t_2\,</math>, then <math>\phi_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the formula <math>{t_1}_t^x = {t_2}_t^x\,</math>.
* If <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>R t_1 ... t_n\,</math>, then <math>\phi_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the formula <math>R {t_1}_t^x, ..., {t_n}_t^x\,</math>.
* If <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>\lnot(\alpha)\,</math>, then <math>\phi_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the formula <math>\lnot(\alpha_t^x)\,</math>.
* If <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\alpha \lor \beta)\,</math>, then <math>\phi_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the formula <math>(\alpha_t^x \lor \beta_t^x)\,</math>.
* If <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\forall y)(\alpha)\,</math>, then
** if <math>x\,</math> and <math>y\,</math> are the same variable symbol, <math>\phi_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the formula <math>\phi\,</math>.
** else, <math>\phi_t^x\,</math> is defined to be the formula <math>(\forall y)(\alpha_t^x)\,</math>.
</div>

===Substitutability===

<div id="Definition:Substitutability" style="border-left: 3px double #CCCCCC; padding-left: 5px; ">
'''Definition.''' Let <math>\phi\,</math> be a formula and suppose <math>x\,</math> is a variable and <math>t\,</math> is a term. We say that <math>t\,</math> '''is substitutable for''' <math>x\,</math> '''in''' <math>\phi\,</math>, if either:

* <math>\phi\,</math> is atomic.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>\lnot(\alpha)\,</math> and <math>t\,</math> is substitutable for <math>x\,</math> in <math>\alpha\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\alpha \lor \beta)\,</math> and <math>t\,</math> is substitutable for <math>x\,</math> in both <math>\alpha\,</math> and <math>\beta\,</math>.
* <math>\phi\,</math> is of the form <math>(\forall y)(\alpha)\,</math> and either
** <math>x\,</math> is not a free variable in <math>\phi\,</math>.
** <math>y\,</math> does not occur in <math>t\,</math> and <math>t\,</math> is substitutable for <math>x\,</math> in <math>\alpha\,</math>.
</div>

The notion of substitutability of terms for variables corresponds to that of the preservation of truth after substitution is carried out in terms or formulas. Strictly speaking, substitution is always allowed, but substitutability will be imperative in order to yield a formula which meaning was not deformed by the substitution.

==References==

* [[A. S. Troelstra]] & [[H. Schwichtenberg]] (2000). ''Basic Proof Theory'' (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science) (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521779111.
* [[George Boolos]] & [[Richard Jeffrey]] (1989). ''Computability and Logic'' (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521007585.
* Elliott Mendelson (1997). ''Introduction to Mathematical Logic'' (4th ed.) Chapman & Hall.
* A. G. Hamilton (1988). ''Logic for Mathematicians'' Cambridge University Press.

== External links ==

* [http://www.uni-bonn.de/logic/world.html Mathematical Logic around the world]
* [http://home.swipnet.se/~w-33552/logic/home/index.htm Polyvalued logic]
* [http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~giorgi/cl.html Computability logic] A new direction in Mathematical Logic, turning it from a theory of truth into a theory of computability.

== See also ==
*[[Logic]]
*[[Model theory]]
*[[Computability logic]]
*[[Game semantics]]
*[[Provability logic]]
*[[Interpretability logic]]
*[[Sequent calculus]]
*[[Intuitionistic logic]]
*[[Predicate logic]]
*[[Institution (computer science)|Theory of institutions]]
*[[Table of mathematical symbols]]
*[[Infinitary logic]]

[[Category:Mathematical logic|*]]
[[de:Mathematische Logik]]
[[es:Lógica matemática]]
[[fr:Logique mathématique]]
[[it:Logica matematica]]
[[ja:数理論理学]]
[[ru:Математическая логика]]
[[sl:Matematična logika]]
[[sq:Logjika Matematikore]]
[[sv:Matematisk logik]]
[[th:คณิตตรรกศาสตร์]]
[[tl:Matematikal na lohika]]
[[tr:Sembolik Mantık]]
[[zh:数理逻辑]]

Talk:Gottlob Frege

2005-10-26T01:22:11Z

Logic2go: /* Query */

==Logicist about arithmetic not geometry==

I changed "Frege was the first major proponent of logicism- the view that mathematics is reducible to logic.".
This can be misleading because Frege only held the logicist view with respect to arithmetic and analysis. He believed that geometry is synthetic a priori and hence not a part of logic.

==boole?==
How is the work of Gottlob Frege related to that of [[George Boole]]? --[[User:Hirzel|Hirzel]] 03:06 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You could say that Frege's work was later, was research rather than exposition, was deeper as an enquiry into language. In fact there is no serious intellectual connection, though obviously there might be some comparison in the use of algbra-style notations. [[User:Charles Matthews]]

As I know, Boole mostly worked on the theory of classes in logic, Frege was involved rather in the theories of first-order and second-order languages. It's a more general theory, because class theory is a logical theory, the theories of logical languages are metalogical theories (in a particular, relative meaning of metalogics). These statements are a bit inexact, but I can't explain it detail, cause English is not my original language, however it is true the relation between Boole and Frege is a quite neglected area in the Frege-research. I have no sources about it and I think even if some exists so they are unpopular (f.e. not foundable in internet or in public libraries). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 20:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Frege wrote two papers comparing his Begriffschrift with Boole's work. They are located in the Posthuous writings.

== Comments, questions and quibbles 25-aug-2004 ==

''...such as the use of quantification...''

* Common logician's error here: in normal english phrases like "two horses", two is a quantifier: no need for variables, bound or otherwise, to have quantification. Frege's contribution was the way he expressed quantification by means of variables; he did not invent quantification itself.

''Frege was the first to devise an axiomatization of propositional logic and of predicate logic.''

* Frege did not create a separate theory of propositional logic, as the above suggests, and actually it is an achievement of Frege's to combine propositional connectives and quantifiers in one calculus.

* In fact, the formalisation of predicate logic took almost another 60 years to complete, with the publication of Hilbert and Ackermann's book in 1928.

''Ludwig Wittgenstein and Edmund Husserl were among the other philosophical notables strongly influenced by Frege.''

* With Wittgenstein this is undeniable (although I think the sentence goes better elsewhere), but just how important an influence was Frege on Husserl. Husserl first agrees with Frege's objections, and then goes on to change his mind about it. That Husserl had an important correspondence is clear, but strong influence I think is going too far.

Nice article, though: I was surprised by how many things I learned reading it. ---- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 22:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Failure of logicist programme==

The article says:

:Frege was the first major proponent of ''logicism'' -- the view that mathematics is reducible to logic. ... Russell discovered the paradox which bears his name, and that the axioms of the Grundgesetze led to this contradiction; he wrote to Frege, who acknowledged the contradiction in an appendix to volume two of the Grundgesetze, noting what he perceived to be the faulty axiom. Frege never did manage to amend his axioms to his satisfaction, however; and after Frege's death, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed that Frege's logicist program was impossible.

This strongly suggests that logicism was a failure. But I don't think that is correct; it seems to me that Frege's program was a success. Mathematicians still view set theory and logic, as set forth by Frege, to be the proper foundations for mathematics. It's only in recent years that an alternative, in the form of [[category theory]], has appeared.
:Mathematicians do not view ''logicist'' set theory as a proper foundation for mathematics. Logicist set theory, at least as I see it, was fairly definitively refuted by the Russell paradox. We do not consider sets to be a logical notion, identified with definable properties of which they are extensions, but as a mathematical notion--collections of objects, and at the same time objects themselves. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 06:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::I think I probably misunderstood what "logicist" means. Thanks for correcting me. I will do more research and try to corectly understand the situation. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The [[Russell paradox]] was satisfactorily resolved by Russell and Whitehead's theory of types and later by Zermelo's work on the axiom of foundation. It is not a serious hindrance today.
:You can't get rid of a paradox by adding an axiom. What Zermelo did was to provide a formal point of reference for the notion of sets as collections of objects rather than as extensions of properties (this was made more explicit by von Neumann, I think). That's the polar opposite of logicism. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 06:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::I didn't say it was resolved by the axiom; I said it was resolved by Zermelo's work. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Point taken. It addresses only the smallest part of my remarks, though. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The remark about Gödel's incompleteness theorems is a non-sequitur. The incompleteness theorems show that there can be no formal axiomatization of all of mathematics. This no more invalidates the logicist programme than it invalidates the idea of doing mathematics at all. Mathematics can be founded on logic, and frequently is; the fact that the Gödel theorems say that there will be true theorems that are not provable does not negate the usefulness or soundness of the foundation.

For these reasons, I have rewritten this paragraph of the article and removed the reference to Gödel entirely. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 14:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==More biography needed==

I think that since this is an article about Frege, it is stongly lacking in biographical information about the man.

If you speak Hungarian, see the [[hu:Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege|Hungarian article]]. Terrible news I haven't got enough time to translate it, but maybe you can ask other [[:Category:Wikipedians in Hungary|hungarians]]. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 10:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
==Query==
The article says he is " widely considered the greatest logician since Aristotle."I think many would say Russell or even Godel was greater. Could we not say one of the greatest to ensure NPOV? I think there would be unanimity on that assessment.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
: Russell or Godel probably weren't "greater" logicians than Frege and Frege wasn't "greater" then them (imnsho). They were all great logicians, but as a matter of fact Frege was the first. Yes, he ''was'' '''''one of the''''' greatest logicians since Aristotle. The difference between Frege and Russel, Gödel etc. is mainly that Frege was unknown for a long time, untill Russell (re)discovered lot of his achievements. Frege was born too early. Russell done a lot to put Frege on the well-known logicians's map. So I think you're right in this question: "one of" is more candid. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 10:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'd guess you won't find many logicians today who don't think that Frege was a greater figure than Russell. Figures from the algebraic logic tradition (Pierce, Boole, Schröder) would be better bets, Tarski has his admirers, but the claim still holds: Frege is widely considered the greatest logician since Aristotle, even if not universally. It might be a good idea to get some sources for this claim, though. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:: There were other great logicians (like Hegel or Kant, contributors in [[philosophical logic]]). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I could make a cogent and even persuasive case that russell was the superior logicianN especially given recent studies of Russel's papers at Macmasters. Certainly he was more influential. But my point is that arguing this borders on original research and a POV. I think qualifiers such as " widely considered the greatest" or equivalent superlatives are inherntly problematical. I can't imagine that anyone could disagree that he was "one of the greatest." [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
:Part of the issue is how the word "logician" is being used. For overall accomplishment in fields called "logic", including "mathematical logic", I think Gödel has it all over Frege. But if mathematical logic is not considered part of logic proper, then Frege's claim looks a lot better. In any case I think Logic2go's point is well taken. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::''Mathematical logic'' is a field of mathematics, and wasn't there until the 1930s. Gödel was a ''virtuoso'', while Frege was a pioneer who kick-started logic as a research area after a break of, ooo, 2000 years since the Stoics. Mathematicians are always going to think more of Gödel. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

::: Read this [http://www.juancole.com/2005/10/cheney-resignation-and-frege-us-news.html]. American philosophy education will never be the same.--[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 05:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow. What do you suppose is the liklihood that Cheney even knows who Frege is? Or for that matter what the Evening Star is?[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
:::I think we're more or less on the same page here. E.g. a lot of Gödel's greatness comes from his work in set theory. Is set theory part of logic? Frege thought so, which in large part explains why Frege wasn't a great set theorist. In fact, the extent to which set theory is ''not'' simply logic became much clearer as a result specifically of Gödel's work.
:::But whether set theory is logic or not, the fact remains that it's ''called'' logic, and therefore discussions of who is the "greatest logician" are bound to be confusing. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

*Agreed. In logic(s), I think of Frege,Russell, and Godel as the Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle of the matter in terms of greatness and importance.:)[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
** It is irrelevant now, but I don't agree. Russell wasn't greater logician then Frege, his only one important and dateless - but disputed - achievement is type theory. Frege was 100× greater then him, I think :-)). And Russell was publicated explicit silly "achievements", e.g. his description theory is totally psychotic ... [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 18:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Cruising for a debate on that one(lol)! But that's the point, we have well-formed opinions on logic that a high school student looking to the encyclopedia for biographical info does not, and we shouldn't taint his understanding with our POV. We can do that in other venues. On that we can agree![[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Talk:Gottlob Frege

2005-10-21T19:06:52Z

Logic2go: /* Query */

==Logicist about arithmetic not geometry==

I changed "Frege was the first major proponent of logicism- the view that mathematics is reducible to logic.".
This can be misleading because Frege only held the logicist view with respect to arithmetic and analysis. He believed that geometry is synthetic a priori and hence not a part of logic.

==boole?==
How is the work of Gottlob Frege related to that of [[George Boole]]? --[[User:Hirzel|Hirzel]] 03:06 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You could say that Frege's work was later, was research rather than exposition, was deeper as an enquiry into language. In fact there is no serious intellectual connection, though obviously there might be some comparison in the use of algbra-style notations. [[User:Charles Matthews]]

As I know, Boole mostly worked on the theory of classes in logic, Frege was involved rather in the theories of first-order and second-order languages. It's a more general theory, because class theory is a logical theory, the theories of logical languages are metalogical theories (in a particular, relative meaning of metalogics). These statements are a bit inexact, but I can't explain it detail, cause English is not my original language, however it is true the relation between Boole and Frege is a quite neglected area in the Frege-research. I have no sources about it and I think even if some exists so they are unpopular (f.e. not foundable in internet or in public libraries). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 20:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Frege wrote two papers comparing his Begriffschrift with Boole's work. They are located in the Posthuous writings.

== Comments, questions and quibbles 25-aug-2004 ==

''...such as the use of quantification...''

* Common logician's error here: in normal english phrases like "two horses", two is a quantifier: no need for variables, bound or otherwise, to have quantification. Frege's contribution was the way he expressed quantification by means of variables; he did not invent quantification itself.

''Frege was the first to devise an axiomatization of propositional logic and of predicate logic.''

* Frege did not create a separate theory of propositional logic, as the above suggests, and actually it is an achievement of Frege's to combine propositional connectives and quantifiers in one calculus.

* In fact, the formalisation of predicate logic took almost another 60 years to complete, with the publication of Hilbert and Ackermann's book in 1928.

''Ludwig Wittgenstein and Edmund Husserl were among the other philosophical notables strongly influenced by Frege.''

* With Wittgenstein this is undeniable (although I think the sentence goes better elsewhere), but just how important an influence was Frege on Husserl. Husserl first agrees with Frege's objections, and then goes on to change his mind about it. That Husserl had an important correspondence is clear, but strong influence I think is going too far.

Nice article, though: I was surprised by how many things I learned reading it. ---- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 22:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Failure of logicist programme==

The article says:

:Frege was the first major proponent of ''logicism'' -- the view that mathematics is reducible to logic. ... Russell discovered the paradox which bears his name, and that the axioms of the Grundgesetze led to this contradiction; he wrote to Frege, who acknowledged the contradiction in an appendix to volume two of the Grundgesetze, noting what he perceived to be the faulty axiom. Frege never did manage to amend his axioms to his satisfaction, however; and after Frege's death, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed that Frege's logicist program was impossible.

This strongly suggests that logicism was a failure. But I don't think that is correct; it seems to me that Frege's program was a success. Mathematicians still view set theory and logic, as set forth by Frege, to be the proper foundations for mathematics. It's only in recent years that an alternative, in the form of [[category theory]], has appeared.
:Mathematicians do not view ''logicist'' set theory as a proper foundation for mathematics. Logicist set theory, at least as I see it, was fairly definitively refuted by the Russell paradox. We do not consider sets to be a logical notion, identified with definable properties of which they are extensions, but as a mathematical notion--collections of objects, and at the same time objects themselves. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 06:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::I think I probably misunderstood what "logicist" means. Thanks for correcting me. I will do more research and try to corectly understand the situation. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The [[Russell paradox]] was satisfactorily resolved by Russell and Whitehead's theory of types and later by Zermelo's work on the axiom of foundation. It is not a serious hindrance today.
:You can't get rid of a paradox by adding an axiom. What Zermelo did was to provide a formal point of reference for the notion of sets as collections of objects rather than as extensions of properties (this was made more explicit by von Neumann, I think). That's the polar opposite of logicism. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 06:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::I didn't say it was resolved by the axiom; I said it was resolved by Zermelo's work. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Point taken. It addresses only the smallest part of my remarks, though. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The remark about Gödel's incompleteness theorems is a non-sequitur. The incompleteness theorems show that there can be no formal axiomatization of all of mathematics. This no more invalidates the logicist programme than it invalidates the idea of doing mathematics at all. Mathematics can be founded on logic, and frequently is; the fact that the Gödel theorems say that there will be true theorems that are not provable does not negate the usefulness or soundness of the foundation.

For these reasons, I have rewritten this paragraph of the article and removed the reference to Gödel entirely. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 14:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==More biography needed==

I think that since this is an article about Frege, it is stongly lacking in biographical information about the man.

If you speak Hungarian, see the [[hu:Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege|Hungarian article]]. Terrible news I haven't got enough time to translate it, but maybe you can ask other [[:Category:Wikipedians in Hungary|hungarians]]. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 10:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
==Query==
The article says he is " widely considered the greatest logician since Aristotle."I think many would say Russell or even Godel was greater. Could we not say one of the greatest to ensure NPOV? I think there would be unanimity on that assessment.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
: Russell or Godel probably weren't "greater" logicians than Frege and Frege wasn't "greater" then them (imnsho). They were all great logicians, but as a matter of fact Frege was the first. Yes, he ''was'' '''''one of the''''' greatest logicians since Aristotle. The difference between Frege and Russel, Gödel etc. is mainly that Frege was unknown for a long time, untill Russell (re)discovered lot of his achievements. Frege was born too early. Russell done a lot to put Frege on the well-known logicians's map. So I think you're right in this question: "one of" is more candid. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 10:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'd guess you won't find many logicians today who don't think that Frege was a greater figure than Russell. Figures from the algebraic logic tradition (Pierce, Boole, Schröder) would be better bets, Tarski has his admirers, but the claim still holds: Frege is widely considered the greatest logician since Aristotle, even if not universally. It might be a good idea to get some sources for this claim, though. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:: There were other great logicians (like Hegel or Kant, contributors in [[philosophical logic]]). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I could make a cogent and even persuasive case that russell was the superior logicianN especially given recent studies of Russel's papers at Macmasters. Certainly he was more influential. But my point is that arguing this borders on original research and a POV. I think qualifiers such as " widely considered the greatest" or equivalent superlatives are inherntly problematical. I can't imagine that anyone could disagree that he was "one of the greatest." [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
:Part of the issue is how the word "logician" is being used. For overall accomplishment in fields called "logic", including "mathematical logic", I think Gödel has it all over Frege. But if mathematical logic is not considered part of logic proper, then Frege's claim looks a lot better. In any case I think Logic2go's point is well taken. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::''Mathematical logic'' is a field of mathematics, and wasn't there until the 1930s. Gödel was a ''virtuoso'', while Frege was a pioneer who kick-started logic as a research area after a break of, ooo, 2000 years since the Stoics. Mathematicians are always going to think more of Gödel. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I think we're more or less on the same page here. E.g. a lot of Gödel's greatness comes from his work in set theory. Is set theory part of logic? Frege thought so, which in large part explains why Frege wasn't a great set theorist. In fact, the extent to which set theory is ''not'' simply logic became much clearer as a result specifically of Gödel's work.
:::But whether set theory is logic or not, the fact remains that it's ''called'' logic, and therefore discussions of who is the "greatest logician" are bound to be confusing. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

*Agreed. In logic(s), I think of Frege,Russell, and Godel as the Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle of the matter in terms of greatness and importance.:)[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
** It is irrelevant now, but I don't agree. Russell wasn't greater logician then Frege, his only one important and dateless - but disputed - achievement is type theory. Frege was 100× greater then him, I think :-)). And Russell was publicated explicit silly "achievements", e.g. his description theory is totally psychotic ... [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 18:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Cruising for a debate on that one(lol)! But that's the point, we have well-formed opinions on logic that a high school student looking to the encyclopedia for biographical info does not, and we shouldn't taint his understanding with our POV. We can do that in other venues. On that we can agree![[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Talk:Gottlob Frege

2005-10-21T17:31:28Z

Logic2go: /* Query */

==Logicist about arithmetic not geometry==

I changed "Frege was the first major proponent of logicism- the view that mathematics is reducible to logic.".
This can be misleading because Frege only held the logicist view with respect to arithmetic and analysis. He believed that geometry is synthetic a priori and hence not a part of logic.

==boole?==
How is the work of Gottlob Frege related to that of [[George Boole]]? --[[User:Hirzel|Hirzel]] 03:06 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You could say that Frege's work was later, was research rather than exposition, was deeper as an enquiry into language. In fact there is no serious intellectual connection, though obviously there might be some comparison in the use of algbra-style notations. [[User:Charles Matthews]]

As I know, Boole mostly worked on the theory of classes in logic, Frege was involved rather in the theories of first-order and second-order languages. It's a more general theory, because class theory is a logical theory, the theories of logical languages are metalogical theories (in a particular, relative meaning of metalogics). These statements are a bit inexact, but I can't explain it detail, cause English is not my original language, however it is true the relation between Boole and Frege is a quite neglected area in the Frege-research. I have no sources about it and I think even if some exists so they are unpopular (f.e. not foundable in internet or in public libraries). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 20:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Frege wrote two papers comparing his Begriffschrift with Boole's work. They are located in the Posthuous writings.

== Comments, questions and quibbles 25-aug-2004 ==

''...such as the use of quantification...''

* Common logician's error here: in normal english phrases like "two horses", two is a quantifier: no need for variables, bound or otherwise, to have quantification. Frege's contribution was the way he expressed quantification by means of variables; he did not invent quantification itself.

''Frege was the first to devise an axiomatization of propositional logic and of predicate logic.''

* Frege did not create a separate theory of propositional logic, as the above suggests, and actually it is an achievement of Frege's to combine propositional connectives and quantifiers in one calculus.

* In fact, the formalisation of predicate logic took almost another 60 years to complete, with the publication of Hilbert and Ackermann's book in 1928.

''Ludwig Wittgenstein and Edmund Husserl were among the other philosophical notables strongly influenced by Frege.''

* With Wittgenstein this is undeniable (although I think the sentence goes better elsewhere), but just how important an influence was Frege on Husserl. Husserl first agrees with Frege's objections, and then goes on to change his mind about it. That Husserl had an important correspondence is clear, but strong influence I think is going too far.

Nice article, though: I was surprised by how many things I learned reading it. ---- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 22:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==Failure of logicist programme==

The article says:

:Frege was the first major proponent of ''logicism'' -- the view that mathematics is reducible to logic. ... Russell discovered the paradox which bears his name, and that the axioms of the Grundgesetze led to this contradiction; he wrote to Frege, who acknowledged the contradiction in an appendix to volume two of the Grundgesetze, noting what he perceived to be the faulty axiom. Frege never did manage to amend his axioms to his satisfaction, however; and after Frege's death, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed that Frege's logicist program was impossible.

This strongly suggests that logicism was a failure. But I don't think that is correct; it seems to me that Frege's program was a success. Mathematicians still view set theory and logic, as set forth by Frege, to be the proper foundations for mathematics. It's only in recent years that an alternative, in the form of [[category theory]], has appeared.
:Mathematicians do not view ''logicist'' set theory as a proper foundation for mathematics. Logicist set theory, at least as I see it, was fairly definitively refuted by the Russell paradox. We do not consider sets to be a logical notion, identified with definable properties of which they are extensions, but as a mathematical notion--collections of objects, and at the same time objects themselves. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 06:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::I think I probably misunderstood what "logicist" means. Thanks for correcting me. I will do more research and try to corectly understand the situation. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The [[Russell paradox]] was satisfactorily resolved by Russell and Whitehead's theory of types and later by Zermelo's work on the axiom of foundation. It is not a serious hindrance today.
:You can't get rid of a paradox by adding an axiom. What Zermelo did was to provide a formal point of reference for the notion of sets as collections of objects rather than as extensions of properties (this was made more explicit by von Neumann, I think). That's the polar opposite of logicism. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 06:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::I didn't say it was resolved by the axiom; I said it was resolved by Zermelo's work. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
:::Point taken. It addresses only the smallest part of my remarks, though. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The remark about Gödel's incompleteness theorems is a non-sequitur. The incompleteness theorems show that there can be no formal axiomatization of all of mathematics. This no more invalidates the logicist programme than it invalidates the idea of doing mathematics at all. Mathematics can be founded on logic, and frequently is; the fact that the Gödel theorems say that there will be true theorems that are not provable does not negate the usefulness or soundness of the foundation.

For these reasons, I have rewritten this paragraph of the article and removed the reference to Gödel entirely. -- [[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 14:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==More biography needed==

I think that since this is an article about Frege, it is stongly lacking in biographical information about the man.

If you speak Hungarian, see the [[hu:Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege|Hungarian article]]. Terrible news I haven't got enough time to translate it, but maybe you can ask other [[:Category:Wikipedians in Hungary|hungarians]]. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 10:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
==Query==
The article says he is " widely considered the greatest logician since Aristotle."I think many would say Russell or even Godel was greater. Could we not say one of the greatest to ensure NPOV? I think there would be unanimity on that assessment.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
: Russell or Godel probably weren't "greater" logicians than Frege and Frege wasn't "greater" then them (imnsho). They were all great logicians, but as a matter of fact Frege was the first. Yes, he ''was'' '''''one of the''''' greatest logicians since Aristotle. The difference between Frege and Russel, Gödel etc. is mainly that Frege was unknown for a long time, untill Russell (re)discovered lot of his achievements. Frege was born too early. Russell done a lot to put Frege on the well-known logicians's map. So I think you're right in this question: "one of" is more candid. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 10:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'd guess you won't find many logicians today who don't think that Frege was a greater figure than Russell. Figures from the algebraic logic tradition (Pierce, Boole, Schröder) would be better bets, Tarski has his admirers, but the claim still holds: Frege is widely considered the greatest logician since Aristotle, even if not universally. It might be a good idea to get some sources for this claim, though. --- [[User:Chalst|Charles Stewart]] 12:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:: There were other great logicians (like Hegel or Kant, contributors in [[philosophical logic]]). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I could make a cogent and even persuasive case that russell was the superior logicianN especially given recent studies of Russel's papers at Macmasters. Certainly he was more influential. But my point is that arguing this borders on original research and a POV. I think qualifiers such as " widely considered the greatest" or equivalent superlatives are inherntly problematical. I can't imagine that anyone could disagree that he was "one of the greatest." [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
:Part of the issue is how the word "logician" is being used. For overall accomplishment in fields called "logic", including "mathematical logic", I think Gödel has it all over Frege. But if mathematical logic is not considered part of logic proper, then Frege's claim looks a lot better. In any case I think Logic2go's point is well taken. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 18:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::''Mathematical logic'' is a field of mathematics, and wasn't there until the 1930s. Gödel was a ''virtuoso'', while Frege was a pioneer who kick-started logic as a research area after a break of, ooo, 2000 years since the Stoics. Mathematicians are always going to think more of Gödel. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I think we're more or less on the same page here. E.g. a lot of Gödel's greatness comes from his work in set theory. Is set theory part of logic? Frege thought so, which in large part explains why Frege wasn't a great set theorist. In fact, the extent to which set theory is ''not'' simply logic became much clearer as a result specifically of Gödel's work.
:::But whether set theory is logic or not, the fact remains that it's ''called'' logic, and therefore discussions of who is the "greatest logician" are bound to be confusing. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

*Agreed. In logic(s), I think of Frege,Russell, and Godel as the Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle of the matter in terms of greatness and importance.:)[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational objectivism

2005-10-20T19:50:53Z

Logic2go: delet

===[[Rational objectivism]]===
This is apparently a term coined by philosopher [[Michael E. Berumen]]. I have done some research on this person, and have failed to find anything establishing his notability. Hence, this article is non-notable at best, and original research at worst. ''Please be aware that there has been suspected sockpuppet-ish behaviour regarding articles that pertain to Mr. Berumen. Consider comments on this AfD page with this in mind.'' [[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 13:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nominator and [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=7oU&hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22Rational+objectivism%22+%22Michael+Berumen%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search&meta= this] Google result. --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|(talk)]] 14:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
**So the only link is his blog. And ''rational objectivism'' links to the Wikipedia article. It seems our only source for the article is the article itself. '''Delete'''. --[[User:Optichan|Optichan]] 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - pseudo-philosophy by nn person. --[[User:MacRusgail|MacRusgail]] 17:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as neologism, term not widely used, and probable OR. [[User:MCB|MCB]] 19:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC).
*'''Merge''' brief notes into [[Michael E. Berumen]]; Berumen is notable enough to deserve a mention on Wikipedia, but he's not so notable that we need separate articles on all his theories. Of course, if the consensus decides that Berumen himself isn't notable (see separate AfD for Berumen above), this should be deleted too. [[User:Haeleth|Haeleth]] 12:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I would like to add, that Rational objectivism of Mr. Berumen, seems to be a copy(without giving credit) to R. A. Hirschheim uses of "Rational objectivism." And, contrary to Berumen, R. A. Hirschheim is a "real" published author, also, Hirschheim works on "Systems" are also importantly covering economics. I have not read Berumens book, but if he does not give credit to Hirschheim and al., I'd believe that we are facing intellectual dishonnesty, and this article in itself should get a speedy delete for this reason, because it tries to picture "Rational objectivism" as a movement and philosophy founded by Berumen. This is infirgingement to intellectual property and dishonnesty. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly ''is not'' a copy of Hirchhiem, and it is a term that others have used as well, even some of the Randian objectivists combine these terms. It is not a unique combination of words, and Beruman does not in any instance that I know claim that it is. In the way he uses it, it is primarily an adaptation of R. Hare's outlook, to whom he gives ample credit in his book. He subscribes to some of the traditional points of so-called continental rationalists, and to the objectivism of Hare, whose outlook his most resembles, (which, by the way, Hare did not attribute to Rand, who also uses the term, objectivism, nor should he have, because he means something rather different by it....would you accuse him of intellectual dishonesty?) Really, these personal accusations against people, here, are beyond the pale. It is not a movement, nor does he ever describe it as such, but the words he uses to describe his own outlook, with a specific meaning that may or may not be original (he never claims it is, and in fact says he is not especially original other than in synthesizing several ideas from others, notably Russell, Hare, Kant, and Gert). The positivists of the 30s did not acknowledge earlier 19th century users of the very same term, positivism, but I would not therefore accuse them of intellectual dishonesty. There is a decided lack of perspective, proportion, and reserve when from the veil of anonymity we are so quick to lash out at real people who are not as protected. This is a major deficiency of fora such as these, I believe. By the way, Hirshheim's ideas are greatly influenced by Popper, who preceeded him, who was influenced by Russell. Berumen acknowledeges the influence of both in great abundance. I think it is advisiable to read a person's book before offering a critique of it.
Oh, '''Delete'''. Be done with it. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

:What you are doing is plain simple intellectual intimidation. First, Hirchhiem systems analysis is also based on economic considerations, out of the blue moon, Berumen fish "Rational objectivism" and also, he's views are also influenced from economic considerations. What have you read from Hirchhiem, to claim, he has not been copied? [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 16:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

:I have no idea what you mean by intellectual intimidation. I do not want to intimidate anyone. Secondly, among one or two other papers over the years, I have read H.'s Information Systems Epistemology: A Historical Perspective. He is clearly influenced by Popper, as is Berumen. There is no out of the blue moon, Berumen has been studying philosophy for many years and has no doubt been influenced by many...but principally the people I mentioned above, whom he cites often, and several of whom also influenced Hirshheim. Berumen's theories on how economics and ethics interesect, however, have much more to do with his understanding of Kant and Hare and Rawls and Nozick than Hirshheim, of that I am sure. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

::By intellectual intimidation, I mean, your continual accusations. Besides, you just presented in your above post, a counter answer to your own article. I did not vote, delete, because for all I know, "Rational objectivism" may have some ground to stand, even though, just near what a fringe might be called. My problem is that, there are others who really worked around this term, like Hirchhiem, who are real published authors, but yet, you use this term, to further Berumen impact. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

: I have accused you of nothing that I can recall, other than not reading a book that you choose to criticize. If I have, I apologize. On the other hand, you did (above) accuse a very real person, not an anonymous editor operating behind a veil, of intellectual dishonesty, a serious charge, which I believe is at once incorrect (having read both of the authors in question, and being a pretty well-rounded student in Western philosophy) and, more importantly, unjust. Anyway, I have no axe to grind, so let's just move on. Best. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

::My final answer is in your talk page. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. There is no school or movement as such.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

User talk:Gubbubu

2005-10-20T19:43:09Z

Logic2go: thanks

Az angol wikipédia nem ismeri a hosszú ő betűt, legalábbis címben nem szerepelhet. --[[User:Grin|grin]] [[user_talk:grin|✎]] 22:23, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Kösz, már tájékoztattak. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 22:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Unverified images ==
Hi. You uploaded [[:Image:D-500.JPG]] but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See [[Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags]] for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. [[User:RedWolf|RedWolf]] 18:36, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

It's my own picture, and I allow its fair use without objections/exceptions. It has been taken on a flight show (Nemzetközi Repülőnap in Budaörs, Budapest, Hungary, about in 1990). I'm dead above copyright, law expressions and so ont (I'm "a legal analphabet" and hate dealing with it - and maybe the picture is not good enough to take the trouble over its license), but if it is so important, I try to do something. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]

== Your post on my talk page ==

Hi Gubbubu,

On my talk page you posted the following:
:I think you've seriously misunderstood some crucial principles of Wikipedia. First of all, principles are not rules or laws, if it is reasonable, we can and we must not respect them. For example, if secondary resources are obsolate and off-to-date. It's not original research. Please if you don't know enough on a topic, don't intervene. Thanks: Gubbubu 16:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If this comment was indeed directed at me, may I ask you to explain it a little? I wrote the part about original research in response to [[User:Antifinnugor|Antifinnugors]] comment to [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] that 'paper is patient'; it should be considered in its own context. From my earlier discussions with Antifinnugor, it should be clear that I do not consider everything he writes to be original research; in fact, I am the one who has pointed him to the few relevant academic sources (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finno-Ugric_languages&diff=prev&oldid=7684356 this diff]), thereby gathering the requested ''evidence of notability'' for him. (Regardless, I do consider the criticism leveled to be rather shallow from a linguistic point of view; and I do consider Antifinnugor's admitted political agenda and his uncritical endorsement of other politically motivated semi-linguistic positions doubtful, if not harmful.) [[User:Mark Dingemanse|<nowiki> </nowiki>]]— [[User:Mark Dingemanse|mark]] [[User Talk:Mark Dingemanse|✎]] 15:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

* Af maybe is quite radical in style and behaviour, but the content of his criticism is right in generally. My biggest problem reading your comments on that page was that you said criticism of finno-ugric theory was POV and has political basis. This is only one side of the truth: finno-ugrism has a lot of political relevancy and basis, too. It became the "one and only theory" in Hungary only cause it's opponents have been supressed with out-of-science instruments (almost like [[Trofirm Denisovic Lisenko]]'s opponents). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 20:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gubbubu, you seem like a serious editor, and I am prepared to listen to what you have to say. But I think you are going a little too far now. I know that afu has accused me of defamation and similar things. In my opinion, without any basis. I.e. I argue that afu is himself defaming me by saying that I did things which I have not done at all. Now, you seem to believe him. But could you not tell me what exactly I am supposed to have done? If it turns out I have done something inappropriate, I will naturally apologize without delay. In the case at hand, I do think it is reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry when two users' only edits are in supporting afu in votes, as other editors beside myself have also observed. I think your comparing me to the inquisition because of this is very far out of line, and I would ask you to explain yourself. regards, [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]] 19:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: Well, I haven't appreciated your style of accusing someone. I tried to explain, but my english is not to good. I asked Nyenyec to translate it, I think you can read it there. I think you will understand what I've said. Your message to Af was preconcepcious a bit - if you could prove Balf is a sockpuppet, it is wrong to AF, but if not, well, you would think he is a sock even if you can't prove. Maybe you have the facts in your mind. You got the truth, no matter what the truth is. Yess! I like your attitude! :-)) [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 20:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. I think I understand how my comment has distressed you, and I apologize. However, I think you misunderstood. I was trying to say: '''If''' these editors refuse to explain how they are connected with afu, just like Dhanak did, it will appear obvious that afu has somehow drummed them up. But this is a big '''if'''. If these editors chose to explain how they appeared on WP just to support afu, or if afu chose to explain how he knows these people, it would be very different. I agree that it is unfair to condemn somebody regardless of what he does. But I do think we gave afu every chance to improve his manners (and he could still improve them now, if he wanted). I hope this helps to reassure you that my intentions are sincere. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]] 21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== 2. ==
Yes, I'm more peaceful with your intentions now. :-)) [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 21:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, but I find it hard to decide whether this is sarcasm. Since you are defending afu, ''please'' provide links to the edits you are talking about. So far I have seen not a ''single'' inappropriate edit of afu's critics. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]] 10:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: No, in the present case that isn't. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 12:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:re, the "academia" argument: You are very welcome to come to [[Talk:Finno-Ugric languages]] and discuss things, ''civilly'' (i.e. no accusations of 'defaming' or 'KGB'). I think it is perfectly possible that Hungarians are genetically related to Turkish tribes, but as you say, this is a question of genetics and archaeology, about which I know ''nothing''. Note that the FU article is ''purely'' linguistics. I.e. if linguists say that Finnic and Ugric are related, they are ''not denying at all'' that Hungarians may be related to Turks genetically. They simply do not consider the question at all, because it is a wholly different subject, maybe best treated on [[Hungary:_Pre-History_and_Early_History]] (this is an article to which I have never made a single edit, because I have not done any research about it at all). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]] 10:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
: Yes, someone of them consider with gwenetical questions. I know about at last three finno-ugrist theories (Don't seem to be fit): hungarians genetically are related to slavs (the standard view) or not (J. Pusztay or Szabó János Mihály). Sorry, but linguistics alone can't solve this problem. If academists have their own theories, it's nice, untill they don't want me to accept it as "one and only scientific" theory. I don't know any ''material'' evidences they produced, so finno-ugrism is only a ''theory'' then. But genetics and archeology is something (more) ''material''. I like your insist on your professors' teachings, but please look out, there are a lot of science, not only linguistic. If I count that mathematically that in hte centre of Universe there's a black hole, but astronomist prove there is not, I don't throw out reality, i throw out mathematics. Really, I don't throww it out, but not state that it's the one and olny theory. Finno-ugrists have suppose some facts (Uralian ancient Home, etc.), what they can't prove materially. This question is interdisciplinar, for example that is a false statement "genetics and linguistic are total independent" - not, they are related. If genetics and linguistic clashes, I want to know why, and as I know finno-ugrists are totally unable to explain this. They say "well ,''maybe'' a change happened between languages''", but they can't give any ''concrete'' evidence where it happened, when it happened, why it happened, how it happened, with whom it happened. So their theories are only more or less probably theories, wether they are academists or not. And we - not like them - should treat these like this. So with a lot of critics. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 12:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:you seem to be unaware that linguistics and genetics are unrelated. far from stating the 'one and only theory', we tried to include the ongoing disputes into the article, including Angela Marcantonio who believes that the Finno-Ugric grouping is nonsense. Look at the article before you accuse its editors of censorship.
:: I haven't accused editors with censorship. Please write here where I did, else I won't know what you are talking about. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]
:as to the 'numbered links' on the rfc page, there are none. This is impossible. I ask you to provide a link like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor&curid=1348344&diff=0&oldid=0] when you talk about a user's edit, otherwise we will not understand what you are talking about. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]] 13:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:: I made links to it now.
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor#1.]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor#2. ].
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor#3.]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor#4.]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antifinnugor#Nyenyec.27s_view]

==en:==
hi Gubbubu -- I hope you realize that nobody is blaming you for your English. In fact, that you are a learner was pointed out ''in your favour'' on my Talk page. I.e. people have given you more credit than they would have given a native speaker, to allow for misunderstandings. I do think, however, that you should consider that there may be a misunderstanding on your side, because of the language, before you start making accusations. As for the linguistic discussion, yes, it is frustrating, for me also. But it's very easy: a claim is not a proof. We will include all opinions of experts. I am sure there is enough literature in English (which was never censored by the Soviets or anybody), and all you have to do is to give a reference, and it will be included. But you will understand that we cannot treat random webpages on the same level with peer-reviewed specialist literature. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''ᛏ''')]] 09:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

=== diff 1 ===

Please see and '''read''' this diff link (I mean read it from its start to its end, from letter to letter, interpreting it slowly from word to word, from sentence to sentence), what '''could be found''' at the '''top''' of the RFC-page (so I did't thought why I should had to copy it again and again) :
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANyenyec&diff=8386822&oldid=8085030]

As you did, you would read that (fatting from me):

Thanks to your adding the NPOV warning, the article on [[Finno-Ugric languages]] now reads: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see its talk page." This is completely false. This page has been under attack for the past few weeks by a '''[[troll]]''', '''who knows nothing about this subject''' and whose only source is something published on the Web by a '''crackpot''' named "Dr. László Marácz" (I bothered to read it and, as a seasoned historical linguist, '''I guarantee you it has no scientific basis whatsoever'''). There is absolutely no serious scientific dispute about the status of the Finno-Ugric language family. You have done a disservice to the Wikipedia by elevating this '''troll''' to such high status. '''[[User:Pasquale|Pasquale]]''' 21:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So Pasquale said Af is '''troll''' (have you read this text from word to word, or should I sign his words with coloured divs?) and said, more ""guaranteed" Af '''nothing knows 'bout the subject'''. So he said Af is '1incomoetent''. He '''started''' to state this, and then Af '''replied'''. The same thing with Hippo. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 14:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So you on the RFC page said Af blames everyone with incompeteny. But the truth is that he only "blames back", replies.

And P. abused Maracz too, despite of that he really doesn't know anything about him.

=== [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hippopha%EB&diff=prev&oldid=7932961 diff 2] ===

The diff link is above, you see it's there. You can read on that page - but tell me please if i'm not right:

* Hippo, please stop your terror
* Hippo, '''please''' do not delete:
- Mr. Maracz link
- Finnish-Hungarian ground word list
- The text of the critic. It is short, but true.

What you do is '''blind''' terror. '''Are you really''' [<-- question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] that primitive, and '''without arguing''', you just eliminate others work;

ín is not vein in Hungarian. '''Please stop including''' erroneous words. '''Or correct''' the English word and the others also. Your list is simply wrong.

Here the deletion caused Af's angry style. But he constructively '''please''' and '''ask''' Hippo to not do something, and give alternatives for him, not only condemn ( ... '''or correct ...''' ...).

Az angol wikipédia nem ismeri a hosszú ő betűt, legalábbis címben nem szerepelhet. --[[User:Grin|grin]] [[user_talk:grin|✎]] 22:23, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Kösz, már tájékoztattak. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 22:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Greetings. ==

Hello. I was [[Wikipedia:Untagged images|image tagging]], when I came across [[:Image:Graz-birdsight.JPG]] and [[:Image:Graz-catsight.JPG]]. Did you take these pictures? If not, where did they come from? Thanks, – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] ([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Image sleuthing|sleuth]]) 22:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken these. I visited Graz as I remember in 1998, and I enjoyed it so :-))). It was cool. I would like to declare these pictures as „freeware” but I don't know what should I write to their pages. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 07:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I'll take care of it. Thanks! – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] ([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Image sleuthing|sleuth]]) 13:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 18:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Image copyright==
: Is [[:Image:Annus0.jpg]] licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]]? --[[User:Ellmist|Ellmist]] 21:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
: Unfortunately I have no idea. I uploaded it when I was new editor, and didn't know much about licences. Unfortunately, I haven't became a lawyer since then. It's a scan from a newspaper, but I remastered it with some photo editor filters, so I think it's my picture. But if you were a lawyer and didn't agree with me, surely you would be right. I think digitaly remastering makes a new artwork (I now digitalization not makes, but radical remastering maybe), but really don't know. If I'm right, I declare this picture as freeware, if not, you can delete it. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]

::As the image contains parts of a copyrighted work it is still owned by the creator of the original work, sorry. I have deleted it. [[User:Thue|Thue]] | [[User talk:Thue|talk]] 13:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

==[[Hungarian Soviet Republic]]==
Too pov I'm afraid! and yer spelling bad while your at it .. You are to edit out your pov "in a minute"? There has been no discussion since march - [[User:Max rspct|max rspct]] 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then correct it and don't revert please. If you can tell me what sentences are pov, I think we should reach a consense. Copy - please don't cut - to its talkpage those sentences what are pov and give me advices how could we correct them. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]

== Hungarian Wikipedia ==
Hi. Your talk page seems partly duplicated, so I hope I'm putting this in the right place.

As far as I can tell, your user name isn't currently blocked at hu, but there was an autoblock that might have been affecting you, so I've removed that. Let me know if you're still blocked. It's hard to tell since the log there doesn't include expiry times.

I didn't understand your question about "relaying Nyenyec". What does that mean?

Has there been any community discussion of the 3 revert rule on the Hungarian Wikipedia? Just because it's policy on English doesn't mean it has to be one there as well, and it wouldn't seem fair to block someone for it if there is no consensus on that policy or if the people involved were not warned about the rule.
: As I know, there wasn't (the discussion started after Nyenyec banned IGe :-((). But I'm not sure. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]

Even if the user you are edit warring is a troll, it is generally better to ask others to get involved than to revert more than 3 times yourself, even if there wasn't a policy against it, since that makes it clearer whether there is community agreement on it rather than it looking like just a fight between 2 users.

[[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 08:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanx. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]

== JDM ==

Üdv! Most látom csak, hogy javitottál a Fönök életrajzán, köszönöm.
--[[User:Marcuspater|Marcuspater]] 29 June 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Ééén? Kién? [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 29 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)

(Oh, I wrote in the [[Rudolph Steiner]] article, I see. Thank you for thankink me). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 30 June 2005 11:04 (UTC)

==… nemzetközivééééé lesz… :-)==

Szia!

Láttam, hogy Erdős Pált átnevezted itt az angol Wikiben [[Paul Erdős]]ről [[Pál Erdős]]re. Ez első látásra kétségkívül hazafias, derék ötletnek tűnhet – második látásra viszont már kevésbé.

Hadd ajánljam figyelmedbe [[hu:Nádasdy Ádám|Mr. Vörös Posztó]] egyik megállapítását, miszerint a nemzetközi ismertség (ami Erdős Pált minden kétséget kizáróan megillet) gyakran összhangban áll a név nemzetköziesítésével.
: Nos, rá kár volt hivatkoznod :-)) [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]

Az angol Wikipédia például nem ''San Tommaso d'Aquinó''ról beszél a cikkében, hanem [[Thomas Aquinas]]ról, akit mi sem olasz nevén emlegetünk, hanem ''Aquinói Szt. Tamás''nak hívunk: ezzel is utalva arra, hogy az illető ember az olasz kultúrán túlmenően a nemzetközi kultúra és köztudat része lett. ''Tommaso d'Aquino'' a magyar nyelvben (!) lehetne egy szicíliai városka polgármesterének vagy egy kalábriai kis falu focistájának neve, de ha már az lett belőle, aki, kár lenne az eredeti olasz nevét erőltetnünk: a magyar nyelvben az ő nevének ''hagyománya'' alakult ki, a hagyomány pedig nem a nemzetrontó erők földalatti ténykedésének, hanem jó pár évszázad kulturális hatásának köszönhető.
: Hogy átmozgattam, annak fő oka a következetesség volt. Legtöbb matematikusunk, aki szerepel a Hungarian mathematicians oldalon, saját magyaros nevén szerepel, és maguk az angolok is át szokták az angolos vagy hunglish neveket javítani (Janos-ról Jánosra stb.). Kivétel a tartósan amerikában élőek (Neumann). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]
: Ideológiai és nemzeti jellegű motivációk kivételesen nem vezettek. Ennélfogva ha szabatosabbnak vagy helyesebbnek gondolod a Paul alakot, nyugodtan állítsd vissza (a redirekt úgyis meglesz a PÁlról, ahogy most is megvan a Paulról, úgyhogy ha valaki Paul néven keresi, vsz. megtalálja). [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]]

Merészebb példával élve, ''Yehoshua'', ''Yoshua'' vagy ''Yeshua'' szócikket sem fogsz találni az angol Wikipédiában, mivel viselőjük ''Jézus'', angolul [[Jesus]] néven lett közismert: kilépett az újgörög-héber provincialitásból, és a világszintű ismertség részeként és folyományaként nyelvről nyelvre más-más néven ismert.

Na most ha úgy gondoluk, hogy Erdős Pál személye és jelentősége túlmutat a [[hu:Ady Endre|kúnfajta, nagyszemű legényeken és a híres magyar Hortobágyon]] (márpedig efelől talán nincs vita köztünk), akkor azt is csak üdvözölhetjük, ha más-más nyelvbe más-más helyi alakban vonul be és válik közismertté. Amint azt Aquinói Szt. Tamás és Jézus példája is mutatja, épp az válik egy személy (vagy éppen helynév) elismertségének fokmérőjévé, mennyire simul bele nevük más nyelvekbe s ezáltal az ezeket beszélő kultúrák tudatába. Ezért én pont Erdős Pál jelentőségére, hírnevére tekintettel javasolnám a ''Paul Erdős'' alak megőrzését.
: Jó, nekem mindegy. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 30 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Ui. A magyar Wikipédiában feltett kérdésedre a számítástechnika és az informatika viszonyáról egyelőre nem találtam kielégítő és egyértelmű választ, azért nem jelentkeztem; a források (az MTA ad hoc véleményét is beleértve) részben ellentmondanak. De hamarosan összeszedem eddigi eredményeimet, és tanácsot kérek egy igen precíz és rendkívül ügyes, szó szerint ''talál''ékony könyvtáros barátomtól.
[[User:Adam78|Adam78]] 30 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
: OK, kösz, hogy utánanéztél. Mellesleg az ellentmondásos források is érnek valamit. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 30 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

:egyébként is félmunkát végeztél, Gubb, akkor legyen már Erdős Pál, és tanulják meg a hülye angolok, hogy ez a sorrend a helyes :) [[User:Alensha|Alensha]] 2 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
: Nem jó ötlet, mert az összes matematikus neve fordítva szerepel a kategóriákban, tehát nem lenne következetes intézkedés. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 2 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

== Consensual ==
Hi!
Is the Hungarian Horthy article consensual? (Well, I think so, as only our beloved User:Math made some remarks, which have already been investigated.) And in that case why is its neutrality argued? [[User:Mathae|Mathae]] 7 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

I think yes, [[w:hu:User:Math|Math]] not argued its neutrality, only said we shouldn't write about Horthy's aims and motivations, because its not lexikon-like. But it seems to be inavoidable. I think we should wait a few day, then we can ask Alensha for translate the hungarian content into the english page, where it is necessary; or you can start it too, if you want. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

== Re: Sumerian ==

Why are you telling '''me''' this? I have absolutely nothing to do with that discussion about Sumerian origin on [[Talk:Magyars]]. Some anonymous wrote that comment. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] 21:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

==User catagorization==
You were listed in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Hungary]] page as living in or being associated with Hungary. As part of the [[Wikipedia:User categorisation]] project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit [[:Category:Wikipedians in Hungary]] for instructions. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 22:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thankˇyou, I've done. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 12:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

== [[:Image:Aristatue.jpg]] ==
Hi. Could you consider adding a license tag to this image? // [[User:Fred chessplayer|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred chessplayer|Chess]] 10:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

== Budapest ==

Budapest lakosainak száma 1 695 000, a vandálunk kivételesen helyesen javította ki 1,7 millióra (és még így is túlzunk, mert nem több 1,7 milliónál, mint ahogy a cikk állítja). 15 év alatt 400 ezerrel lett kevesebb a lakosság. 
Egyébként az angol wikiben is vissza lehet állítani az anon módosításokat vagy vigyázni kell a 3 visszaállításos szabályra? -[[User:nagytibi|nagytibi ]] [[User talk:nagytibi|''!'']] [[Special:Contributions/nagytibi|''?'']] 20:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Akkor jó; kösz, hogy visszaállítottad. Az interrogációdat az anonim editek revertjéről negligálnom kell: fogalmam sincs, és az angol help szisztéma oly komplikált, hogy koncepcióm sincs, hol kell megcsekkolni. [[User:Gubbubu|Gubbubu]] 09:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

== Mathematics ==

I replied on my talk page. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 10:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

==Thanks==

I think it's much better now. I wasn't too woried about specialists, for we all have our well formed opinions. I was more concerned about nonspecialists who based on this article conclude something that is highly debatable. Thanks again. [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moral realm

2005-10-20T19:33:57Z

Logic2go: /* Moral realm */

===[[Moral realm]]===
This phrase was coined by [[Michael E. Berumen]], a philosopher who appears to be non-notable. All my research has failed to turn up anything establishing his notability. Thus, this article is non-notable at best, and original research at worst. ''Please be aware that there have been suspicions of sockpuppet-ish activity regarding articles pertaining to Mr. Berumen. Consider comments on this AfD page accordingly.'' --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 12:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete''': Berumen is self-published and appears to have had no public recognition/acceptance/criticism of his work. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 13:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - pseudo-philosophy and also a concept which has been better elucidated elsewhere. --[[User:MacRusgail|MacRusgail]] 17:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Dottoreso|Dottore So]] 09:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' brief notes into [[Michael E. Berumen]]; Berumen is notable enough to deserve a mention on Wikipedia, but he's not so notable that we need separate articles on all his theories. Of course, if the consensus decides that Berumen himself isn't notable (see separate AfD for Berumen above), this should be deleted too. [[User:Haeleth|Haeleth]] 12:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' I don't know why MacRusgail (above) calls it a psuedo-philosophy. I rather suspect he hasn't read his book, so that strikes me as an excessive claim. It is very much a real philosophy. His idea of the conjoint princile impartial rationality extending to all who can suffer has not, insofar as I am aware, been elucidated better or at all elsewhere. He does have a public that comes to listen to him speak at many kinds of venues. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

Keep or Merge. It's
Original and a concept worth stating maybe as some sort of subpage? [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Talk:Gottlob Frege

2005-10-20T18:46:35Z

Logic2go: /* Query */

Talk:Gottlob Frege

2005-10-20T02:38:00Z

Logic2go: slight wording change suggested

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen

2005-10-18T02:13:35Z

Logic2go:

===[[Michael E. Berumen]]===
While this is a very well-written article, I have failed to find anything actually establishing notability. He is self-published, with a single non-notable book. His claim to fame appears to be his status as a philosopher, but I can find no significant trace of his contributions to scholarly philosophy anywhere (except Wikipedia itself). In short, a non-notable person. ''Please be aware that there have been suspicions of sockpuppet-ish behaviour around articles pertaining to this person. Evaluate comments on this AfD page accordingly.'' [[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 12:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''delete''': I first raised the potential non-notability of Berumen on the help pages, after I was nearly waylaid by these references to him during the course of some research I am doing in the field of moral philosophy. No-one else in the field (and I have read in it quite widely now) references Berumen at all. There is no evidence that his work has been peer-reviewed. I don't think there is any justification for including Berumen's work in an Encyclopaedia. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 13:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''D'''elete. Smells of vanity. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|T@lk]] 13:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' He meets Wikipedia's published notability test of being "more notable than the average college professor," as a published author, a paid speaker on ethics, businessperson serving on boards, and as someone who has testified before the U.S. Congress. My wife (a philosophy professor) and I wrote most of the article. It is especially interesting that it was at the earlier prompting of the administrator [[User:Alteripse]] that we found appropriate links in the first place, for she identifed it as an orphan; we were quite open about it as anyone reading my talk page would see. This is being unfairly and inaccurately portrayed as some sort of clandestine operation. I suspect most editors know nothing about how many of the authors listed here might have participated in financing the publication of their work. Many well known authors have self published. His work is favorabley mentioned in at least the Society for Business Ethics, Finest Hour, and Stanford Business Magazine. I have no idea if he has been reviewed elsewhere, and given a large number of publications and possibilities, I suspect [[User:ElectricRay]] does not either. In any case, the deletionist trend evidenced here and elsewhere seems to me to be excessive and contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals.[[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]
*'''Keep''' - no valid reason to delete. A fairly decent article with multiple editers thus passes vanity test. --[[User:Irishpunktom|Irishpunktom]]\[[User_talk:Irishpunktom|talk]] 14:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The first paragraph does read rather like a ho-hum resume, but when you get beyond that there is sufficient evidence of notability. (Recommend reworking that paragraph.) [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 14:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::Could you please specify? What evidence of notability do you mean? --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. This is factual info about a real person. When you are tempted to set higher standards for notability, remember we have articles on individual television, videogame, and card game characters that are lovingly maintained. There is no harm in leaving this in the database. I have no connection or interest in this guy or this article, except I was asked to comment on the proposed deletion. [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 14:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:The problem is with the "factual" assertion. How, exactly, do you know that it's factual? The information we have on television, videogame, and card game characters '''is''' factual, and can be verified fairly easily by any interested third party.
:One of the big reasons we tend to insist on notability for people is that for non-notable persons, it's very difficult to say a lot of verifiable things. For instance, this article says quite a bit about Michael E. Berumen's opinions, thoughts, and philosophies. Is that factual? How can you tell? --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 15:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::Are you concerned that basic bio facts are invented, or that his ideas and books are misrepresented? The factuality is a different issue than notability. We generally assume good faith about this unless someone arrives to claim the facts are not true. [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't ''know'' whether any of the facts are invented or not, and I can't really think of any easy way to tell. That's the whole problem, and it is related to notability; if anyone wrote that George Bush was born in Alabama, I could easily find out whether that's true or not, because he's notable, meaning that there are plenty of independent sources about him. The same is not true about Mr. Berumen.--[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 15:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::I have read his book. One assumes others who have edited the article for substance have, too. That's the good faith thing...and also the reason for Wikipedia's general disclaimer that its material is not formally peer reviewed. Why are you contesting everyone's vote, here? Sounds like you have an agenda. It was also presumptuous of you to delete the links to this artilce PRIOR to the vote you wanted to have. Perhaps you really were not interested in the opinion of others, after all, that is, unless they comported with your own. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]
:::This is actually normal behaviour on an AfD page. I am in no way "contesting everyone's vote"; I am merely engaging in debate about them. If they don't wish to, they have no obligation to respond to me.
:::I '''do''' have an agenda; I am committed to keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic, and specifically, to keeping vanity articles out of it. I believe [[Michael E. Berumen]] to be such a vanity article. However, far more damaging than the article itself were all the specious references to this person in various other articles, which is why I removed them. Note that I was actually pre-empted from doing so in three articles: [[Competition]], [[Animal rights]], and [[Vegetarianism]] are pretty high-profile articles, and references to Mr. Berumen were excised from them by others, before I got there. To me, this shows some level of consensus as to the relative importance of this person. --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 15:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I actually agree with deleting the links. I would want a much higher "importance threshold" for a link from another article than for continued existence of an article. The vanity argument is stronger in that context as well. Is that an agreeable compromise? [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 16:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:::*I would be happy with that: I don't have any beef about Berumen in particular, and I agree the article is fairly well written - though I have no idea about its accuracy. My main concern is that it is misleading for Berumen to be held out as a leading philsopher in his field, when he simply isn't. Some call that elitism: I call it credibility. The links are by far and away the most troubling aspect in that regard, as far as I am concerned. [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 16:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:::*Not the ideal solution, IMO, but an acceptable compromise. I can go along with that, sure. :) --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 16:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Well, I find your comments surprising, Alteripse, since as I recall (maybe it was someone else, but I don't think so) you were the one who long ago characterized the article as an orphan needing friends (i.e., links). I do not agree that the links were inappropriate, though I have never been much of a reverter or one to dispute removals when others find them inappropriate. However, I do object to the wholesale deletions of relative newcomers (and not editors who made substantial contributions to philosophy) to Wikipedia ''prior'' to the settlement of this issue, and ignoring the will of the editors specializing in philosophy who frequent those pages. Having written a great deal of the material (and in several cases most of it) on the pages in question, it seems ridiculous and even misleading to remove the source of the ideas about which I wrote, that is, the reference material I used. In any event, I feel the whole issue is a railroading job by two people who seem suspiciously congradulatory of one another, and I am very tired of defending this and will therefore cease doing so unless a question is asked of me. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::Sorry if my valuation of this article falls between ''keep the article'' and ''link back from every subject he has written about''. Links don't have to be symmetric or reciprocal, and it sounds like he was not likely to be one of the 10 most important philosophers or writers to cite for most of the topics he has written about. No offense intended and I am certainly not trying to railroad anything. [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Please note that I have posted explanations on the talk page of every page I removed content from, and--as I have stated repeatedly--I'm very willing to debate every removal on its own merits. I was [[Wikipedia:Be bold|bold]] in removing the content, and I feel it was the right thing to do. However, if consensus on the article talk pages is that Mr. Berumen's views on a subject are notable, then I see no problem with restoring them.
:::::Also, as I have already stated on [[User_talk:Icut4you|Icut4u's talk page]], a person's notability is '''not''' a convincing reason for that person's views to be included, at length, in several dozen articles. Therefore, I fail to see why I should have waited until the end of this debate, since a ''keep'' consensus will in no way prove my removals to have been in error (nor will a ''delete'' consensus prove me to have been right in removing them, for that matter). --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 17:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*KEEP. Smells of elitism.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]
*'''Keep''' [[Ayn Rand]] is barely ever referenced by academics, but she gets her own article too. Academics don't get to decide who is notable. --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|talk]] 17:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:*Re Rand, that used to be the case - not sure it is now - Ayn Rand is increasingly gaining academic respectability - and was frequently cited, for example, by Robert Nozick in his later years. In any case, that's not the point - Ayn Rand has a huge non-academic following, is extremely widely known, well published and widely read - it's not about academic notice, it's about '''public''' notice.[[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 17:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This is a very well-written article, I have failed to find anything actually establishing notability as deletion criteria. [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 18:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''delete''' no good indications of notability in the article that I can see. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 18:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as vanity/nn-bio. I did due diligence, and really, this guy is a self-published "philosopher" with no noted following in the field, or references to his work. Anyone can publish their own ideas about any subject, even in an articulate fashion, but that does not mean they warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. [[User:MCB|MCB]] 18:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I offer the following cursory overview from Google:::I can't spend the whole day on this, but I would reference a few things. The Congressional testimony is referenced in the flap of his book and on the bio on the publisher's website [http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28001-3], on a company website [http://www.fourstarinc.com], and on his blog [http://www.meberumen.blgspot.com]. Here is a speakers notice from a business association [http://www.ocebc.org/programs/2004/200506.html]. He is mentioned in the largest business ethics journal [http://www.societyforbusinessethics.org/docs/03fall.pdf]. He is on the board of a statewide security organization [http://www.societyforbusinessethics.org/docs/03fall.pdf]. I checked a couple of libraries...he is in UCLA's [http://www.societyforbusinessethics.org/docs/03fall.pdf]; Stanford's [http://www.societyforbusinessethics.org/docs/03fall.pdf]; and the Los Angeles Public Library [http://catalog1.lapl.org/cgi-bin/cw_cgi?fullRecord+24078+965+1893573+1+0]; presumably the librarians of such world class libraries know something about what constitutes notability for their stacks and do not populate them with vanity tomes? In any case, I cannot imagine that he is not notable enough for Wikipedia. I think the library stuff is the most compelling, actually. Self-publication is a commonplace, from Russell to WF Buckley. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 17:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:"On a company website" is perhaps a bit misleading; that's "On '''his company's''' website", no? I'm afraid none of the first three can be considered independent sources, by any stretch of the word. Sources 4 and 5 establish that he holds lectures or seminars, nothing more. To my mind, that does not establish notability, and he does not seem to be a particularly distinguished speaker, either (the short blurb about his lecture is on Page 16). Sources 6, 7, and 8 are actually the exact same source as 5, and it doesn't appear to say anything at all about which libraries his books are in; you sure that's the correct source?
:Source 9 is fine; the book is definitely in the Los Angeles Public Library. But according to a librarian friend of mine, large (non-specialist) public libraries--like, persumably, the Los Angeles Public Library--are actually not very picky about the books they'll accept. It would, in fact, be normal to find all the theses from nearby universities in a large public library; this would still not make every grad student notable. --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::My mistake here's Stanford [http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/library/articles/catalogs/additions/03Dec.html] and here's UCLA [http://catalog.library.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Berumen+Michael&Search_Code=AUTH&SL=None&PID=7883&SEQ=20051017094337&CNT=50&HIST=1&SEARCH_FROM_TITLES_PAGE=Y]]. These are real libraries with real librarians, not your "friend." The evidence suggests that you dislike real evidence of notability and you seem quite annoyed at the fact that some others support my position.[[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 21:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Not at all. :) I bear you or Mr. Berumen no personal enmity; and while I still feel he's not notable, pages for non-notable people are, in themselves, pretty benign. I'm really much more against the skewing of "real" Wikipedia articles with the inclusion of non-notables.
:::Incidentally, if I were annoyed at people not agreeing with me, I'd have quit Wikipedia long ago. Such feelings really aren't very helpful here. Consensus is king, and that is how it should be. --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

UCI's library: [[http://melvyl.cdlib.org/F/FXIRG5A79SSPIKK51CF1BC8B12Q2ADTJ9XA8B4JBDEHU5N386U-10104?func=find-b&find_code=WTI&request=do+no+evil%3A+ethics+with+applications&adjacent=N&filter_code_4=WID&filter_request_4=&filter_code_5=WTP&filter_request_5=&filter_code_1=WLN&filter_request_1=&filter_code_2=WYR&filter_request_2=&filter_code_3=WYR&filter_request_3=&x=32&y=11]] Saddleback College: [[http://sirsi.socccd.cc.ca.us/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/vtxQqn0Blf/SADDLEBACK/196810016/123]] So, are so many distinguished libraries, public and academic, complete dunderheads on notability and worth? Worthy at UCLA and Stanford, but not WIkipedia? Give me a break. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

Perhaps a different hemisphere will make a difference? Or are the Aussie librarians not quite up to the task of assessing books and notability? [[http://library.uq.edu.au/search~S7/~?searchtype=a&searcharg=Berumen,%20Michael]] Maybe we should just get rid of libraries and rely on Wikipedia from now on, for by the evidence adduced here, if we are to believe the noted experts Ashenai and ElectricRay, these large university libraries seem not to know how to populate their shelves with meaningful materials. Alternatively, perhaps these editors could consult with them in order to correct their obvious incompetency. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:I can cite, various books I can find in libraries, that neither the author, nor the book is cited in wikipedia and are more notable. I don't think that finding a book from someone in some libraries really shows that the author is notable enough. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 01:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - vanity/nn-bio, sulf-published. Nuff said. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 19:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as per the reasons provided by Irishpunktom and icut4u. [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] 19:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Seems notable enough for mine and the article certainly isn't vanity as it is wellwritten as the nominator concedes. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 19:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', as for [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]]. There is no disadvantage to the Wiki in keeping these few kilobytes of info; but there is a disadvantage in disenfranchising the editors who have created this page. Err on the side of caution. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 20:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''keep''' please this is factual and verifiable about a real person and plus it is well written so erasing this makes no sense [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 22:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''delete''' I once made the mistake of voting keep for a vanity book, I won't make that mistake again. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 01:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
**evidence should mean something here. Major world renouned research libraries do not select vanity books[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

User talk:Ashenai

2005-10-17T21:26:11Z

Logic2go: big fingers, little keys

'''Welcome!'''

Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
*[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
*[[Wikipedia:Help|Help pages]]
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|How to write a great article]]
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out [[Wikipedia:Ask a question]] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  [[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] 02:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

== RHINALLERGY ==

You should be '''bold'''. If you thought [[RHINALLERGY]] should be kept, you should have converted the speedy tag into an AfD and completed the rest of the AfD procedure. Anyone can do that. -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 12:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you for the advice! I'll be bolder in the future. :) -- [[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] 12:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

== Re: Thank you! ==

The article and its Talk page is under attack of some guy with a website and his own original theory for several months. I am quite disgusted by the constant calling Nazi and mass blanking and would appreciate more people keeping eye on the article. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 17:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
: Thanks. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 17:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

== [[Magic: The Gathering rules]] ==

If you feel like working more on this page, ''please'' feel free to do so, or start the talk page. --[[User:Khaim|Khaim]] 01:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

== Keywords vs. Mechanics ==

Since you seem like the most active member of the MTG project right now, I wanted your input on the difference between keywords and mechanics in the infoboxes. I honestly don't know what the difference would be, and would like to combine the two. I posted at the project, but got no response, that's probably the best place to reply: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic:_The_Gathering#Keywords_vs._Mechanics]. Thanks! -- [[User:Norvy|Norvy]] [[User talk:Norvy|(talk)]] 15:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

== SnackingKeyboard ==

I've actually blocked [[User:Snacking Keyboard]] six minutes before you reported him on [[WP:VIP]], but thanks for the report anyway. I was just browsing Recent changes and saw a lot of edits with "Love virus?" as the edit summary. It didn't take long to guess what was happening and click on the "Block" link. [[User:JIP|— JIP]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Lizard ==

[[Image:Tokay Gecko.jpg|100px|right]] Your response at [[WP:HD#lizard]] cracked me up. Thanks! — [[Image:Ontario trillium sig.png|15px]][[User:mendel|mendel]] [[User_talk:Mendel|☎]] 17:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

==Just dropping by...==
Just dropping by and telling you that you're doing a wonderful job at RC patrolling &mdash your name keeps popping up! Keep up the good work! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] | [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note? ]]| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] | [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]][[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If those AOL IPs get annoying, just let me know and I'll block 'em for a couple minutes. :-)

== Ashida Kim ==

I have been trying to tell Mr. Kim that I cannot act unilaterally and delete the article because of the community consensus issue. He accuses me of siding with his enemies and "hiding behind policy". As for now, I can't delete it, as much as I'd like to. --[[User:Merovingian|{{User:Merovingian/Sig}}]] [[User talk:Merovingian|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|(c)]] 16:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

== Ashida Kim is not self published ==

Thanks. I hope I'm doing this right. Ashida Kim is not self published. His books were originally on Paladin Press and now on Citadel Press Books published by Kensington Publishing Corp. 850 Third Ave. New York, NY. 10022 (1 800 221 2647)

Thanks for putting up the info. I was under the impression that I could not vote because I just started editing. Do I just go to edit page on deletion article?
Here is some more info. They can call or go to any Borders or Barnes and Noble and see for themselves that Ashida Kim books are in stock and very popular. Of the 8 or so books still in print, three of them are available at Borders here in Vegas. I don't mean borders.com, I mean the actual store. If you're in there looking for books about Ninja, chance are, his name is on it.

== Ashida Fraud Forum ==

Here is an entire forum dedicated to Ashida
[http://p216.ezboard.com/bashidafraud]

I added some good edits so please update me from 14 to however many I now have.

== Fine! ==
Hi, I like the way you handled that 'framed' user! By the way, now that I'm on your talk page anyway, your comment in the edit summary the other day ("I LIKE LENTILS! Also: revert vandalism" (or something like it)) made me smile :-) See you! Regards, --[[User:JoanneB|JoanneB]] 12:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashida_Kim_%282nd_nomination%29#Vote summary|Busy little...]] ==

[[Image:Beaver.jpg|thumb|180px|Keep it up!]]
Ashenai, 
Even though I've heckled you about it, and I'm not sure I think it's a good idea, here's a little something. That must have taken simply ''ages''. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 01:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, now you've checked all the numbers again, eh? Did this turn out to be more trouble than you anticipated? ^_^; 
I think the discussion that has resulted has been good, though, and hope that you're not feeling harried at all. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 23:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

== Revert edit summaries ==

"woooo-hooOOOOO!!! (grabs crotch, does Moonwalk, reverts vandalism))"

Made me laugh out loud. --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|(talk)]] 13:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:You did it again with "reverted unsubstantiated allegation. Please provide wanking statistics.". :-) --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|(talk)]] 14:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

::''<nowiki>*grin*</nowiki>'' Thank you, nice to be appreciated. :) --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

== Wikipedia latency issues ==
''For god's sake, it took me ten minutes to GET TO this article and REVERT it.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=25164286&oldid=25164141]
: You and me both; on my side it kept timing out on that particular article, and I knew it was being vandalized. If you can, please help me keep an eye on [[Special:Contributions/210.55.230.121|210.55.230.121]] until it is blocked. <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User:Еdit|edit]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 01:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

== [[User talk:Furtim]] ==

You gave [[User:Furtim|Furtim]] a {{tl|test}}, but assuming it was for his edit on [[Cannabis (drug)]] that was incorrect, he didn't add the test he merely edited the version that contained it without noticing it. You may want to retract the message. Happy editing! --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|*]] 15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

==Procedure==

Before you went about deleting all of the links to the Berumen article, you should have waited the presecribed 5 days for the vote that you initiated. Those articles have survived editors who presumably know something about the subject matter. What is more, several contain material original and sourced to Berumen. You were highly presumptuous in your exuberance, I think, and you ought to revert your deletions until such time as the basic issue is decided. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 15:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
==Stop it!==
I am Maurice Simmons, no one else, and, as far as I am aware, I do not know anyone at this site. Don't make accusations unless you have proof. You may meet me at the Golden Spike in The City tonight and buy me a beer by way of apology. [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

User talk:Ashenai

2005-10-17T21:21:40Z

Logic2go:

'''Welcome!'''

Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
*[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
*[[Wikipedia:Help|Help pages]]
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]]
*[[Wikipedia:How to write a great article|How to write a great article]]
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out [[Wikipedia:Ask a question]] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  [[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] 02:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

== RHINALLERGY ==

You should be '''bold'''. If you thought [[RHINALLERGY]] should be kept, you should have converted the speedy tag into an AfD and completed the rest of the AfD procedure. Anyone can do that. -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 12:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you for the advice! I'll be bolder in the future. :) -- [[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] 12:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

== Re: Thank you! ==

The article and its Talk page is under attack of some guy with a website and his own original theory for several months. I am quite disgusted by the constant calling Nazi and mass blanking and would appreciate more people keeping eye on the article. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 17:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
: Thanks. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 17:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

== [[Magic: The Gathering rules]] ==

If you feel like working more on this page, ''please'' feel free to do so, or start the talk page. --[[User:Khaim|Khaim]] 01:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

== Keywords vs. Mechanics ==

Since you seem like the most active member of the MTG project right now, I wanted your input on the difference between keywords and mechanics in the infoboxes. I honestly don't know what the difference would be, and would like to combine the two. I posted at the project, but got no response, that's probably the best place to reply: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magic:_The_Gathering#Keywords_vs._Mechanics]. Thanks! -- [[User:Norvy|Norvy]] [[User talk:Norvy|(talk)]] 15:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

== SnackingKeyboard ==

I've actually blocked [[User:Snacking Keyboard]] six minutes before you reported him on [[WP:VIP]], but thanks for the report anyway. I was just browsing Recent changes and saw a lot of edits with "Love virus?" as the edit summary. It didn't take long to guess what was happening and click on the "Block" link. [[User:JIP|— JIP]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Lizard ==

[[Image:Tokay Gecko.jpg|100px|right]] Your response at [[WP:HD#lizard]] cracked me up. Thanks! — [[Image:Ontario trillium sig.png|15px]][[User:mendel|mendel]] [[User_talk:Mendel|☎]] 17:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

==Just dropping by...==
Just dropping by and telling you that you're doing a wonderful job at RC patrolling &mdash your name keeps popping up! Keep up the good work! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] | [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A note? ]]| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] | [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]][[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. If those AOL IPs get annoying, just let me know and I'll block 'em for a couple minutes. :-)

== Ashida Kim ==

I have been trying to tell Mr. Kim that I cannot act unilaterally and delete the article because of the community consensus issue. He accuses me of siding with his enemies and "hiding behind policy". As for now, I can't delete it, as much as I'd like to. --[[User:Merovingian|{{User:Merovingian/Sig}}]] [[User talk:Merovingian|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Merovingian|(c)]] 16:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

== Ashida Kim is not self published ==

Thanks. I hope I'm doing this right. Ashida Kim is not self published. His books were originally on Paladin Press and now on Citadel Press Books published by Kensington Publishing Corp. 850 Third Ave. New York, NY. 10022 (1 800 221 2647)

Thanks for putting up the info. I was under the impression that I could not vote because I just started editing. Do I just go to edit page on deletion article?
Here is some more info. They can call or go to any Borders or Barnes and Noble and see for themselves that Ashida Kim books are in stock and very popular. Of the 8 or so books still in print, three of them are available at Borders here in Vegas. I don't mean borders.com, I mean the actual store. If you're in there looking for books about Ninja, chance are, his name is on it.

== Ashida Fraud Forum ==

Here is an entire forum dedicated to Ashida
[http://p216.ezboard.com/bashidafraud]

I added some good edits so please update me from 14 to however many I now have.

== Fine! ==
Hi, I like the way you handled that 'framed' user! By the way, now that I'm on your talk page anyway, your comment in the edit summary the other day ("I LIKE LENTILS! Also: revert vandalism" (or something like it)) made me smile :-) See you! Regards, --[[User:JoanneB|JoanneB]] 12:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashida_Kim_%282nd_nomination%29#Vote summary|Busy little...]] ==

[[Image:Beaver.jpg|thumb|180px|Keep it up!]]
Ashenai, 
Even though I've heckled you about it, and I'm not sure I think it's a good idea, here's a little something. That must have taken simply ''ages''. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 01:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, now you've checked all the numbers again, eh? Did this turn out to be more trouble than you anticipated? ^_^; 
I think the discussion that has resulted has been good, though, and hope that you're not feeling harried at all. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|(t)]][[Special:Contributions/Aaron Brenneman|(c)]] 23:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

== Revert edit summaries ==

"woooo-hooOOOOO!!! (grabs crotch, does Moonwalk, reverts vandalism))"

Made me laugh out loud. --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|(talk)]] 13:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

:You did it again with "reverted unsubstantiated allegation. Please provide wanking statistics.". :-) --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|(talk)]] 14:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

::''<nowiki>*grin*</nowiki>'' Thank you, nice to be appreciated. :) --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

== Wikipedia latency issues ==
''For god's sake, it took me ten minutes to GET TO this article and REVERT it.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=25164286&oldid=25164141]
: You and me both; on my side it kept timing out on that particular article, and I knew it was being vandalized. If you can, please help me keep an eye on [[Special:Contributions/210.55.230.121|210.55.230.121]] until it is blocked. <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User:Еdit|edit]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 01:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

== [[User talk:Furtim]] ==

You gave [[User:Furtim|Furtim]] a {{tl|test}}, but assuming it was for his edit on [[Cannabis (drug)]] that was incorrect, he didn't add the test he merely edited the version that contained it without noticing it. You may want to retract the message. Happy editing! --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|*]] 15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

==Procedure==

Before you went about deleting all of the links to the Berumen article, you should have waited the presecribed 5 days for the vote that you initiated. Those articles have survived editors who presumably know something about the subject matter. What is more, several contain material original and sourced to Berumen. You were highly presumptuous in your exuberance, I think, and you ought to revert your deletions until such time as the basic issue is decided. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 15:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
==Stop it!=
I am Maurice Simmons, no one else, and, as far as I am awarwe, Ido not know anyone at this site. Don't make accussations unless you have proof. You may meet me at the Golden Spike in The City tonight and buy me a beer by way of apology. [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Berumen

2005-10-17T15:13:33Z

Logic2go:

Principia Mathematica

2005-10-16T05:47:21Z

Logic2go: planned fourth volume and significance of PM

:''For [[Isaac Newton]]'s [[1687]] book containing basic laws of physics, see ''[[Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica]]''.''

The '''''Principia Mathematica''''' is a three-volume work on the foundations of [[mathematics]], written by [[Alfred North Whitehead]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] and published in [[1910]]-[[1913]]. It is an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of [[axiom]]s and [[inference rule]]s in [[symbolic logic]].
One of the main inspirations and motivations for the Principia was [[Gottlob Frege|Frege]]'s earlier work on logic, which had led to some contradictions discovered by Russell. These were avoided in the Principia by building an elaborate system of ''types'': a set has a higher type than its elements and one can not speak of the "set of all sets" and similar constructs which lead to paradoxes (see [[Russell's paradox]]).

The ''Principia'' only covered [[set theory]], [[cardinal numbers]], [[ordinal numbers]] and [[real numbers]]; deeper theorems from [[real analysis]] were not included, but by the end of the third volume it was clear that all known mathematics could in principle be developed in the adopted formalism.

The questions remained whether a contradiction could be derived from the Principia's axioms, and whether there exists a mathematical statement which could neither be proven nor disproven in the system. These questions were settled by [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem]] in [[1931]]. Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that basic arithmetic cannot be used to prove its own consistency, so it certainly cannot be used to prove the consistency of anything stronger. In other words, the statement "there are no contradictions in the ''Principia'' system" cannot be proven true or false in the Principia system unless there ''are'' contradictions in the system (in which case it can be proven both true and false).

A fourth volume on the foundations of [[geometry]] had been planned, but the authors admitted to intellectual exhaustion upon completion of the third.

The Principia is widely considered by specialists in the subject to be one of the most important and seminal works in mathematical logic and philosophy.

==Quote from the book==
* "From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." – page 362.

==See also==

* [[Begriffsschrift]]

==External links==
*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/ ''Principia Mathematica'']
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pm-notation/ Notation in ''Principia Mathematica'']

[[Category:1910 books]]
[[Category:Modern Library 100 best non-fiction]]
[[Category:Mathematical logic]]
[[Category:mathematics books]]

[[de:Principia Mathematica]]
[[es:Principia Mathematica]]
[[it:Principia Mathematica]]
[[pl:Principia Mathematica]]

Principia Mathematica

2005-10-16T05:35:34Z

Logic2go: Frege's work was only one of several motivations.

:''For [[Isaac Newton]]'s [[1687]] book containing basic laws of physics, see ''[[Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica]]''.''

The '''''Principia Mathematica''''' is a three-volume work on the foundations of [[mathematics]], written by [[Alfred North Whitehead]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] and published in [[1910]]-[[1913]]. It is an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of [[axiom]]s and [[inference rule]]s in [[symbolic logic]].
One of the main inspirations and motivations for the Principia was [[Gottlob Frege|Frege]]'s earlier work on logic, which had led to some contradictions discovered by Russell. These were avoided in the Principia by building an elaborate system of ''types'': a set has a higher type than its elements and one can not speak of the "set of all sets" and similar constructs which lead to paradoxes (see [[Russell's paradox]]).

The ''Principia'' only covered [[set theory]], [[cardinal numbers]], [[ordinal numbers]] and [[real numbers]]; deeper theorems from [[real analysis]] were not included, but by the end of the third volume it was clear that all known mathematics could in principle be developed in the adopted formalism.

The questions remained whether a contradiction could be derived from the Principia's axioms, and whether there exists a mathematical statement which could neither be proven nor disproven in the system. These questions were settled by [[Gödel's incompleteness theorem]] in [[1931]]. Gödel's second incompleteness theorem shows that basic arithmetic cannot be used to prove its own consistency, so it certainly cannot be used to prove the consistency of anything stronger. In other words, the statement "there are no contradictions in the ''Principia'' system" cannot be proven true or false in the Principia system unless there ''are'' contradictions in the system (in which case it can be proven both true and false).

==Quote from the book==
* "From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." – page 362.

==See also==

* [[Begriffsschrift]]

==External links==
*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/ ''Principia Mathematica'']
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pm-notation/ Notation in ''Principia Mathematica'']

[[Category:1910 books]]
[[Category:Modern Library 100 best non-fiction]]
[[Category:Mathematical logic]]
[[Category:mathematics books]]

[[de:Principia Mathematica]]
[[es:Principia Mathematica]]
[[it:Principia Mathematica]]
[[pl:Principia Mathematica]]

User talk:Icut4you

2005-10-16T00:22:06Z

Logic2go:

Your comments are welcome. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

==Lyndon La Rouche==

I found your comments about [[Alexander Hamilton]], on the Libertarianism discussion pages, to be well reasoned and well informed. We could use some of that over on the [[Lyndon LaRouche]] discussion page if you would care to visit. [[User:Weed Harper|Weed Harper]] 12:18, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but I think Lyndon La Rouche is a silly man and ought to be ignored. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

==Libertarianism ==

I have been following some of the goings on at the [[libertarianism]] and [[libertarian theory]] pages with interest. You keep saying libertarianism is not a [[capitalist]] philosophy but an ethical outlook. I'm having trouble understanding this. Isn't Friedman an example of a libertarian capitalist? I thought that libertarians and capitalist believe in the same principles. [[209.179.244.24]]

Libertariansim is compatible with capitalism in that it allows for private [[property]] and free [[trade|exchange]]. But a large part of libertarianism is not based on capitalism or economic considerations. Still, some libertarians are more economically oriented, such as [[Milton Friedman]], whom you reference. He is driven by the [[utilitarian]] consideration of preferring the system that is most effective from an economic perspective and provides for the most [[freedom]]...which, naturally,in his view is captialism. Other libertarians, such as [[Robert Nozick]] and [[John Hospers]], take the view that capitalism is permissible because it is the system that allows for personal freedom and private property. [[Michael E. Berumen]] is the philosopher that best articulates this fundmamental position. Berumen says that capitalism is the default position of [[morality]], which is to say, morality allows people to [[own]] [[things]] and to exchange them, because there are [[rules]] against [[stealing]] from others, disabling them (e.g., preventing exchange), keeping [[promises]],etc. However Berumen also says that capitalism is not an absolute right, for any general moral [[maxim]] can be justly violated in specific circumstances, namely, when we can will our [[action]] as though it were a [[universal]] law, a [[Kantian]]-type approach.[[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

It is important to point out that while [[Michael E. Berumen]] is sympathetic to many aspects of libertarianism and capitalism, Berumen subscribes to what he calls rational-objectivism, which denies that there is a correct, complete, consistant, overarching [[political philosophy]]...only [[science]] and his particular [[brand]] of morality, impartial rationality, by which to judge [[political]] and economic matters.

And [[logic]]! [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

See [[Michael Berumen]]'s blog [http://www.meberumen.blogspot.com], page on ethics [http://www.donoevil.blogspot.com], and page on Churchill [http://www.malakand.blogspot.com]

== Mind ==

Noticed your comment about [[mind]] being like wetness is to wet, where wet is the [[brain]]. Do you suppose that it could be nothing more than awareness being aware of itself?[[User:206.55.130.94|206.55.130.94]]

::No,that strikes me as a circular identity. It's more like the whirring of a motor or the sound of a horn. The motor and horn produce it, but the noise is not the same thing.[[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 05:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Purpose of Business ==

Thanks for accepting my contribution and making the necessary changes to reflect the right perspective. [[User:kgashok|kgashok]] Nov 19 2004

Delighted, it was a good contribution. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

==Bernard Williams==
Thank you so much for your kind comment. It's great to get some positive feedback. I'm also trying to get [[Ernest Gellner]] in shape, although I've so far only managed the intro and background (the rest is not mine), because I don't have my Gellner books here with me, so I'm waiting for them to arrive. Perhaps if I ever do get it finished, I could ask you to look it over? Thanks again, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 01:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

== cultural relativism ==

I see you have done a lot of work on the moral relativism arrticle. If I read your comments correctly, I agree with you that cultural and moral relativism are very different. Nevertheless I have been putting a lot of work into the [[cultural relativism]] (taking it to be a specifically anthropological concept) and would appreciate a fresh viewpoint. If you have any time to read over it and make any comments/suggestions, I'd welcome it. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] 01:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! And thanks again! I appreciate it. I agree about moral relativism (Before writing cultural relativism I deleted the section on cultural relativism in the MR article -- I wrote a stub and Ed Poor merged it with MR). I focused on CR because that is what I know -- I am not confident about my knowledge of MR. But I will try to go over it soon at least for style, [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] 15:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== Indeed ==
[[Wikipedia:No legal threats]]. Be aware that you make yourself no friends here by threatening and patronizing instead of arguing your case. I have no particular interest in this matter, so I will ignore it from now on. [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 19:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:My apologies. I really should have approached you first. I will leave the issue to those who know the subject area. I ''do'' have a background in economics, which is how the issue came to my attention, but I'm not an ethicist.
:My involvement in the other matter you mentioned is quite a bit different in that I am thoroughly familiar with both the subject matter and the person involved. In that case, there's no question that he's been promoting his own work and that he has been lying constantly while doing it. [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 20:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Moral relativism==
Thank you. It's a very good article and I see you wrote most of it, so kudos back to you. ;-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 03:19, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

: Hey icut, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad to help clear that up; philosophy is a tough enough subject for WP readers without people coming in and muddying the waters. [[User:Wally|Wally]] 18:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==[[Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics]]==

Hi. Since you're interested in philosophy of science in general, you may help me with this. This article was begun about two years ago, but the editors who started it seem to have given up and lost interest far short of the fulfillment of their grandiose plans. Its an interesting topic, involving the law of conservation of energy, entropy, and other philosophically weighted questions, so it could be a decent article. But I'm not especially knowledgeable in the field. Check it out and see what you think. Thanks. --[[User:Christofurio|Christofurio]] 15:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. --[[User:Christofurio|Christofurio]] 03:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

==Russell==
You're welcome. That particular editor has been adding similar material to a number of articles, and there are currently five protected because of him. If at any point you want to resume editing, just drop me a note. Best, [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] July 5, 2005 18:25 (UTC)

== [[Utilitarianism]] ==
Hello. I found your profile on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy|WikiProject Philosophy]]. I'm looking for more perspectives to help resolve a debate in the [[Utilitarianism]] article on the difference between "Happiness" and the "Good". If you have any comments on the subject, please feel free to share them on the article's [[Talk:Utilitarianism#Good.2FHappiness|talk page]]. Thanks! --[[User:Malathion|Malathion]] 8 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I agree that the page needs quite a bit of work. I have added it to my growing list of to-dos. Hopefully we will be able to get a Wikiproject for moral philosophy going. At any rate, thanks again for your comments- it looks like they made an impression. --[[User:Malathion|Malathion]] 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

== Phil of science ==

Thanks for your comments. I'd like to encourage you to have a go at making some sense out of the intro. My temptation is just to revert it, but another eye might be able to use the material that the anonymous editor inserted to better the intro. Keeping in mind [[Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing]], as the original author, I'm disincline to make the changes. Are you interested? [[User:Banno|Banno]] 01:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

== Vegetarianism ==

Thanks for noticing and for the encouragment : ) --[[User:Pranathi|Pranathi]] 18:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
==Response to U==

Gore Vidal once remarked that the scholar squirrels of academia collect facts like acorns and create
relatively little that is worthwhile, though they guard their little forest (academia) with great gusto, especially from outsiders.An academic myself, I think that is precisely what has happened with this effort to delete Berumen. He offends them by his audacious presumption to write on what they consider to be an exclusive preserve. On a much grander scale and admittedly with someone much more notable, look what they attempt to do with any reference to Ayn Rand.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Wikipedia:Help desk

2005-10-15T23:27:39Z

Logic2go: /* contributions which look suspiciously self promoting */

{{HD header}}







== Discrepancy between Lava Lamp and Mathmos text ? ==

'''On the 'Lava Lamp' page under 'History of the Lava Lamp' it states:'''

"An Englishman, Richard Torti, invented the original and best-known lava lamp in the 1960s. He named it the "Astrolight" or "Astro Lamp" and presented it at a Hamburg trade show in 1965, where the entrepreneur Adolph Wertheimer noticed it. Wertheimer and his business partner Hy Spector bought the American rights to the product and began to produce it as the "Lava Lite"® via a corporation called Haggerty Enterprises and trading under the name Lava World International®. The lava lamp became an icon of the 1960s. In the 1990s Mr.Torti sold his rights to Cressida Granger whose company Mathmos continues to make and lava lamps and other related products."

'''However, on the 'Mathmos' (Manufacturer of Lava Lamps) page it states:'''

"The lava lamp was invented around 1963 by Edward Craven-Walker. The rights to produce the lamp were sold to Haggerty Enterprises in 1966 and the lamp became an icon of its decade. Sales collapsed in the 1970s and did not revive until the 1990s. In 1989 Cressida Granger and David Mulley acquired the lapsed rights to produce the lamp from Walker. They formed a company called Crestworth in Poole, Dorset, but changed the name to Mathmos in 1992. It sells various lava lamps and other lighting accessories.

The name comes from the 1968 film Barbarella. Mathmos (or matmos) refers to a seething lake of evil slime beneath the city Sogo."

'''Which is the correct version ?'''

Thanx in advance,
Silver

You might want to ask on [[Talk:Lava lamp]]. I'm sure someone there can help.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]] [[User talk:Sean Black|Jelly Baby?]] 01:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== history of th inquisition ==

:'''Nobody''' expects th inquisition... [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::Somebody might if they repeat themselves 5 times.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]] [[User talk:Sean Black|Jelly Baby?]] 01:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== Is there any way to change the title of a page? ==

I just created a list of U.S. Presidents by age per request of someone, but naively created the title as "List of Presidents by Age" instead of "List of U.S. Presidents by Age". Is there any way to change this? (Or, if someone could just do it for me--I also tweaked the Template:Potuslists to add it). Thanks

--[[User:BigD527|BigD527]] 04:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
*If you've made enough edits, you get a "move" tab at the top of the page. Click on it and type the new name. The old name will be left as a redirect. You can either leave it as it is or tag it <nowiki>{{db|useless redirect}}</nowiki> or something, and an admin will delete it when they get a round tuit. [[User:JIP|— JIP]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 05:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
*I've updated all the links and removed the "[[List of Presidents by Age]]" because it's a non-specific title when it comes to the country of the president. I've also adjusted the capitalization. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 07:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::So now MGm has helpfully renamed the article how do I (someone passing through) find the article now, if I want to look at it? [[User:194.200.237.219|194.200.237.219]] 12:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Finding out if my article was deleted ==

I recently created an article. I can no longer find it. Is there a way to search for the article in the deleted articles to see if it in fact was deleted, and perhaps why?

:Check the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete Deletion log] by entering your Username or IPA number, or the Article title. For a complete list of reasons, see [[WP:CSD]]. [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 04:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a user name or ipa number. I tried with the article title and nothing came up, but it is also no longer in wikipedia. if it was more than 500 deletions ago, is all record of it lost?

:Try going to the title (remebmer it must be exact) look for a link "view nn deleted edits" If this is presnt, a version of this has been deleted. Clickign on it will let you see who edited it, and who deleted it, adn when, and what was put down as a deletion reason. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== The text of European Patent Covention ==
Are you looking for this [http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/index.html]? I found it on Wikipedia's article [[European Patent Convention]]. This page is for questions about Wikipedia. Please refer factual questions to [[Wikipedia:Reference desk]]. Best, [[User:Kewp|Kewp]] [[User talk:Kewp|(t)]] 06:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

==Leaving messages on other Wikipedia editions in English==

I am looking for advice on whether it is possible to leave a message on the Greek Wikipedia on an English page seeking advice on sorting out our [[Kalamaki]] article. Is there a page in the Greek Wikipedia where I can do that? [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 07:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
*If you go through the list of Wikipedians by nationality and come across some Greek ones, you can see if they've got Greek userpages linked and leave your question there. They're bound to understand that. Failing that, you could try finding the Greek equivalent of the village pump on help desk. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 08:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
* Thanks MGM. I might just leave a message on their talk pages on the English Wikipedia. [[User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]] 09:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== topology ==

Moved to [[WP:RD/SCI]], wich is the apropriate place for this type of questions.

== Percentage ==

What does mean the percentage after a subject:eg Loading 44%

J. vautier

:If you are referring to a "Progress Bar" it means that the task underway is 44% complete. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 19:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== Does Wikipedia Have A Search Tool? ==

I was wondering if Wikipedia had some kind of downloadable search bar/toolbar that I can download as an add-on for my browser. Something similar to Google Toolbar or Yahoo Toolbar that I can just type into from whatever page my browser is on go directly to a Wikipedia entry. Please let me know. Thanks.

Jason

:there is an extension for firefox that does what you disscribe but I don't know about IE.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:The Wikipedia extension for Firefox can be found [http://wikipedia.mozdev.org/ here]. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 15:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

::[http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Google+Search&domains=wikipedia.org&sitesearch=wikipedia.org Here] is a bookmark that I keep handy for a WP specific Google search. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 19:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== page statistics ==

is there a way within wikipedia to check page statistics (# of visits, etc...)?
--[[User:Habibkoite|Habibkoite]] 15:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

: No. While that feature exists in Mediawiki, the software Wikipedia uses, it has been disabled on Wikipedia itself for performance reasons. — [[Image:Ontario trillium sig.png|15px]][[User:mendel|mendel]] [[User_talk:Mendel|☎]] 17:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== Bad first content experience - Fawcett5 ==

Hello,
During the last hour, I have tried to get several links and new content in place. While I am the owner of all the content, the Admin "Fawcett5" quickly deleted what I entered so that I am on my third iteration and ready to pass.

Why such zeal, when it is clear that I am in the middle of an edit session.

Also, I am disappointed that having just placed some content, I got a message that the ownership of the material was in question an thus marked for "speedy delete?".

So I immediately responded with proof of ownership, by your "Fawcett5" already deleted it. This whole transaction was less than 15 minutes!

Due to the person's aggressive actions, I found my first posting experience to be very difficult and disappointing. [[User:Ckuelzow|Ckuelzow]] 18:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

*This user has repeatedly recreated articles that are cut-and-paste copyright violations from a website, even having been warned not to do so by other admins and (later) by myself. The articles in question were in any case designed to drive traffic to his web site, and were most definitely speediable. The non-speediable article the user created is listed on Afd. [[User:Fawcett5|Fawcett5]] 18:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

::Wow,
::Normally I would just let this alone. However, as a business person, I know that feedback is important. I often make an effort to provide it when I believe that it can be helpful. So I will address this dispute as follows:

::I looked at your official deletion policy. Your actions seem to demonstrate a willingness to be very flexible in your interpretation and execution of it.

::Forget the low credibility and truth surrounding your assertions. Why so quick to act? BTW "repeatedly recreated articles" - laughable from this vantage (The whole engagement lasted less than two hours and had maybe 4 objects involved and only lasted that long since it took me a while to figure out what you were doing.)

::However, judgmental and uninformed, your reply seems to be just as unfriendly/unproductive as your actions. I find the whole experience wanting.

::On the other hand, I am a fluent SME in the topics I was trying to flesh out. This whole effort was counterproductive. I judge your actions and rationalizations to be capricious. [[User:Ckuelzow|Ckuelzow]] 18:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

*If you complain about someone on a public forum like this, it's probably not going to improve your relationship with Fawcett5. Remember, from what I can see Fawcett has been around a bit longer than you have so he's likely to have detailed knowledge about Wikipedia's policies. Try putting your anger aside and ask Fawcett what exactly was wrong with your initial entry (before you recreated it) on his [[User talk:Fawcett5|talk page]]. The speedy deletion criteria ([[WP:CSD]]) may also hold some useful information. If you want helpful responses that queries and comments, it's also useful to link to the article you're talking about using double square brackets. Let me know if you need any help and I'll try to give you a hand in making sure you've got something that won't get deleted. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 19:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

::Hello,
::Thank you for your sincere comments and suggestions. First time content providers would benefit greatly from your open and generous input.

::Since my last entry, I spent a bit more time probing policy and admin dynamics. For whatever it is worth, I see evidence of a self-aggrandizing 'priesthood' controlling/influencing access and content. Frankly, people like me (with content of interest/value) are put off by that. [[User:Ckuelzow|Ckuelzow]] 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Try it again with the intention of making an encyclopedia article. I read your [[SKIER]] article and have to say it was fairly unintelligible to me although the english appeared ok. I am guessing it was about some kind of database structure or software product, but you should have started the article with a paragraph of enough info for someone to at least guess what realm of knowledge you were addressing. Is it a patented computer product, a class of processes, a recognizable computer science term? There is nothing wrong with an article with esoteric technical knowledge, but it needs at least an orienting definitional paragraph that will be clear to a large portion of the readership. That might have made Fawcett5 less likely to think it was advertising for a proprietary product. You are probably correct that you have information to offer that we would value. Please try again, but show us you can write something more encyclopedic. [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, I agree; perhaps if you revise them to include more information and examples about what those articles are talking about, I'd consider changing my vote from '''Delete''' to '''Keep'''. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 01:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. As I am able I will take some "baby steps". As an example, I just fleshed out the "Impedance mismatch" object. I will hold off making several of the obvious links. I could use your feedback/suggestions so I can build my sense of how to better deliver content. [[User:Ckuelzow|Ckuelzow]] 13:43, 12 October 2005(UTC)

== AFD ==

I went through the 'New Pages' special page and found [[Pope Urban II]]. I followed all the instructions on the [[WP:AFD]] page, but it won't show up in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 11|log]]. Could someone make it show, please? [[User talk:Thelb4|It's... Thelb4!]] 18:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:Are you sure you have the right article? [[Pope Urban II]] is not a new page and it doesn't meet AfD requirements. [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 18:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:I found the problem, the article you want is [[Pope Urban ll]] (lowercase 'L' not capital 'i'), the deletion page is called "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Urban ll]]" (again lowercase 'LL', not capital 'ii'), but the page you added to [[WP:AFD]] was "[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Urban II]]" (with capital 'ii') which doesn't exist. Also the Afd discussion links to the wrong article. [[Pope Urban ll]] must have been speedied, because nonsense articles meet [[WP:CSD]] requirements. [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 18:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

== Repeat log-ins ==

I've been using WP for two months now (11 Oct.05), pretty much all the time on my original log-in. Over the last few days I find myself having to log-in every time. Common problem?--[[User:Shtove|shtove]] 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:Have you checked the "Remember me" box at Login? --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:It's just the main page that prompts you to log in. If you click a link you'll probably find that you're already logged in. [[User:Gillean666|Gillean666]] 20:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both: Yes, the box is checked, and clicking on a link doesn't do it (any old link?). I'm sure I haven't done anything differently, and I was guessing WP had changed its set-up. Maybe it's my set-up.--[[User:Shtove|shtove]] 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm currently logged in, but if I go to the main page of WP '''create account/log in''' still shows but if I click on any link it, the new page shows I am logged in. [[User:Gillean666|Gillean666]] 21:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

::::It could be a caching issue...? Have you tried refreshing your view of the Main Page? [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 02:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

::::This happens to me quite frequently, and it is NOT just the main page, soemtimes I am logged in viewing a page, click edit, adn find I am editing logged out. Sometimes flushign the browser cache helps, soemtimes deletign cookies does, soemtimes nothing but leaving wikipedia dn closing all browser windows seems to help. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 02:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::Shtove, just for the record, what browser/version are you using? Perhaps someone with the same might chime in. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 03:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Minor (Deletion) Edits ==

Is it against policy to mark the placement of deletion templates (ex. {{[[Template:afd|subst:afd]]}}, {{[[template:d|delete]]}}, {{[[template:tfd|subst:tfd]]}}, etc.) as minor? I thought I read something like this earlier, but I can't find it. Did the policy change? I would imagine something drastic as a speedy tag wouldn't be something minor. [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 20:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

*Suggesting deletion is not a minor change, but I wouldn't have thought it to be a huge issue, as pages with these templates are by definition reviewed by others before action is taken. Compared to, for example, masking vandalism as minor edits, it's not that bad.--[[User:Kwekubo|Kwekubo]] 21:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
*It's not explicitly forbidden, but when I read the deletion policy it was suggested it's a bad idea because people might think you're trying to sneak in a deletion. The whole point of minor edits is that they don't need major scrutiny if another editor trusts you. Not breaking that trust is the best thing you can do. I would very much advise against marking them as minor. Why would you want to do that anyway? - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 21:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:If I remember correctly, the practice of marking deletion nominations as minor was brought up in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider|GRider arbitration case]]. It was lumped in with a collection of other problems under the heading of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, so no explicit ruling on that specific action was made. I believe that marking such edits as minor is generally considered a [[Bad Thing]].
:I note that some editors have set their preferences to mark edits as minor by default; I would suggest that it's a forgiveable mistake if the edit summary for the nomination clearly indicates what you've done. You're ''always'' using edit summaries, right? :D [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 02:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

::For the record, it is not me making the minor edits. I just noted a handful of users who do this, and last week I have commented on one of their talk pages about this, although with little eveidence supporting the notion of minor delete edits being bad, I ended up informing him/her to write "speedy" or "delete" in the edit summary rather than leaving a blank minor. [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 02:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== WIKIPEDIA ON S-L-O-W Server ==

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE MOVE THE WIKIPEDIA WEBSITE TO A FASTER SERVER BEFORE IT GRINDS TO A HALT?

WIKIPEDIA'S SERVERS ARE NOT UPTO SCRATCH IN TERMS OF SPEED. --[[User:Londonlinks|Londonlinks]]
:Londonlinks - see [[m:servers]]. Wikipedia has roughly 100 high-end servers. The problem is that this whole site has become far too popular far too quickly - every time we add new servers, the traffic surges and wipes out all the gains from the addition of the new servers. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
*To get more servers, we simply need money - donating some via the link on the left will have a direct effect on speed. An [[m:Hardware ordered September 14, 2005|order for more servers]] was placed in September following the fundraising drive, but I don't know whether they're hooked up yet. The more hardware we get, the better Wikipedia can keep up with the spiralling demand. --[[User:Kwekubo|Kwekubo]] 21:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

:*And please don't YELL at us, we're all victims of our success here. --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 03:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Public Domain image uploading ==

I want to use an image for an article I'm writing on Snap-dragon, the Victorian parlour game. I believe that it's in the public domain due to age, but does that mean I can copy it from a website and upload it to Wikipedia? The image in question is Tenniel's illustration of a snap-dragon-fly in ''Through the Looking Glass'' (http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap03.htm). [[User:Ziggurat|Ziggurat]] 21:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
: That's tricky, because PD applies if the author has died more than 70 years ago. Now the author to the STORY has died more than 70 years ago, but we don't know who illustrated it. Given the time the story was written, I think you'd be safe uploading it to commons under the public domain, but it would be nice to know who the illustrator was and when he/she died. -[[User:GregAsche|Greg Asche]] [[User_talk:GregAsche|(talk)]] 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::Oh, easy, the illustrator was very famous - [[John Tenniel]] - and yes, he died more than 70 years ago. I guess what I'm asking is can I take the PD image from another website (which is otherwise copyrighted, I believe), or does the image actually have to be scanned in in order to be PD? [[User:Ziggurat|Ziggurat]] 02:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:::If an image is PD it is PD (and this one is), and you can take it from any source and upload it. No one can copyright a PD image (or text), and If soemone uses PD materiel along with copyrighted content, you may always take the PD content and reuse it in any way you wish, including uplaoding it to wikipedia. You must credit the origina source ([[John Tenniel]] in this case) and it would be a good idea to indicate the site or other source (book if scanned) from which you obtained the image. Note that if someone alteres a PD image in a creative way, they may obtain a copyright on the altered result. Simple cropping or rescaling is probably not creative enough, however. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 15:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::::Thank you! The image in question has been cleaned up and added to [[Snap-dragon (game)]]. [[User:Ziggurat|Ziggurat]] 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

::::In the UK there is [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_2.htm#mdiv15 copyright in typographical arrangment], so a republished book might have a copyright even if the text doesn't, so, at least in the UK, you can, in a way, copyright public domain '''text''', without changing it. There is a significant market in new editions of out of copyright works. [[IANAL]]

::::--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== RSS support for wiki ==

does wikipedia has RSS / Atom support?
: Yep, see [[Wikipedia:Syndication]] for a list of all the different feeds. -[[User:GregAsche|Greg Asche]] [[User_talk:GregAsche|(talk)]] 02:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== hi ==

i am doing a reference list and i am using a sumo wrestling site and i do not know where the author is located on the sight. there is a section that says reference on the bottom and i dont know if that is author or not

:If this is a page from Wikipedia, try [[Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia]]. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 00:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::Please see [[Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia]] for information on citing an article for your paper. The references section you see on the article's page are the references that the writers of tha page used for their research. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|(talk)]] 00:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== How do I find out new entries to wikipedia? ==

Hi there,
I'm looking for a page that shows new entries (new entries + descrition) to wikipedia and a page that shows new requests to wikipedia.
If those pages exist, do they have RSS feeds?
Thanks in advance
: [[Special:Newpages]] has recently created pages. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 02:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::Also see [[Wikipedia:Syndication]] for info on RSS and Atom feeds. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|(talk)]] 03:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:Requests that haven't yet been created are on [[Wikipedia:Requested articles]]. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 04:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== How do you revert to earlier versions of articles? ==

Hi,
I know this may seem like a newbie question but this is my last resort. I couldn't find anything in the help files about it. Basically, when someone vandalises a Wikipedia article, how would I a) clean up the vandalism or b) revert to an earlier version of the article? I would really like to know.
: We were all newbies once, so don't worry about it. :) The page you're looking for is [[Wikipedia:Revert]]. And you may want to consider making an account! [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 03:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Question on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome article ==

Hi! While I was reading the article on [[Carpal Tunnel Syndrome]],
I came across this line:

"It is endangered in carpal tunnel surgery is a fraudulent surgery for cases of mercury poisoning with the incision over the carpal tunnel is made to far laterally (thumb side)."

It doesn't read quite right, and it seems as if the bit about mercury poisoning was just stuck in. If someone could fix it, that would be great!
Thanks a bunch,

theh

{{sofixit}} [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 04:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence is garbage. I will delete. See how I linked to the article with brackets above to make it easier to go check? [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 05:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I just checked. The entire article had been vandalized with mercury nonsense. It was already reverted back to the right text. [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 05:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Where Is .............? ==

I was just wondering where exactly I can find the old--from the year of 1945--Popeye cartoon short called/entitled "Mess Production"???!!! I have been searching "high and low" all around the web for it, but have so far failed to find it.

~anon

:Short answer: It's not on Wikipedia.
:Long answer: This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia. You can try and ask this question on the [[WP:RD|Reference Desk]]. It is likely that what you are looking for isn't on the internet, probably because the short was made thirty-something years before the invention of the World Wide Web, and no one has an incentive to upload it. [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 05:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== transilating in tamil language. ==

I heard about the transilation plan of some articles into all languages. I am Bagerathan studies at Univercity of Jaffna, SriLanka. I like to join in that project to trasilate them into Tamil. Could you give me the full details please?

--Bagerathan.

:You should check out the [http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tamil Wikipedia] and ask around there about projects translating articles into Tamil. Anyone can edit a wiki, so you probably could just start translating articles from English into Tamil over there. See also [[Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination]] and [[Wikipedia:Interlanguage links]] for more information. [[User:Kewp|Kewp]] [[User talk:Kewp|(t)]] 11:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== DIFFERENCE ==

WHATIS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RATE AND RATIO?
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING RATES?
:Long answer: This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia. You can try and ask this question on the [[WP:RD|Reference Desk]]. and please don't SHOUT :-) --[[User:Gillean666|Gillean666]] 11:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Finding link paths between pages. ==

Not sure exactly how to ask this question, but I'll try to be as clear as possible. Is there any tool/program in Wikipedia to show me the path of links i can take to get from one page to another?

Rephrase for clarification: Is there there a wiki page where i can type the addresses of two wiki entries and then finds me what material they have in common?

For example: WikiGames such as "six degrees of separation" have users try to find links between two random pages. Is there something that can find these links/paths for me?
*Yes, there is. [[User:Kate]] made a tool for that [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/six_degrees here] alongside her famous edit counter. - [[User:131.211.51.34|131.211.51.34]] 10:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== why does my username appear in red when I make an edit? ==

Why does my username appear in red when I made an edit and all the other usernames appear in blue?

:Once you have made an edit to your user page your username link will turn blue.--[[User:Gillean666|Gillean666]] 11:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*It's not just your username. All links to non-existing pages are red. As far as I know we don't have an article on [[dorsal ruffles]] yet, so that link is red too. Once you've clicked the link and created your userpage, it'll turn blue. Also, please sign with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), so we can easily see your username ourselves and so we know who we're talking too. It's a good habit to have when you discuss on talk pages or in the Wikipedia [[namespace]]. - [[User:131.211.51.34|131.211.51.34]] 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== definition of marine tourism ==

What is the definition of marine tourism?
and please classification of marine tourism?
:Hello! Please don't ask us to answer your homework questions for you. In any case, factual questions should be asked at the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]], not the Help desk. Thank you! --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 11:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Using images from other wikis? ==
If I see an image on another language wikipedia, like [[:fr:Fontaine paris.JPG]], and I want to use it on en.wikipedia, how do I go about it? [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 12:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sure. The best place to find images is through [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Commons]. Most images are upload there and used throughout Wikimedia. Hope this helps. [[User:Psy guy|Psy guy]] [[User talk:Psy guy |(talk)]] 12:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*Thanks, that answered my question. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 13:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
::If the image isn't on commons, you can down-load it from the other wikipedfia, and uplaod it to commons. Be sure to copy all the source and copyright info, and note that it came from anothe wikipedia (and which one, and the file name there). [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 15:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*Please note that you can only upload free images to the commons. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 16:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Adding External Links ==

Is it possible to add external links? There is no 'edit' option at the end of a philosophy article I wanted to add a link to. I noticed that there are links to articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but no links to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (another excellent free encyclopedia).

steve
*Use the "edit" button at the top of the page. You can make a new section for external links like this: == External links ==

[[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== auther ==

who is the author of this site?
*Wikipedia was originally invented by [[Jimbo Wales]], and is owned by the MediaWiki corporation, but we are all its authors. Even you. [[User:JIP|— JIP]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 13:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*If you want to cite Wikipedia, see [[Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia]]. [[User talk:Thelb4|It's... Thelb4!]] 14:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== norepinephrine ==

-which drugs influence the actions of norepinephrine?
-are there any disorders that affect norepinephrine?
:This page is for questions about Wikipedia itself. For factual questions, please see [[Wikipedia:Reference desk]] or see also [[norepinephrine]]. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|(talk)]] 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== How soon after posting can a new article be viewed? ==

How soon after posing a new article can it be viewed?
*Nearly instantly. But it takes time to have it included in the search index. You can help people find it by creating incoming links and [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirects]] from logical places. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 17:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== Copyright? ==
Firstly can the a still from a film made in 1963 be uploaded with an appropriate tag? Secondly how old must a photograph be before it can be freely uploaded. Thanks [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 18:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*IIRC, in the United States copyright expires 70 years after the photographer dies unless their relatives renew it. However, photos of films will likely belong to the studio who made the film rather than the photographer themselves, so those are unlikely to ever be free. Since there's no chance there's free images to illustrate a 1963 film, unless you're really lucky and can track down the family of an original actor or crew member and get them to release private photos of the shoot, one screenshot or film poster is generally considered fair use. Fair use images are the only non-free images allowed on Wikipedia and only if there's no free alternative. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 18:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
*The above is not quite correct. Copyright in items owned by a corporation expires a fixed time after the item was created, i think 75 years, but it may be 100 years now. The "life+70" term was not adopted until the copyright revisions in (I think) 1979 -- works created well before that date are subject to soemwhat compalex rules under U.S. law, which may depend on whether the copyright was "renewed" properly, and on the date of inmital publication. Note there is no longer such a thing as copyright renewal for works created after the "life+" term was instituted -- once the time has expired ther is no way under curretn law to renew the copyright for a longer term (of course the law can always be changed in future). In any case, a commercial film shot in the 1960s is most unlikely to be in the public domain, and so copyright restrictions will apply. Fairuse is a bit tricky, but a limited number of screen shots used '''to illustrate an article about the film''' are generally considered ok. Uses on unrelated articles might not be ok. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

== how can I install my second computer with internet and first computer ==

This question is not-understanderble to me, but i moved it [[WP:RD/S|here]], so go there if you are after an answer. (The help desk IS NOT for factual questions, they go at the [[reference desk]]). --[[User:Ballchef|Ballchef]] 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== People are deleting my edits!@ ==

I try to edit some of the pages but they were all reverted. The content was not offensive and I am sure quite helpful to people but they were all deleted for some unknown reason. I wrote something bad about Anne Coulter/Bill O'reiley (I called her a part time prostitute and him a delusional jackass) at the beginning for laughs (and it's true) but I stopped as soon as someone asked me to. Then I went on to edit some poetry and the seigneur system of New France. But the new information I added are all gone!! Explain that to all the people who would have benifited from my information while searching for articles on econimic history of Canada or the eighteen century english literature...

:When your first edit to Wikipedia is to call Ann Coulter a prostitute[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Coulter&diff=prev&oldid=25376381], people are going to be skeptical of anything else you contribute. I looked through some of your edits, and every one was unsourced. In general, you will want to [[WP:CITE|cite a source]] when you're making factual contributions to articles. —[[User:HorsePunchKid|HorsePunchKid]]→[[User talk:HorsePunchKid|龜]] 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

: For [[Seigneur]] specifically: This is a disambiguation page, linking to a bunch of articles on things called "Seigneur". The article content is on the pages linked from that page. Your edit removed one of the links to articles, and added text that if supportable belonged in that article. For the other edits, [[User:HorsePunchKid|HorsePunchKid]]'s explanation has it, I think. You might ask [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] why he reverted you on his [[User_talk:Hall Monitor|talk page]]. — [[Image:Ontario trillium sig.png|15px]][[User:mendel|mendel]] [[User_talk:Mendel|☎]] 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Persistant Questions ==
I'm a new user trying to figure things out, and came here looking for answers to questions. I found my answers, but, as is usual on the web, I'm now interested in this corner of the Wikipedia. I'm just wondering how often the "search engine" type questions are cleared from the help desk. As a related item, where should a new but serious user go to learn policies?
[[User:Richard Daly|Richard Daly]] 22:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I was playin' around with the sandbox and it got vandalized in between my minor edits. Now it's locked. Can anyone do something about that? How long do those locks last? Is it worth it, when I can just edit my user page? (I came by here lookin' for information on reverting pages. I think I found that....

:If you want to learn [[Wikipedia]] policies, I placed the {{[[Template:Welcome|subst:Welcome]]}} [[WP:TM|template]] onto your talk page, which provides links to six pages that new users (such as yourself) would find usefull, Thanks for registering your username. [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

::The things I would have liked to have been told about when I was new are:
::*[[Wikipedia:Edit summaries|Edit summaries]] are very useful for other editors (particularly when you use your [[Wikipedia:Watchlist|Watchlist]], which is a great tool), so always use one.
::*Disambiguation pages have a different set of style guidelines to articles. Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)]], it's a little dense at first, but you get used to it.
::*Finally, if you are looking for a meaningful way to contrubite, consider giving one of the {{tl|Active Wiki Fixup Projects}} a go. I've spent countless hours at [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|link reapir]], it can be fun. No really, it can. --[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 05:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Searching Wikipedia/Wikimedia images ==

How do I find out how many/which of my images have been uploaded by other people?

Who wrote the articles on this website?

If I knew which images had been used I'd be able to tell you.

== contributions which look suspiciously self promoting ==

Is there a procedure for asking policy folk at wikipedia to review a suspicious articles? In the course of some research I am doing, I have encountered a proliferation of articles about, and references to, a single seemingly obscure individual, all of which have been added by one or two users (and random IP Addresses). It has, in my view, materially compromised the credibility of the Wikipedia entries in which the references appear (some of which are *important* or *controversial* topics). I am fairly sure it is the subject himself or his asociates planting the articles (although I have put this to the user, and he has denied it).

This seems to me to be (or at any rate it ''ought'' to be) against Wikipedia policies, so I think it should be checked out by someone having more gravitas than me?

[[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 23:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
: Could you tell us which articles? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 23:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

:::sure - I guess I'm not a big one for naming names - but search on "Michael Berumen" and you'll see.[[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 23:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Actually, if you search on just "Berumen" you see all the cross referenced articles as well. This person is an amateur philosopher who has '''self'''-published a single book, which appears to have made no impression in professional philosopy.[[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 23:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:::: The other article is a redirect to the first. However, if you consider the article to be something that does not belong in an encyclopedia, you can [[WP:AFD|nominate it for deletion]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 00:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::Ahh, but look at all the other categories that come up when you search “Berumen”: [[Persuasion]]; [[Moral realm]]; [[Disclosure]]; [[Loyalty]]; [[J. Baird Callicott]]; [[Moral agency]]; [[Legal ethics]]; [[Universal prescriptivism]]; [[Bernard Gert]]; [[Suffering]]; [[Fiduciary]]; [[Medical ethics]]; [[Moral relativism]]; [[Competition]]; [[Universal code]]; [[Product liability]]; [[Corporate social responsibility]]; [[Animal rights]]; [[Philosophy of business]]; [[R. M. Hare]]; [[Vegetarianism]]: '''All''' mysteriously reference the great, but mysterious, philosopher Michael E Berumen... and almost all are written by the same user. Fishy, no? [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::: You're talking about [[Special:Contributions/Icut4you|Icut4you]]. While his contributions do seem to be of narrow scope and raised my eyebrows a bit, I'm not really sure if they are spam. I'd appreciate the opinion of others on this. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::: I'd have to agree with ElectricRay. Everything I've found on this Berumen character seems to point to him being non-notable. Well-written article on him, but still not notable (or borderline at best). I'd definitely excise him from the articles he's in. --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 11:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Idisagree. He's not a major figure, but that is the case with many, here One of the virtues of Wikipefia is its ability to contain a great deal of potentially useful comments. ElectricRay has made some comments that seem borderline from a legal perspective. I have not read all of the articled, but several seem quite apprpriate to me.I also note the sages Angela and Theresa Knott have previously weighed in on the appropriateness of the basic article. One has the distinct impression that this user's complaint is grounded largely in the fact this person is a nonacademic, a rather elitist and un-NPOV position.I further note he seems to be pushing his own views on moral relativism, which is what got me interested in this. [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

== article text is suspiciously similar to another website ==

In researching the XM29 rifle, a Google search turned up the wikipedia page [[XM29]] and this website http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm among others. The text for each is similar and often exactly the same, and seems to have been directly copied somewhere around the 5th edit. The problem is that I am not sure who owns the original text. Was it written for wikipedia and copied to that website, or the other way around. I posted this on the discussion page for the article, but as it has only about 5 comments, I figured it would probably not get answered there, so i wanted to post here, too. So, two questions: what should be done about the content in the article, and in the future, where should issues like this be brought up?
--[[User:Blazotron|Blazotron]] 01:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:It looks like you posted on the talk page, which is good. Someone either needs to either email him and get permission to use the text on his site, or have the offending sections removed and re-written later if someone knows the background on it. You could list it at [[WP:CP]], but seeing as there are parts of the article that aren't copvio, I wouldn't do so. -[[User:GregAsche|Greg Asche]] [[User_talk:GregAsche|(talk)]] 01:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== New collaboration of the week?==

Is it possible to create a new category for collaboration of the week? I think a Military collaboration of the week would enhance the variety, amount, and quality of articles regarding military battles, armed forces of various countries, units... etc. Someone please let me know if this is possible.
--[[User:Hal06|Hal06]] 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:I think there were some problems with having two collaboartions per week: ie, no one was participating. So it got cut back to one. However, sometimes [[Wikipedia:Portal namespace|Portals]] or WikiProjects (try [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military]]?) have collaborations, so maybe you could track down a project on the military and make your suggestion there. --[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 06:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== I want my article! ==

I put alot of effort into the article 'Paduanisms'. It's an and of year gag for my school, but an administrator called Drili or Digli or something deleted it. I don't mind about the deleted, but can you give me the text back? Please contact me at <ewmail address removed>
*Sure. if I can find the original under the exact name you say, that won't be a problem. - [[User:131.211.51.34|131.211.51.34]] 07:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
*An admitted hoax does not belong on wikipedia. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== AD or CE ==

The Manual of Style calendar items sections does not give guidance on whether to use CE or AD in dating - the reason I ask is because of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armageddon&curid=3058&diff=25411187&oldid=25052957 this edit] to the [[Armageddon]] article. [[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] [[User_talk:Wiki_alf|melmac]] 06:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
*In the MoS (dates and numbers section) there is a mention of your problem, it's in the eras section [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras|here]]. I interpret it to be a bit like the conflict between British/American spellings: both are acceptable, but be uniform across an article. About the specific edit, just like with spellings, it's not good form to change a format to your preference. Maybe it was inexperience from the anonymous user.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 10:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
**Ah, many thanks, I haven't seen ''that'' page at all, I only saw [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Calendar items]], which deals with capitalisation. It was just as you say, I saw no real point to the edit as it effectively changed nothing. The page you kindly pointed me is in the guidance box on the MoS page and I never even looked there! [[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] [[User_talk:Wiki_alf|melmac]] 12:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Transferring edits from anon IP to login name ==

I made a few edits when I thought I was logged in today but because of [[Covenant College]]'s firewall, I was actually logged out. Is there a way to transfer those edits to my username so I can check up on changes to the relevant articles?

Also, I clicked save page a few times without putting a description in first (at first I didn't realize how). Can I go back and change that?
[[User:Edonovan|Edonovan]] 07:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
*There used to be, it was a log of requests from newly-created users asking developers to transfer the edits, but the developers grew lazier and lazier, until it was finally shut down, and might never be restarted at all. So unfortunately it looks like you're stucl. [[User:JIP|— JIP]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 10:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
**You can also list the anon ip address on your user page, with a note saying that those edits are yours (unless other people at your school share the same ip address and edit wikipedia anonymously). You can also add the relevent articles to your [[Wikipedia:Watchlist help|watchlist]], which is the easiest way to check changes to those articles. You can add articles to your watchlist by clicking the "watch" tab at the top of each page, or by clicking the "watch this page" box at the bottom of the editing screen (right next to "this is a minor edit"). [[User:Kewp|Kewp]] [[User talk:Kewp|(t)]] 13:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
*** Thanks I kinda figured that was how it was. I had already put my IP on my [[User:Edonovan|user page]], so that's about as good as it gets. But other people do use this IP. Watchlist is how I'll keep track of any significant ones. But the firewall is still screwing me up. For example, when I clicked "Edit this page," I got logged out just now. ~Edonovan
== how to contact authors of entries? ==

I've just added my first wikipedia entry, it was a blank page, but in an area that someone's already done a lot of work. I'd be interested in emailing the other person as we obviously have common interests - how does one do this? (Assuming of course that he has registered his email address).
cheers Martin
*If this user registered an email address, you'll find it on their [[Wikipedia:User page|user page]], but the most effective way to communicate (if a user is still active) is using their talk page, which you can reach by visiting their userpage and clicking discussion. Could you clarify what article, field and user you are talking about? Also, please sign posts/questions like this with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) so your signature is automatically added, and so we know what your username is easily. [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]. - [[User:131.211.51.34|131.211.51.34]] 09:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
*By the way, if you create a blank page, it is likely to be deleted right away. You need to at least create the makings of an encyclopedia article for it to be left in the site. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 10:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
*The page is the 2007 Rugby World Cup Qualifying pages - e.g Europe. I guess he hasn't logged in as it's just an ISP on the history page. Sorry by blank I meant blank before I got there - the link was already there, but with no content, so I added it (for Asia and Americas). cheers Martin [[User:Martinlaird|mlaird]] 08:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
== wikipedia search engine ==

OK, so alotta people are complaining about the wikipedia search engine. now that i think about it, yeh, it sucks. someone mentioned that they use google search instead, and disregard wikipedia's own method. I also noticed that when the wikipedia search engines are down wikipedia invites the user to search through google or yahoo. Many websites have boxes that say "''powered by google''", so why doesn't wikipedia get that too and solve the problem of poor searching ability? --[[User:Ballchef|Ballchef]] 10:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:Not a direct answer, but why don't ''you'' just use Google instead? Are you looking for advice on the easiest way to do that? [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 10:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'm suggesting this idea because lots of people have complained, not just me. It seems silly to use an ineffectual system if google works so well. I'm not looking for advice for myself, no. I just deal with the search engine and keep looking, but I imagine many wikipedians would appreciate an easier way to search.--[[User:Ballchef|Ballchef]] 12:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Suppressing URL for cross language links ==

I added two entries to [[chinese measure words]] which were justified by their presence in [http://zh.wikipedia.org/ zh.wikipedia.org]. As such, I thought it would be a good idea to link them to their wikipedia sources. After much experimenting, I decided this could only be done using an external link.

The problem with this is that these words appear in a relatively narrow table column and I could find no way of preventing the source URL being included in printed output, which expands that column to about half a page width. I tried the plainlinksneverexpand class, but to no effect. In the end I had to drop the links as they were too disruptive.

Is there a way that this could have been done successfully?

--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 11:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:Is there any reason why the normal interwiki link format <nowiki>[[zh:whatever|whatever]]</nowiki> doesn't work? [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 12:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

::If one writes <nowiki>[[zh:英里|英里]]</nowiki> without the nowiki, it is interpreted as an other language link for the whole page, not as a normal link to another language wiki. There are some special interwiki prefixes for some languages, but not for Chinese. I did try it, pretty much first.

::--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 12:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Put a colon in front of the zh, like this - <nowiki>[[:zh:英里|英里]]</nowiki> and it'll make an ordinary link. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 13:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks. That did it. It is actually in the edit help page, but I think I need to think about making that page clearer. For me a big problem is the use of definition by example, but that is endemic to most of the help system.

:::--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 21:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Acceptable contribution practice ==

Is it acceptable practice to:
1. Add an abbreviation to a page like “List of computing and IT abbreviations” without first creating an article on the meaning of the abbreviation?
2. Add the abbreviation above without the proper formatting characters? (I understand that this would probably cause some veteran of this project some time to clean up my droppings and that if contributing becomes a habit for me I would be expected to learn the proper editing techniques.) --[[User:Freestyle|Freestyle]] 12:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:''Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!'' Neither of those practices are perfect. But both are better than nothing. If you have the time and energy to make a polished contribution, then please do so! But if not, we'd much rather have you make a flawed but useful edit than no edit at all. Wikipedia is built on contributors building on and gradually improving each other's contributions, after all. Cheers, and happy editing! :) --[[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 12:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks Ashenai --[[User:Freestyle|Freestyle]] 05:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Are bitmaps created from unsupplied vector originals allowable under GFDL? ==

As an example, ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ShenyangDistrictAndLandmark.jpg Image:ShenyangDistrictAndLandmark.jpg]'', although I suspect this quite common, claims to be under the GFDL but is provided in a bitmap format when the associated narrative says that it is actually maintained using Adobe Illustrator, which I believe to be a vector graphics package.

Leaving aside the fact that this image shouldn't have used lossy compression, it seems to me that it constitutes an ''opaque'' version in terms of the GFDL and the vector form is not made available. That seems to me to violate the GFDL requirements, a fact that I think is obvious in terms of considering the spirit of those requirements and of Wikipedia, that anyone should be able to revise the document as easily as the originator.

I've not yet researched how well wikipedia handles vector images, so I don't know if it is currently possible to provide the image in ''transparent'' form, but I feel that GFDL cannot be validly applied to the current image.

Is this a correct interpretation?

--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 12:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

: I don't believe the matter has ever been settled; I suspect that because one can edit the bitmap in a bitmap editor (albeit in an unsatisfactory way) this will probably count as not being "opaque". I do, however, entirely agree that the vector format originals ''should'' be upload. Until very recently Wikipedia's servers were configured such that it was almost impossible to upload the vector original (one would have had to uuencode them or something). It is now possible to upload SVG files (but not in a way that makes composite SVGs terribly easy to work with). The servers still won't accept Adobe Illustrator documents, nor those in other formats for vector drawing like OpenOffice draw and Visio. A policy decision was made long ago (one I don't at all agree with) that we wouldn't allow all file types, and particularly we wouldn't allow archives like tar and zip (which really make handling composite documents a reasonable proposition). The theory behind this prohibition is that it was felt that Wikipedia would risk becoming a free file storage site, or maybe a warez site, if we did allow general uploads. So if the pictures ''aren't'' compliant, it's generally not through the fault of the submitter, but a matter of Wikipedia policy. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 12:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Obtaining full copyright trail for an article ==

Although I haven't yet needed to do this in anger, my reading of the GFDL is that when producing opaque copies, I need to include the full copyright trail in machine readable form. I have failed to find any easy option for doing this associated with article pages. I could just about get a complete list of copyright owners (except for cut and paste) by trawling the history page, but, without individually retrieving every version, I see no way of associating an author with a change, even though that information is obviously present in a full dump of wikipedia.

I don't think having reverted version would be necessary and I wouldn't consider anyone who only created reverted versions to be a copyright owner (but I'm not a lawyer), but it seems to me that the real ''transparent'' document is the complete set of back versions and associated history entries, not the editable form of the current version.

(I havent' even really discussed the problem of cut and paste between articles.)

Have I missed a feature somewhere, or is it not possible to print large numbers of copies without supplying 26GB of the complete database?

--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 12:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

: It has been generally (although informally) held that online Wikipedia mirrors are compliant if they contain a link to the original wikipedia page. From there a link to the article history is available. Personally I think the mirror should provide this information itself; I guess that if the wikimedia servers were down (and thus the history were not available from us) the mirror would be breaking the GFDL. I'm not aware of any mirror that does this. As to offline mirrors, and particularly paper copies, my understanding is that they should attach a list of the contributors. This information is indeed in the full wikipedia dump (but not in the "current" version dumps), but I'm not aware of any software that extracts that information. I don't agree with your interpretation of "transparent" in this case at all : when you download GCC you only get the current version, not all the previous ones (and you certainly don't get a giant blob of CVS changesets). Figuring out what magnitude of change is and is not a copyrightable change isn't something Wikipedia has (nor needs to, I guess) concerned itself with. Similarly determining automatically that a vandal who typed "fart" into an article only to be immediately reverted isn't a copyright holder of the final article is, err, rather difficult. Cut'n'paste of paragraphs between articles isn't something that the software knows anything about; the best you can hope for is an edit summary that says "move stuff from article xyz". My guess (and I'm not a lawyer either) is that your mirror or wikiprinting could (as well as the lengthy recitation of the GFDL) contain a single attachment containing the names of all the authors of all the articles. I ''don't'' believe you'd be obligated to individually correlate each author with their articles. But no-one has ever done this, really, and it's barely been discussed, so that's just my guess. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 12:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

::GCC is actually a bad example, because the primary fork is distributed by the FSF and the FSF insist on copyright assignment before they will redistribute. Multiple copyright ownership could apply to other forks.

::Open source software, in my view, often has very poor copyright trails, partly because most authors don't understand copyright and, in particular, fail to understand that the licence for each contribution is normally (certainly for GPL) direct from the original author of that part, not from the redistributor. However it differs from the present case in a number of ways:

::* small changes are usually obvious bug fixes and not copyrightable;
::* conscientous authors will identify the copyright owner and licence terms for each part in the comments.

::In wikipedia small changes are less likely to be obvious and people don't embed comments in-line. That means that the complete set of copyright notices is only available from the history. Note that my interpretation of a copyright notice is that it needs to identify the copyright owner, not just the licencing terms (although I believe there are Creative Commons licences that are GFDL compatible, so one can't assume that a particular part is actually under the GFDL terms). Also, the only way of working out who owns what is from the history, whereas properly maintained open source code will make that clear in the comments.

::Cut and paste is a problem, because, like with Open Source software, the editors probably don't understand the need for a copyright trail.

::Where a good copyright trail is important for Open Source software is when a copyright is challenged (e.g. SCO) or someone reneges on their licence grant. That leads to a messy process of identifying and removing the compromised code. Serious business users of Open Source want to minimise risks, so will expect good copyright trails. The other case is where non-copyleft material is present in copyleft material. That can legitimately be extracted and used under its own licence.

::Actually, my hypothetical problem is not as big as I thought, because a reference to the web site is sufficient (that isn't always allowed for the GPL). The case I was thinking of was that I'm in a language class. I'm in the adult class, but there are also children's classes. There are only about 10 adults, but there are over 100 children. If I printed out a page to distribute to the adult class, I would be within the 100 copy limit, but I was worried that, if I distributed to the whole school, I would need to provide machine readable copies to everyone. There is still a catch, though, even for the content, in that one needs to remember to include the link to the specific back version, which is something one has to find and add manually. (You do seem to get enough information, if you add the browser printed URL, although you don't get a valid copyright notice, because it doesn't identify the copyright owner.)

::Actually, looking at the GFDL, it seems to me that you need a URL that returns the complete document and copyright notices and nothing else, so the edit page doesn't count, although that is not something that would worry me so much as the difficulty of reconstructing the full set of copyright notices from the history.

::--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 22:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

::: When you say "100 copy limit", I guess you're talking about the thing where schools and universities can make up to 100 copies of at most one chapter of a book (I forget what that's called, and it's different in different countries). If that's what you mean, I don't think it applies here. That's an agreement between educational establishments and a consortium of publishers. Individual wikipedia contributors clearly aren't parties to that agreement, so I don't think you can make copies under those terms. That leaves the terms of the GFDL or fair use (and clearly 100 copies of an entire article isn't fair use). -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 12:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::::The 100 copy limit is in the GFDL (start of section 3). Below 100 copies, you can supply a document in a purely opaque form. Above 100 copies, you have to provide access to a transparent form (i.e. a revisable form that conforms to a publicly documented and freely re-implementable standard), either on media or as a link to that version and nothing else.

::::Incidentally, I'm in the UK, and the [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv36 primary legislation] set a limit of 1% per quarter, unless the publisher has a paid licensing scheme for at least that much. I think that this may have been modified by secondary legislation to align with the rest of Europe.

::::I think, though, that this is getting too deep for a help forum, so is there a better place to continue?

::::--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 12:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::::: 100 copies - you've clearly read the GFDL much more carefully that I have :) Better place: there was a wikilegal mailing list, but it closed down (dunno why). There are several other mailing lists at [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists]] (but personally I've found them to be mostly hot air). If from all this you've gained the impression that no-one here is trying terribly hard to make life easy for those wishing to reuse WikiMedia content, you might well be right. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::: 1) If over 100 opaque copies are distributed it is sufficeient to "state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document" (GFDL section 3). I take that to mean that a printed URL is good enough. 2) A copy must include all "copyright notices" but that does not, as i read it, require the complete history -- it is rare that each contributor will append a spearate copyright notice, although this would be permitted. i don't think the wikipedia boilerplate constitutes a separate copyright notice for each contributor. 3) section 4 B of the GFDL requires you to "List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement." I read this that the history can be reduced to five names, without specific attribution of text to those names, without in any way violating the GFDL. A true "wiki-free-license" might require preservation of the history, but wikipedia has not chosen to create and use such a license. So I think that printing copies for school or other use in quantities over 100 is fine if a URL is included (I would prefer that it be the url for the specific article, or maybe even the specific version printed) and if it includes a list of contributors with at least 5 names from the history -- perhaps the list of all non-IP contributor's ID's in the history, with no ID listed multiple times, would be a good compromise. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 15:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== What happened to Indonesian Wikipedia? ==

I couldn't connect. The error is http error 403.2. And it's only Indonesian wikipedia.
[[User:Roscoe x|roscoe_x]] 15:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:It seems to be all right now.--[[User:Kewp|Kewp]] [[User talk:Kewp|(t)]] 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:: Yea, two hours problem. Quite strange, it's only affecting one in a group. [[User:Roscoe x|roscoe_x]] 23:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== How-to upload and edit SVG ==

I see that wikipedia now allows SVG. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SVG_image_support] This is great news for me since I like to make charts, graphs and maps, but have been waiting for full vector graphics support.

However, I'm confused about how to actually upload an SVG file. Do I paste the xml into wikipedia somewhere, or do a simply upload a .svg file using the regular uploader? Also, in order to edit an SVG file, do you edit the XML manually in wikipedia, or would you download the .svg file, edit, and reupload? Thanks for any helpful hints. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 16:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:AFAIK you simply upload it using the regular uploader (and reupload to edit). --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 17:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

: To edit, use [[Inkscape]]. The XML source for any nontrival SVG will quickly become so horribly complex that you'd never willingly edit it manually. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 17:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:: Sorry (didn't parse your question properly). Yes, download, edit, reupload. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 18:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== adding images ==
how do you add images thats not from another aticle?
*[[Special:Upload]] and [[Wikipedia:Image tutorial]]. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Name of God or Goddess ==

I am trying to find a name of a god or goddess of Karma (or similiar =you reap what you sow) for a letter.

--anon

:I don't have any specific answers for you, but [[Karma in Hinduism]] might be a step in the right direction. See also:
* [[List of deities]]
* [[List of Hindu deities]]
* [[Slavic mythology]]
* [[List of Norse gods]]
* [[List of fictional deities]]
:I'm sure if you dig in there enough, you'll come up with something. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 21:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Inserting Taxobox ==

Dear Sir,
I am a student, and just creted a new article for Lycopods. As this is a biological article, it will be better if I can insert a taxobox (The box showing the classification ie taxonomy of the genus). I could not find the tool to do so. Can you please edit the article to insert a taxobox?

The following data needs to be inserted:

Class: Lycopsidagenus
Order: Lycopodiales
Genus: Lycopodium

This information is given in the article body also.

With Regards

Pitam

--[[User:Pitam|Pitam]] 18:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)pitam

:I'm not sure there's any specific tool for inserting infoboxes; I've always accomplished it by using the "Edit" button on another article that uses the same sort of box I want, and then doing a copy-and-paste to get the box code (which may in some cases reference a template) to copy into the new article, with appropriate editing. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 18:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

* I too usually copy something close, but the documentation is at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage]]. [[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

*Just wanted to let you know there is already a rather detailed article on genus ''[[Lycopodium]]''. You should attempt to improve that article instead of creating new one on the same topic. —[[User:HorsePunchKid|HorsePunchKid]]→[[User talk:HorsePunchKid|龜]] 23:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Including user data in edit summaries ==

I have noticed that several people will include user data in edit summaries especially when reverting vandalism (something I do when I come across it, as I am told any good Wikipedian should). Is there a shortcut for this? I'm guessing there must be. --[[User:Just zis Guy, you know?|Just zis Guy, you know?]] 18:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, it's [[Wikipedia:Rollback#Admins|rollback]], but it's only available to admins I'm afraid. There are some javascript hacks which come pretty close to doing the same thing, but I'm not sure where you'd be able to find them. I'm sure someone else will. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|*]] 18:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::The best javascript one out there is [[User:Sam Hocevar|Sam Hocevar's]] godmode-light script. Go to [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?/monobook.js]] and add in
document.write('<SCRIPT SRC="http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js"><\/SCRIPT>');"><\/SCRIPT>');
that will give you a rollback button when viewing the diff of an article between the current and second to current versions and when viewing a user's contributions page. -[[User:GregAsche|Greg Asche]] [[User_talk:GregAsche|(talk)]] 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Sponsor ==

Who is the sponsor of wikipedia?

:Well, I guess Wikipedian's are. There are fund-drives regularly. Check out [[Wikipedia:About]] for more information. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 20:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:: Yahoo also have some contributions, like setting up server in Korea. [[User:Roscoe x|roscoe_x]] 23:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Question from a curious man ==

What are erectile disfuntions?

:See [[Erectile dysfunction]] --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== My never shpwed up. Why not? ==

About a week ago I registered as a user and edited the "fundamentalism" article. My edit still isn't there. Any idea why not?
--[[User:212.179.198.95|212.179.198.95]] 20:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:Articles are always changing -- your edit has probably simply been changed since your edit last week. I know this can be frustrating -- sometimes you'll labor over a paragraph simply to have it removed at a later date. If you let me know what your user name is, I could help you find it by looking in the article history [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fundamentalism&action=history here] and possibly find some answers. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 20:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

::Oops, I've re-read your question -- sorry, I think I misunderstood you. Is it possible that you clicked on "Show preview" instead of "Save page" after editing the text? As soon as you click "Save page" your changes are complete and you should see them on that page in wikipedia -- unless you are creating a new page there should be no delay. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 20:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

== Save page acting like Show preview ==
Of late, I have been finding that clicking on "Save page" on an edit results in the same results as if I clicked on "Show preview". Any ideas why? Using Firefox 1.06. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 21:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:It's not just you. It's been asked before and the idea that I got was "They're working on it". It does it in IE and Safari too. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|(talk)]] 21:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::I've been getting that too, I thought maybe that was a bug because it usually happened when someone conflicted me (and yes it was the preview message not the conflict message.) -[[User:GregAsche|Greg Asche]] [[User_talk:GregAsche|(talk)]] 23:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::I don't think it's anything to do with conflict, it's just when the servers are busy. --[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Star Spangled Banner ==

I want to use the text of the articles and distribute them free of charge but am a bit confused by some of the legal aspects in the GNU free doc license. I am basiccally using it verbatim from your site. Am confused as to what exactly to include with my copy.

This license?

"Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

and this:

"Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License"."

When you say:

"To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page:"

is the license the entire written pages starting with the Preamble, 1. applicability and definitions 2. etc...or just the permission statements above?

Thanks

: Well, I'm not a lawyer (and certainly not your lawyer), and Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice. ''My personal'' understanding is that you need to include the entire licence. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 22:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

:Wait, do you want to redistribute articles on our site or the text of the GNU? -[[User:GregAsche|Greg Asche]] [[User_talk:GregAsche|(talk)]] 23:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

*Basically, if it's for a website, you need to include the original title of the article at the top, followed by "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia." Then, after the article, include the following: a link to the original Wikipedia article, a link to the URL of the page history, a link to a copy of the GDFL available on your website (use [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt this version], perhaps), and make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license. If it's for printing, the rules are quite different. [[IANAL]], [[TINLA]]. --[[User:Kwekubo|Kwekubo]] 23:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for you comments, Yes it is for printing, website would be a piece of cake. It may end up being more than 100 copies as well but I am not a lawyer either(obviously) but you need to be a lawyer to figure out the language. It seems kind of ridiculous if a report is two pages long and the legal ease license that must accompany it is 4. I thought that was the point of the copyleft and the noted license in the first place.

: This is one of the objections that some have to using the GFDL (as opposed to cc-by-sa, which is its rough equivalent). [[Wikitravel]] uses cc-by-sa because they expect their articles to be printed out and distributed individually (in places like hotels), and they don't want someone to have to print out a four page licence attached to a one page article. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 11:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Finlay. I didn't even know that existed.

== Please keep my article ==

Please keep my article on Paduanisms, just till the end of this year. It's an end of year gag for my school. Plus, its better written then SOME articles *tuts*. Have you SEEN the article on MIDKEMIA!? It's a classic fantasy world, and they have horrible grammar! HORRIBLE! (''preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment by'' {{user|202.182.64.1}} 00:27, 14 October 2005 UTC)

:You already posted [[Wikipedia:Help desk#I want my article!|a message on this topic]] above. Please don't keep reposting the same question; discuss the article at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paduanisms|its Articles for Deletion page]]. I personally haven't got a clue what [[Midkemia]] is, but you seem to, so if you see errors please feel free to correct them. --[[User:Kwekubo|Kwekubo]] 23:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
*Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus school gags are not accepted entries. Please check [[WP:NOT]]. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 04:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== How do I become a user? ==
How do I become a wikipedia user? do i have to contribute to a number of articles first?

*You're a Wikipedia user from the first time you read an article! You can even help improve articles right now, without registering, by clicking '''edit this page''' at the top of almost any article. But you can also register a username, which takes half a minute and has a lot of benefits (like giving you credit for your contributions) - see [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?]], or just go to [[Special:Userlogin]] to do it. --[[User:Kwekubo|Kwekubo]] 00:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Testing for admission to a JD program ==

I hold a bachelors degree in psychology. I am more comfortable with the idea of taking the MAT as opposed to the LSAT. Could I be admitted to a JD program with good MAT scores?

*Depends on the school. Check the admissions packet, if still unsure, contact the admissions office. [[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] 02:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Can I export the entries I imput before? ==

Greeting,

If I input 1000 entries in the Wikipedia, and now I want to export all of these 1000 entries to my local computer in whatever format, is it doable? If so, how do I do that?

Thanks

:You can always pull your information out of the [http://download.wikimedia.org/ Wikipedia database dumps], as long as you abide by the terms of the license. Do you really intend to submit 1,000 new entries, though? <tt>=0</tt> —[[User:HorsePunchKid|HorsePunchKid]]→[[User talk:HorsePunchKid|龜]] 03:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::That's inconsistent with the position that each article is a document for licensing purposes. The smallest unit that you can call a document is the smallest unit for which you can obtain a transparent copy.

::An implication of the database being the smallest transparent unit would be that anyone printing and distributing a single article needs to provide their own machine readable copy, because it is not a complete and unmodified version. [[IANAL]] [[TINLA]]

::--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 12:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:::For a single article you can always edit and copy and paste the wiki-code -- this is the trasparent copy. There is also [[Special:Export pages]]. But neither of these is conveneint for large numbers of articles. So in such a case the data dump is an alternate way to get a trasparent copy. It is not clear to me, however, that the wikipedia license contemplates each article being a separate document. Since one can alwas distribute a "modified copy" and the modifications can consist of deletions, even if all of en.wikipedia is considered a single GFDL document, one could always distribute a "modified copy" consistign of a single article or any sub-0set of articles. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::::Interesting that that ''Special'' link isn't red. I think you meant [[Special:Export]]. Thanks for the tip, though, in any case. I hadn't seen that before. —[[User:HorsePunchKid|HorsePunchKid]]→[[User talk:HorsePunchKid|龜]] 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::::: For some reason, ''Special:'' links are never red. You just get an error message if you try to access something that doesn't exist. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 22:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure what you're getting at there, David, but my point was that if the questioner does add articles to Wikipedia, it is possible to retrieve them later through the database dump, if nothing else. [[IANAL]] either, but I'm pretty sure anyone can do that anytime they please and do whatever they want with the output, as long as they're not distributing it in any way. That's when the [[GFDL]] comes into play. Maybe my understanding is too simplistic? —[[User:HorsePunchKid|HorsePunchKid]]→[[User talk:HorsePunchKid|龜]] 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My guess is this kind of dump then should contain all the entries, and I have to use the SQL language to export my entries, is that correct?

Yes, I'm planning to do that, even more. Mostly they are the english-chinese translation for the buddhism terms.
:Be sure your additions are more than just definitions or at least have hope of being expanded beyond that. See guidelines regarding this at [[WP:NOT]] and specifically at [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary]]. -- [[User:Qaz|Qaz]] ([[User talk:Qaz|talk]]) 10:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

==Tables, pictures and skin color==
(New heading provided)

how can add table and picture and also how can i chance the skin colar. thanks
*Tables: try [[Wikipedia:How to use tables]] and [[Meta:Help:Table]]
*Pictures: try [[Wikipedia:Images]] and [[Wikipedia:Extended image syntax]]
*Skin: if you are logged in (Click "Create account / log in" in the top right corner, see [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?]]) you can change the skin for Wikipedia by going to Preferences > Skin.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 07:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== International Phonetic Alphabet symbols ==

On 5 October I posted a question about the on screen non-appearance of IPA symbols/characters, with a follow up some 3 days later when there was no response to my query.

My question is no longer present in the list. Has it been moved? If so, where to? If deleted, please can you explain why? --[[User:Geoff.powers|Geoff Powers]] 10:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:Also, if you happen to be digging through the history of the Help desk, perhaps you could explain where the "Identifying Jews" section/question went.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 11:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::[[Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_31#Identifying_Jews]]

::--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 11:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_31#Question:_IPA_characters.2Fsymbols]]

:There is a link to the help desk archives (sorry, can't get it to link) near the top of this page.

:--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 11:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The answer to your question about IPA symbols is that they do not show up correctly if you are using Internet Explorer. However there is a good solution to this in the form of the [[Template:IPA|IPA template]] which should be used for all occurrences of IPA transcriptions. I suggest you look at [[Template talk:IPA]] and then feel free to add the template to any articles where it is missing. I try to do this myself whenever I come across them. --[[User:Ross Burgess|rossb]] 12:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::About the archiving, what is the turn-over period for a question. The archive periods are 10 days but both the "[[Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_31#Identifying_Jews|Identifying Jews]]" and "[[Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_31#Question:_IPA_characters.2Fsymbols|Question: IPA characters/symbols]]" questions lasted less than this. Also, shouldn't the archiving be clearly stated in the edit summary when it's done?--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 13:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== HELP! CAMBRIGE & .net ==

Often on Wikipedia when I click on a link i am redirected somehow to www.cambridge.org
Also, if I type in "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKKG", for example, it comes up as "www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKKG.net/", because something is putting www. on the beginning and .net/ on the end. Does anyone know what I mean?
*Do you go to school in camebridge by any chance? - [[User:131.211.51.34|131.211.51.34]] 13:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

* The second behavior there is what happens when you hit Shift+Enter instead of Enter in Firefox after entering a URL in the Location bar. — [[Image:Ontario trillium sig.png|15px]][[User:mendel|mendel]] [[User_talk:Mendel|☎]] 16:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Linking images to pages? ==

Is there a method to link images to pages. For e.g. when I click on an image, it should take me to a page and not the 'image page.' E.g. For making picture galleries that link to other galleries.
Right not I am making a gallery and using the captions to link to the pages, like this.... 
<nowiki>
<gallery>
Image:Gallery1_head.JPG|[[Link to gallery 2]]
Image:Gallery2_head.JPG|[[Link to gallery 2]]
</gallery>
</nowiki> 
Lastly, even if we could do this, is this sort of linking advisable?...and howto add line breaks in a nowiki tag,arrrrgh! - [[User:Mechanicalamit|Mechanicalamit]] 14:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not image galleries. So in general those are not adviseable. Why are you trying to make them? 
Also, people with questions are often told to click the image to go to the description page for copyright info. Linking the to a page will break such a link and makes it harder to find copyright info. - [[User:131.211.51.34|131.211.51.34]] 14:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Patent citations ==

Is there a preferred way to cite patent documents? Also is there a preferred URL to link to an external patent repository? At present I use http://www.freepatentsonline.com/ as they have neat URLs, but further advice would be welcome. There was no mention of patents at [[Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style]].
--[[User:Jpotherington|Jpoth]] 14:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Please ad to the list ==

Corliss Young (1957 - current) is the Founder of The Korliss Group which is now one of if not the oldest representations of ethnic talent in Missouri.
The Korliss Group was founded in 1979 and continues to grow strong. Please find The Korliss Group listed with the Missouri Film Commission and Casting Society of America among the many accomplishments.
The Web site is www.thekorlissgroup.com
Ms. Young was born and has grown up in the city of St. Louis and should be added to the listing.
Contact phone number <removed>

Thank You

:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a [[wiki]], so ''anyone'' can edit any article by simply following the '''{{MediaWiki:edit}}''' link. You don't even need to [[Special:Userlogin|log in]]! (Although there are some [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|reasons why you might like to]]...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to [[Wikipedia:be bold|be bold]]. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out [[Wikipedia:how to edit a page|''how to edit a page'']], or use out the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] to try out your editing skills. [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|New contributors are always welcome]].
:However, please be sure that your contribution is suitable for wikipedia. Please read [[WP:NOT|what wikipedia is not]] and [[WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer]]. Please be sure to write in a [[WP:NPOV|neutral manner]] and with a proper encyclopedic tone. Please remember that once you submit content, you do not control it, and anyone may edit it in any way, and that if others do not feel that the subject is notable, or appropriate for wikipedia, they may propose deleting the article. See [[WP:CSD|our speedy deletion criteria]] and [[WP:DP|our deletion policy]]. Happy editing. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Walden Theatre ==

How can we become a part of Wikipedia as a resource to the community. Walden Theatre is a Youth Conservatory for the study of theatre by students ages 8-18. We would like to be listed in your Arts and Entertainment section.

Sincerely,
Miriam-Walden Theatre Public Relations Assistant

:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a [[wiki]], so ''anyone'' can edit any article by simply following the '''{{MediaWiki:edit}}''' link. You don't even need to [[Special:Userlogin|log in]]! (Although there are some [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|reasons why you might like to]]...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to [[Wikipedia:be bold|be bold]]. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out [[Wikipedia:how to edit a page|''how to edit a page'']], or use out the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] to try out your editing skills. [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|New contributors are always welcome]].
:However, please be sure that your contribution is suitable for wikipedia. Please read [[WP:NOT|what wikipedia is not]] and [[WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer]]. Please be sure to write in a [[WP:NPOV|neutral manner]] and with a proper encyclopedic tone. Please remember that once you submit content, you do not control it, and anyone may edit it in any way, and that if others do not feel that the subject is notable, or appropriate for wikipedia, they may propose deleting the article. See [[WP:CSD|our speedy deletion criteria]] and [[WP:DP|our deletion policy]]. Happy editing. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 16:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== cell phone monitoring ==

can you monitor cell phones....can you monitor a portable house phone?

:For future reference, you should probably ask your question here: [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science]]
:The answer depends on what type of cell phone. Older, analog phones are easy to monitor -- all you need is some not-quite-legal equipment available on the internet. Digital cell phones are very, very difficult for the average person to monitor. However, government officials can do it easily (the phone companies are required to allow "taps" by law). Portable house phones are also easy to monitor, unless you get a digital and encrypted model. However, remeber that physical access to the phone line makes wire-tapping on land-lines very easy. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 17:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== OS X.3, wikimedia 1.5 redirection issue ==

Please pardon my noobyness. I am setting up wikipedia on OS X here at work. While I would rather be using linux or a straight unix system, that is not up to me. I have been able to get apache running, php, and mysql with no problems. After I run through the mediawiki config page, it says it is setup and to move the localsettings.php file to the root wiki directory. After I move the file, I click the link, that directs me to wikiroot/index.php. I get the page not found message. If I refresh the page, it goes back to the setup page that says I need to configure it first. If I click that link, it says it is already configured, and directs me back to wikiroot/index.php, and again I get page not found.

I have gone through and made sure everything is at least 755 permissions, just to make sure its not an access issue. I am at a complete loss for what could be causing the problem. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

--JoshMan

== Collective nouns ==

What is the collective noun for teachers, shops and houses?
:First, this page is for questions on how to use Wikipedia. The [[Wikipedia:Reference desk]] is for factual questions. That being said... I'm not sure if it will be there but you could check the different lists we have at [[List of collective nouns]]. [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|(talk)]] 19:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
::(after edit conflict) That is the place to look alright, and no entries are given for any of these three subjects. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 19:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Possible Copyright Infringment ==

Dear Sir,

I added an entry about a DJ called Simon Loewen, but I see that there is now an entry saying that its a possible copyright infringment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Loewen&oldid=24137577

If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 October 14
* [[Simon Loewen]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/{{localurl:Simon Loewen|action=history}} history] · [http://en.wikipedia.org/{{localurl:Simon Loewen|diff=0}} last edit]) from [http://www.simonloewen.com/upcome.htm]. [[User:128.171.188.123|128.171.188.123]] 21:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please could you tell me what specific part of the web page you are referring to and how this infringes on a copyright? Please note that I am the author of the web page http://www.simonloewen.com/upcome.htm

If I have infringed on someone else's copyright, please would you tell me what it is?

Yours sincerely,
Simon.

Email: [Email removed]

* Probably it got labelled as copyright infringement because nobody knew you were the owner of the material. You can follow point #2 on the copyright violation template that's currently at [[Simon Loewen]]: "If you hold the copyright to this material, or if you have permission to use this material under the terms of our license, please indicate so on [[Talk:Simon_Loewen|this page's talk page]] and under the article's listing on [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]." -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
**Note that it is not enough to say you are the author, you will need to explicitly release the content under the [[GFDL]], and provide soem indication that you are in fact the owner. But if you are this can probably be settled fairly easily. The action taken is the routine action when a wikipedi article seems to be a cu&paste copy from a web site. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|(talk)]] 22:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== WHO DECIDES WHO BLOCKS? ==

THERE IS A PAGE CALLED THE "KASHMIR" PAGE WHERE THE GUY HAS WRITTEN A LONG BORING PAGE THAT LEAVES OUT ALOT OF FACTS...THIS ISNT JUST MY OPINION BECAUSE OTHERS HAVE SAID SO ALSO...SO I TRIED MAKING IT SHORTER, AND WITH MORE FACTS, AND HE KEEPS CHANGING IT BACK AND NOW HES SAYING HES GOING TO BLOCK ME...WHY DOES HAVE THAT RIGHT? CAN U PLEASE EMAIL ME AND ANSWER BECAUSE I WONT KNOW HOW TO GET BACK HERE TO CHECK...MY EMAIL IS [Email Removed] PLEASE HELP THIS IS BOTHERING ME! {{unsigned|ARYAN818| 21:24, 14 October 2005}}
: [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Administrators]] decide who is blocked and who isn't. Removing large amounts of text from an article is a sure way to get their attention, but not in a good way. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 21:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
: By the way, you might want to review some of the instructions at the top of the Help Desk page:
:* Please '''sign your question'''. If you have an [[Special:Userlogin|account]] on Wikipedia, type <code><nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki></code> at the end. Otherwise, you may sign your name or write <code>--anon</code>.
:* Please '''do not list your e-mail address''', as questions aren't normally answered by e-mail. Also, be aware that the content on Wikipedia is extensively copied to many websites, and so making your e-mail address public here may make it ''very'' public throughout the Internet.
:* Please '''check back for updates''' occasionally. A complete answer may be developed over a period of days.
:* Please '''avoid using all capital letters'''; not only do they make a question harder to read, but they are often interpreted as impolite or shouting.
:As for how to get back here (if you ever do to read this), I would suggest putting this page on your [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Watching_pages watchlist], bookmarking it, or remembering that this is the [[Wikipedia:Help Desk]]. Thanks. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 22:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Underline? ==

Is it just me, or have all the underlines from the links disappeared. According to my preferences, the links should always be formatted with an underline. It certainly makes things harder for the colour blind. <nowiki></nowiki>smurrayinchester([[User:Smurrayinchester|User]]), ([[User talk:Smurrayinchester|Talk]]), ([[Elderado Dingbatti|Recent Contrib]]) 21:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
: Um, no, the underlines are still there. There was a revamping of the preferences which introduced that as a new feature, though, so you might want to check them again and then refresh your browser's cache (it says how to on the Preferences page). [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 21:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:Recently, a line was removed that was ''forcing'' underlining unless you had a preference to ''not'' underline. It probably is following your browser's default now (I am not sure if the "always underline" setting works) — check your browser's settings as a workaround. --[[User:CesarB|cesarb]] 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:Are you color blind? (Or only "colour" blind in England? ;) If you are I am fascinated at your choice of color signatures (blue and green). - [[User:Texture|Tεx]][[User Talk:Texture|τ]][[User:Texture|urε]] 22:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:: All right, whoever was playing with it just caused it to stop underlining in my browser. Does anyone mind to explain what's going on? {{unsigned|Titoxd|22:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)}}

:::This happens when your the CSS page your browser tries to load when styling the page gets a server error. Try hitting reload, shift reload, alt reload, ctrl reload or something like that. If that doesn't work, empty your browser cache and restart your browser. --[[User:fvw|fvw]][[User talk:Fvw|*]] 22:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:::: I refreshed my cache now, and it's fixed. But it was too much of a coincidence for me to say that they aren't broken and immediately break for me, isn't it? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 22:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== Possible to associate anon changes with account? ==

Is it possible for me|someone to associate edit's I've made as an anon-user with a new account? If so, how?

I'm thinking of creating such an account (username: rivimey) and it would make sense to me to associate my old edits with it.

Ruth
: Right now it is impossible to change the attribution of edits (it was possible in the past), regardless of them being anon edits or registered user edits. However, that said, You're more than [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome]] to [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]]! [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 23:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:If you do register, you can mention what edits you made as an anon on your user page, or you can place "<nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/194.106.52.201]]</nowiki>" as a link to your anon's contributions (if all these edits are yours). [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 03:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Martinus Beijerinck ==

this is regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinus_Beijerinck]

the external link at the bottom of this page does not direct ytou to another site please resolve this issue

:Link rot is always a problem. I managed to solve this for you (found [http://www.asm.org/ASM/files/CCLIBRARYFILES/FILENAME/0000000251/621096p539.pdf] ) . HTH. [[User:Sverdrup|— Sverdrup]] 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

== image licensing ==

Question about Image:Easternwashington.PNG which I created and uploaded under the 'cc-by-nc-sa' license. There's a message saying that this license is considered ''not free'' for the purposes of Wikipedia and that "older images with this template will be considered for deletion." I certainly don't want that to happen and I ''do'' want my images to be free. So: am I able to do anything about this situation? Can I simply decide I want to replace the 'cc-by-nc-sa' license with a freer license? How is the best way to do that? (As a side note, this came up because I noticed the Washington State Democrats were using a version of the image on their home page, http://www.wa-democrats.org/, which usage I have no problem with and which I believe is allowed) --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 23:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:If you created it, and retain all rights, you can always "license down" to a freer license. If you're willing to have it licensed as available for commercial use - we try and have commercial-use images to accomodate any possible reuse of the encyclopedia - it would seem simplest to go with the GFDL. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 23:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::I did indeed create it and retain all rights. So I just go in to the image page and replace ''cc-by-nc-sa'' with whatever the proper GFDL tag is (don't worry, I can find it)? If so, that's exactly what I'll do...thanks... --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*See [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]], you could replace it with {{tl|cc-by-sa-2.5}}, {{tl|GFDL}} or {{tl|GFDL-self}} (in case you created the image yourself). - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 08:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== song about the death of hank williams ==

my father used to sing a song about the death of hank williams, I think I know them all but would like confirmation.

way back in west virgina, between midnight and dawn a big blue car came rolling
it's wheels they hummed a song
the headlights shown into the night
to light the road so steep
while in the back Hank Williams lay
in a deep and dreamless sleep
he was heading for Ohio, to play a show next day while thousands there were waiting
to hear him sing and play.
the chauffer reached into the back
and shook the sleeping man
he said wake up, wake up my friend
then took him by the hand
he tried to wake him up again
then rushed him into town
but the doctor said too late, too late
he's gone to a better land
He wrote songs about the bible
and songs about the hills
his songs about the lonesome blues
they gave the world a thrill.
although he's gone on to his rest
his songs live on and on
Hank Williams, here's to you

*Please read the notice at the top of the page. This help desk is for questions about editing Wikipedia itself. General, factual questions like this should go to [[Wikipedia:Reference desk]]. --[[User:Kwekubo|Kwekubo]] 01:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== A need a guide to write a grammar of a language whose page is still incomplete ==

I want to complete the pages related to Kawésqar, Yamana, tehuelche and Ona languages. Is there any standard way to describe a language in a wikipedia article? ~~DaniloVilicic

*Try finding a [[WP:FA|featured article]] on a language and model the article after that. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 08:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*There's a wikibook about this titled "How to write a book on any language" or something like that. --[[User:Mdob]]

== name of the author ==

I need the name of the [author of the ]short story "but the one on the right". I remember she is American and famous. Please, help me!
:[[Dorothy Parker]]. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] ([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]]) 03:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

:[[Dorothy Parker]]. Cheers --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] 03:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Oops, Rick beat me to it. :-) In the future, you might ask here: [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities]]

== Fixing old cut and paste moves ==

About a month ago, the article [[Gravitar]] has been cut[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitar&diff=22474882&oldid=22114214] and pasted[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitar_%28arcade_game%29&diff=prev&oldid=22474802] to [[gravitar (arcade game)]]. The problem is that since it has been a month, there has been subsequent edits to the later article, meaning the edits in the that article's history would be lost if a proper move is to be made. How do I handle the situation? Is it still a good idea to proceed with the process of reverting the former article, temporarily deleteing the later, and move the former to the later namespace, and re-revert the former page?

I have not notified the editor yet, it has been a month and it is probably old news to him. [[User:Kjammer|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Kjammer|Kjammer]] [[User talk:Kjammer|⌂]] 03:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Naming conventions and categories ==

Recently I saw a lot of edits to the categories of bio articles by the same editor. Curious, I checked them out. They were adding cat's such as [[:Category:Natives of Bremen]], [[:Category:Las Vegans]], and [[:Category:Rochesterians]]. There are a number of them in the cat [[:Category:American people by city]]. According to the naming conventions, shouldn't these be "People from Las Vegas" or "People from Rochester"? And really, shouldn't they be even more specific since there's probably more than one "Las Vegas" or "Rochester" so they would then be "People from Las Vegas, Nevada" or "People from Rochester, New York"?

Although, I'm of the opinion that it's being overly specific. I would think that "People from Nevada" or "People from New York" would suffice. Otherwise it could create such things as "People from [[Ottumwa, Iowa]]" and every other small town. This would then create arguments about where to draw the line as to whether a particular town needs a "People of..." cat. Arrrgh... I really should have stayed in bed.... [[User:Dismas|Dismas]]|[[User talk:Dismas|(talk)]] 11:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Letters ==

I am interested in Japanese/Greek/Asain/other symbols and letters as shown on the little puzzle-globe. I may create a page of language or reasearch about it or make my own language.....how do you post them? Turn on "Greek Wkipedia" and just type away?
:Please see [[m:Help:Special_characters]]. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] ([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]]) 14:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

==David Bradley==
I've just noticed that we somehow have two pages for the British actor David Bradley — one at [[David Bradley (actor)]] and the other at [[David Bradley (Actor)]]. I've never come across this sort of thing before, so I thought I'd better point it out and enquire as to what the procedure for dealing with it would be? [[User:Angmering|Angmering]] 14:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:You can list the two articles at [[Wikipedia:Duplicate articles]] or take a look at [[Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages]] which tells you how to merge the articles. The article should probably stay at [[David Bradley (actor)]], because according to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]], "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized." The material from [[David Bradley (Actor)]] should be incorporated into [[David Bradley (actor)]] and the [[David Bradley (Actor)]] should be turned into a redirect. --[[User:Kewp|Kewp]] [[User talk:Kewp|(t)]] 15:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Adding Signatures and Other General Things ==

Hey, everyone. I have already done some light work here. I made some updates to the Morse Code page, as well as created a page for [[Ernest Chappell]]. I'm getting the hang of most of this, but this is still all new territory for me and I was wondering if anyone had any good resources for how to really get started (Books, websites, etc.). Amazon has some books about Wiki's, but they seem to assume the reader has knowledge of other systems such as PERL, HTML, etc... all things that I know nothing about, so I don't know if those books would be of any use.

For one, I have no idea how to add my signature to a post such as this. I don't fuly understand where the community asspect of Wikipedia starts, and the Encyclopedia begins. I don't understand the etiquite or protocol for referencing an article, or noting what changes I have made to another page.

Thanks in advance for any help.

:You can add your signature with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), like so: [[User:Andy Janata|Andy Janata]] 15:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
::Please click "My talk" (at the top of the page). An editor left you a welcome message last August with a number of helpful links. To communicate with this editor directly (who would be happy to help you with these sorts of questions), just leave a message on their talk page. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] ([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]]) 15:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the tips. I did see the comments left to me by an editor. They certainly helped. I suppose I'm finding the easiest way to learn how this all works is to just click on Edit for any page I find with interesting characteristics, and then just cutting and pasting them into the Sandbox to mess around with. Also, thanks Andy for telling me about adding signatures. [[User:Phauge|Phauge]] 21:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Suspect content ==

Is this the right place to query content? (Querying content on an article's talk page doesn't usually achieve much.) The [[haircut]] article says that "combing hair over a bald spot [is] currently extremely popular among the youth of America." Are the youth of America going bald? [[User:Shantavira|Shantavira]] 15:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Observatory Criteria ==

Hi, I was going to ask this over on the wikiproject telescopes and observatories, but the project is really dorment and I thought it had a better chance of being answered here. Are all observatoies in, or is there some criteria threshold that they have to meet (notability, age, etc) in order to be included. I've been just going by the information on their webpages, trying to make the best article I can, like [[Moletai Astronomical Observatory]]. I recently came across a list of over a 1000 observatories, and I was thinking of just creating stubs with basic info (who,what,where,external link), but thought that some might get deleted. What do you think? --[[User:Rayc|Rayc]] 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
: There's a notability threshold for any article in Wikipedia, although I might say that most observatories are well within it, as long as they're not fictitious. I'd say, go ahead. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|xd]]([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]]) 19:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== How to create a section table of contents ==

{{BRA}}
I saw in some user pages and is some wikipages a table of contents. However the TOC shown in the template page is a Compact one. I would like to know how do I do a TOC with titles.

Answer in PT or EN

:Se [[User:Mdob|eu]] entendi você direito, basta criar quatro ou mais seções, isto é:

::<nowiki>===Seção 1===</nowiki>

::Blah Blah Blha

::<nowiki>===Seção 2===</nowiki>

::Mais texto

::<nowiki>===Seção 3===</nowiki>

::Outro texto

::<nowiki>===Seção 4===</nowiki>

::Mais texto ainda

:E uma table of contents automaticamente aparecerá.

:---[[User:Mdob|User:Mdob]] | [[User talk:Mdob|Talk]] 21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Can't access blue links with non-pure-ASCII-only titles ==

When I try to access:

*'''Jan Luziewizc''' from (e.g.) the [[Reverse Polish notation]];
*'''Gunnar Nordstrom''' from (e.g) the [[Kaluza-Klein theory]] article;

My browser goes to a blank page with a message saying that that articles "doesn't exist yet". But the articles exists! I guess this has something to do with my [[Unicode]] configuration (Nordstrom has an .. over the O and Lukazievwich has an / over th L). this is a very annoing problem with almost all foreign names.

My configurations is:

* IE 6
* [[List of WAMPs|WAMP4]]
* [[Windows XP]] Home Edition (Brazilian portuguese version) SP2
* 256MB RAM

Any sugestions? [[User:Mdob|User:Mdob]] | [[User talk:Mdob|Talk]] 21:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

:The URL for the first one is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_%C5%81ukasiewicz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_%C5%81ukasiewicz]. This already has the necessary URL encoding performed before sending to Mozilla. If this link fails, I would suspect that there is a problem with your proxy server. If it works, you will need to view source and see if something different is being sent to your browser.

:It's possible that your software is trying to work around some common Brazillian misuse of URLs, although I think that unlikely.

:--[[User:David Woolley|David Woolley]] 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Another example of unusable diffs ==

Apologies if it's bad form to resurrect an [[Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_31#Something_wrong_with_the_diff_code.3F|archived question]], but the diffs being generated are still very poor. It is hard for me to believe that it's always been this way, and I'm just noticing it now. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-reference&diff=25601291&oldid=25197227 this new example], as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Philips_Phile&diff=24511546&oldid=24163654 this previous example]. For the former, see [http://severinghaus.org/tmp/bad_diff.png here] (130kB, 1600x1200, PNG) for an example of what a reasonable diff would be. The latter suffers essentially the same problem, as far as I can tell (large chunks of text are very similar but being treated as totally different). Any thoughts? I have never in the past needed to open up an external diff program just to understand changes here. —[[User:HorsePunchKid|HorsePunchKid]]→[[User talk:HorsePunchKid|龜]] 21:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

:Please, contact directly [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]], he is the guy who [[Programming|makes]] the crappy software we call [[WikiMedia]]; ---[[User:Mdob|User:Mdob]] | [[User talk:Mdob|Talk]] 21:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Postage ==

I am new guy of La Crosse,WI. I mail a parcel weight about 3pounds with priority
.
I want to know how much I will pay the charge?

Thank you!

== Deleting earlier versions of images; changing licensing ==

I have updated many of the images I have put into articles here, but when I try to delete the older versions I am told I need to be a "sysop" to do this. I have discovered one instance of someone who has arbitrarily (or so it seems to me) reverted one of my images to a previous version, which I do not wish to happen. Also, an additional license has been added to an image of mine with which I am unfamiliar and do not want associated with the image.

I have spent considerable time adding images to articles where I think it would enhance the value of the content, but I am increasingly uncomfortable with the way others can alter the licensing I have attempted to establish for my original work. I have discussed this with my attorney, and she advised me at the very least to use lower resolution images, which I have uploaded to overwrite the higher-resolution images I had previously contributed. But evidently some people can revive older versions of files that I no longer want to be made available. My attorney's most forceful advice was *not* to provide any content to Wikipedia at all.

I *would* like to add content to the project, but if others have this amount of control over my work I am reluctant to continue. I have given this matter quite a lot of thought and find that I am simply not comfortable with the free-and-easy ethos that prevails here with resect to intellectual property. I support the idea of a group effort to which many can contribute. I just don't like the way others can change your work and its licensing. Since I make my living as a content creator, the "Wikipedia way" is just outside my comfort zone.

How can I arrange for all of my contributions to be deleted permanently from the system? It's been fun, but....

[[User:JShook|JShook]] 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 21:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

: You can't. When you licenced content under the GFDL, it remains so licenced. If we allowed people to add stuff and then capriciously withdraw it when they discovered others could change it, that would allow them to seriously damage wikipedia. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 21:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

:Though that isn't the same as changing the licensing. Either you granted a suitable license originally, which you can't revoke (in the same way that the text you contribute is released for use outside your control); or you didn't, and the image has to be deleted anyway. The original license terms can't be modified (unless it is under a provision of that license). Can you give an example of an image that has had its license terms changed? Unfortunately, image descriptions are as open to mistakes and mischief as any other text. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 22:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

:: Example of license I did not attach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Muriwai_Beach_02.jpg The second license (GNU Free Documentation License) was added by someone else. It appears the basic attitude here is Ha ha--you screwed yourself. I was not planning on "capriciously withdraw"ing images--only deleting images that are not used by any article. And maintaining the license under which they were uploaded. But you seem to want it all, whether it's in use or not. Fine. So long. Good luck with your collective endeavor. [[User:JShook|JShook]] 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

:::When you uploaded that image, you said "...releases the image under the GFDL". That's the licence under which you uploaded it. But you explicitly and clearly and with full knowledge of what you were doing licenced it under the GFDL. The GFDL absolutely ''was not'' added by someone else - you put it there yourself. -- 23:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

::::In every summary for each photo I aver that I maintain the copyright to the image. In light of what you seem to be trying to tell me, doesn't that make them all unusable for W? [[User:JShook|JShook]] 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

== Portals ==
I'm sorta neutral about a [[:Portal:Sexuality]]... but does anyone else think a [[:Portal:Portal]] is going too far? [[User:Wiki_alf|Alf]] [[User_talk:Wiki_alf|melmac]] 22:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
*Isn't that info that should be in [[Wikipedia:Portal]]? - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|(talk)]] 22:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Deontic logic

2005-10-11T19:13:12Z

Logic2go: add Hare

'''Deontic logic''', first put forward by [[Ernst Mally]] in 1926, is a form of [[modal logic]] used to describe and reason about obligation and permission. The founding analogy between deontic (obligation and permission) and alethic (necessity and possibility) modalities had already been put forward in the late [[17th century]] by [[Gottfried Leibniz|Leibniz]].

Deontic logic adds the modal operator <math>O</math> to the language of [[propositional logic]]. <math>O\phi</math> is read as ''it is obligatory that <math>\phi</math>.'' In the [[Kripke semantics|semantics]] of modal logic, the operator behaves analogously to the <math>\Box</math> (necessity) operator of alethic modal logic; the relation <math>R</math> between [[possible world]]s is taken to be [[partial order]] that orders worlds by moral 'virtue:' <math>vRw</math> holds [[iff]] <math>w</math> is morally better than <math>v</math>.

The <math>O</math> operator has two duals: <math>P</math> (permission), defined as <math>P\phi\leftrightarrow \lnot O\lnot\phi</math> (similar to <math>\Diamond</math> in other modal systems); and <math>F</math> (forbidden), defined as <math>F\phi\leftrightarrow O\lnot\phi</math>.

There are however some significant differences between alethic and deontic logic. It is accepted (as an [[axiom]]) that <math>\Box\phi\to\phi</math>, but obviously it cannot be accepted that <math>O\phi\to\phi</math>. It is also true that <math>\phi\to\Diamond\phi</math>, but it is false that <math>\phi\to P\phi</math>.

This raises the question of how similar are alethic and deontic logics and the question whether deontic logic should actually follow the modal (alethic) model.

Deontic logic faces also the [[Jorgensen's Dilemma|Joergensen's Dilemma]]. [[Norm (philosophy)|Norms]] cannot be true or false, but [[truth]] and [[truth value]]s seem essential to logic. There are two possible answers:
* Deontic logic handles norm [[proposition]]s, not norms;
* There might be alternative concepts to truth, ''e.g.'' validity or success.

==See also==
* [[Alexius Meinong]]
* [[Georg Henrik von Wright]]
* [[Deontology]]
* [[Norm (philosophy)]]
* [[Ernst Mally]]
* [[Karl Menger]]
* [[R. M. Hare]]

==External link==
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mally-deontic Mally's Deontic Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]

{{math-stub}}

[[Category:Logic]]

[[it:Logica deontica]]

Modal logic

2005-10-11T18:59:55Z

Logic2go: punctuation

[[Modal logic]], or (less commonly) intensional logic is the branch of [[logic]] that deals with sentences that are qualified by ''modalities'' such as ''can'', ''could'', ''might'', ''may'', ''must'', ''possibly,'' and ''necessarily,'' and others. Any logical system making use of modal operators, such as ''possibly'', or ''necessarily'' is thus also called a modal logic. Modal logics are characterized by semantic ''intensionality'': non-modal logics all have the feature that the truth value of a complex sentence is determined by the truth values of its sub-sentences. They are thus ''extensional.'' In modal logics, by contrast, this does not hold: both "[[George W. Bush]] is President of the United States" and "2 + 2 = 4" are true, yet "''Necessarily'', George W. Bush is President of the United States" is false, while "''Necessarily'', 2 + 2 = 4" is true.

A formal modal logic represents modalities using modal [[connective|sentential operators]]. The basic set of '''modal operators''' are usually given to be <math>\Box</math> and <math>\Diamond</math>. In '''alethic''' modal logic (i.e. the logic of necessity and possibility) the <math>\Box</math> represents '''necessity''' and the <math>\Diamond</math> '''possibility'''. A sentence is said to be
*'''possible''' if it ''might'' be true (whether it is actually true or actually false);
*'''necessary''' if it ''could not possibly'' be false;
*'''contingent''' if it is ''not'' necessarily true, i.e., is possibly true, and possibly false. A contingent truth is one which is ''actually'' true, but which ''could have been otherwise''.

== Metaphysical and other modalities ==

===Subjunctive, epistemic===

Modal logic is most often used for talk of the so-called ''[[subjunctive possibility|alethic modalities]]'': "it is necessarily the case that..." or "it is possibly the case that...." These (which include '''metaphysical modalities''' and '''logical modalities''') are most easily confused with '''epistemic modalities''' (from the Greek ''episteme'', knowledge): "It is certainly true that..." and "It may (given the available information) be true that..." In ordinary speech both modalities are often expressed with the same words; the following contrasts may help:

A person, Jones, might reasonably say ''both'': (1) "No, it is ''not'' possible that Bigfoot exists; I am quite certain of that;" ''and'', (2) "Sure, Bigfoot possibly ''could'' exist." What Jones means by (1) is that given all the available information, there is no question remaining as to whether Bigfoot exists. This is an epistemic claim. By (2) he means that things might have been otherwise. He does not mean "it is ''possible that'' Bigfoot exists--for all I know." (So he is not contradicting (1).) Rather, he is making the ''metaphysical'' claim that it's ''possible for'' Bigfoot to exist, ''even though he doesn't.''

From the other direction, Jones might say, (3)"It is ''possible'' that[[Goldbach's conjecture]] is true; but also ''possible'' that it is false, and ''also'' (4) if it is true, then it is necessarily true, and not possibly false." Here Jones means that it is ''epistemically possible'' that it is true or false, for all he knows (Goldbach's conjecture has not been proven either true or false). But if there *is* a proof (heretofore undiscovered), then that would show that it is not ''logically'' possible for Goldbach's conjecture to be false—there ''could be no'' set of numbers that violated it. Logical possibility is a form of ''subjunctive'' possibility; (4) makes a claim about whether it is ''possible for'' a mathematical truth to have been false, but (3) only makes a claim about whether it is ''possible that'' the mathematical claim turns out false, ''for all Jones knows'', and so again Jones does not contradict himself.

Epistemic possibilities also bear on the actual world in a way that metaphysical possibilities do not. Metaphysical possibilities bear on ways the world ''might have been,'' but epistemic possibilities bear on the way the world ''may be'' (for all we know). Suppose, for example, that I want to know whether or not to take an umbrella before I leave. If you tell me "It is ''possible that'' it is raining outside"--in the sense of epistemic possibility--then that would weigh on whether or not I take the umbrella. But if you just tell me that "It is ''possible for'' it to rain outside"--in the sense of ''metaphysical possibility''--then I am no better off for this bit of modal enlightenment.

The vast bulk of philosophical literature on modalities concerns ''subjunctive'' rather than ''epistemic'' modalities. (Indeed, most of it concerns the broadest sort of subjunctive modality--that is, bare [[logical possibility]]). This is not to say that subjunctive possibilities are more important to our everyday life than epistemic possibilities (consider the example of deciding whether or not to take an umbrella). It is just to say that the priorities in philosophical investigations have not been set by importance to everyday life.

===Deontic, temporal===
There are several analogous modes of speech, which though less likely to be confused with alethic modalities are still closely related. One is talk of time. It seems reasonable to say that possibly it will rain tomorrow, and possibly it won't; on the other hand, if it rained yesterday, if it really already did so, then it cannot be quite correct to say "It may not have rained yesterday." It seems the past is "fixed," or necessary, in a way the future is not. Many philosophers and logicians think this reasoning is not very good; but the fact remains that we often talk this way and it is good to have a logic to capture its structure. Likewise talk of morality, or of [[obligation]] and [[norm (philosophy)|norms]] generally, seems to have a modal structure. The difference between "You must do this" and "You may do this" looks a lot like the difference between "This is necessary and this is possible." Such logics are called ''[[deontic logic|deontic]]'', from the Greek for "duty".

Significantly, modal logics can be developed to accommodate most of these idioms; it is the fact of their common logical structure (the use of "intensional" or non-truth-functional sentential operators) that make them all varieties of the same thing. [[Epistemic logic]] is arguably best captured in the system "S4" ; deontic logic in the system "D", [[temporal logic]] in "t" (sic:lowercase) and alethic logic arguably with "S5".

== The interpretation of modal logic ==

In the most common interpretation of modal logic, one considers "all [[logically possible]] worlds". If a statement is true in all [[possible worlds]], then it is a necessary truth. If a statement happens to be true in our world, but is not true in all possible worlds, then it is a contingent truth. A statement that is true in some possible world (not necessarily our own) is called a possible truth.

Whether this "possible worlds idiom" is the best way to interpret modal logic, and how literally this idiom can be taken, is a live issue for metaphysicians. For example, the possible worlds idiom would translate the claim about Bigfoot as "There is some possible world in which Bigfoot exists". To maintain that Bigfoot's existence is possible, but not actual, one could say, "There is some possible world in which Bigfoot exists; but in the actual world, Bigfoot does not exist". But it is unclear what it is that making modal claims commits us to. Are we really alleging the existence of possible worlds, every bit as real as our actual world, just not actual? [[David Lewis (philosopher)|David Lewis]] infamously bit the bullet and said yes, possible worlds are as real as our own. This position is called "[[modal realism]]". Unsurprisingly, most philosophers are unwilling to sign on to this particular doctrine, seeking alternate ways to paraphrase away the apparent ontological commitments implied by our modal claims.

==Formal rules==

There are many modal logics, with many different properties. In many of them
the concepts of necessity and possibility satisfy the following [[de Morgan's laws|de Morganesque]] relationship:

:"It is '''not necessary that''' ''X''" is equivalent to "It is '''possible that not''' ''X''".

:"It is '''not possible that''' ''X''" is equivalent to "It is '''necessary that not''' ''X''".

Although modal logic texts like Hughes and Cresswell's "A New Introduction to Modal Logic" cover some systems where this isn't true.

Modal logic adds to the ''well formed formulae'' of [[propositional calculus|propositional logic]] operators for necessity and possibility. In some notations "necessarily p" is represented using a "box" ( <math>\Box p </math>), and "possibly p" is represented using a "diamond" (<math>\Diamond p</math>). Whatever the notation, the two operators are definable in terms of each other:

* <math>\Box p</math> (necessarily p) is equivalent to <math>\neg \Diamond \neg p </math> (not possible that not-p)
*  <math> \Diamond p </math> (possibly p) is equivalent to  <math>\neg \Box \neg p </math> (not necessarily not-p)

Hence, the <math>\Box</math> and <math>\Diamond</math> are called dual operators.

Precisely what axioms must be added to propositional logic to create a usable system of modal logic has been the subject of much debate. One weak system, named K after [[Saul Kripke]], adds only the following to a classical axiomatization of propositional logic:

* Necessitation Rule: If p is a [[theorem]] of K, then so is <math>\Box p</math>.
* Distribution Axiom: If  <math> \Box (p \rightarrow q)</math> then <math> (\Box p \rightarrow \Box q) </math> (this is also known as axiom K)

These rules lack an axiom to go from the necessity of p to p actually being the case, and therefore are usually supplemented with the following "reflexivity" axiom, which yields a system often called '''T'''.

*  <math> \Box p \rightarrow p </math> (If it's necessary that p, then p is the case)

This is a rules of most, but not all modal logic systems. Jay Zeman's book "Modal Logic" covers systems like S1^0 that don't have this rule.

K is a weak modal logic, however. In particular, it leaves it open that a proposition be necessary but only contingently necessary. That is, it is not a theorem of K that if  <math> \Box p </math> is true then  <math> \Box \Box p </math> is true, i.e., that necessary truths are necessarily necessary. This may not be a great defect for K, since these seem like awfully strange questions and any attempt to answer them involves us in confusing issues. In any case, different solutions to questions such as these produce different systems of modal logic.

The system most commonly used today is '''modal logic S5,''' which robustly answers the questions by adding axioms which make all modal truths necessary: for example, if it's possible that p, then it's ''necessarily'' possible that p, and if it's necessary that p it's also necessary that it's necessary. This has been thought by many to be justified on the grounds that it is the system which is obtained when we demand that every possible world is possible relative to every other world. Nevertheless, other systems of modal logic have been formulated, in part, because S5 may not be a good fit for every kind of metaphysical modality of interest to us. (And if so, that may mean that possible worlds talk is not a good fit for these kinds of modality either.)

== Development of the field of modal logic ==
Although [[Aristotle]]'s logic is almost entirely concerned with the theory of the [[categorical syllogism]], his work also contains some extended arguments on points of modal logic (such as his famous [[Sea-Battle Argument]] in [[De Interpretatione]] § 9) and their connection with potentialities and with time. Following on his works, the [[Scholastics]] developed the groundwork for a rigorous theory of modal logic, mostly within the context of commentary on the logic of statements about [[essence]] and [[accident (philosophy)|accident]]. Among the medieval writers, some of the most important works on modal logic can be found in the works of [[William of Ockham]] and [[John Duns Scotus]].

The ''contemporary'' logical analysis of modality can be traced to [[C. I. Lewis]]'s "A Survey of Symbolic Logic" (1918), in which he developed the logical systems S1-S5. [[J. C. C. McKinsey]] used algebraic methods (Boolean algebras with operators) to prove the decidability of Lewis' S2 and S4 in 1941. [[Saul Kripke]] developed the [[relational semantics]] for modal logics (1959, 1963). [[Vaughan Pratt]] introduced [[dynamic logic]] in 1976. [[Amir Pnueli]] proposed the use of temporal logic to formalise the behaviour of continually operating concurrent programs in 1977.

[[Temporal logic]] is closely related to modal logic, as adding modal operators [F] and [P], meaning, respectively, ''henceforth'' and ''hitherto'', leads to a system of temporal logic.

Flavours of modal logics include: [[propositional dynamic logic]] (PDL), [[propositional linear temporal logic]] (PLTL), [[linear temporal logic]] (LTL), [[computational tree logic]] (CTL), [[Hennessy-Milner logic]], S1-S5, and T.

== References ==
* M. Fitting and R.L. Mendelsohn, "First Order Modal Logic", Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
* James Garson, 2003. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal Modal logic]. Entry in the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]].
* Robert Goldblatt, "Logics of Time and Computation", CSLI Lecture Notes No. 7, Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Second Edition, 1992, (distributed by University of Chicago Press).
* Robert Goldblatt, "Mathematics of Modality", CSLI Lecture Notes No. 43, Centre for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, 1993, (distributed by University of Chicago Press).
* G.E. Hughes and M.J. Cresswell, "An Introduction to Modal Logic", Methuen, 1968.
* G.E. Hughes and M.J. Cresswell, "A Companion to Modal Logic", Medhuen, 1984.
* G.E. Hughes and M.J. Cresswell, "A New Introduction to Modal Logic", Routledge, 1996.
* E.J. Lemmon (with Dana Scott), "An Introduction to Modal Logic", American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, no. 11 (ed. by Krister Segerberg), Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1977.
* J. Jay Zeeman, 1973. ''[http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jzeman/modallogic/ Modal Logic]''. Clarendon Press (OUP).

==See also==

*[[De dicto and de re]]
*[[Hybrid logic]]
*[[Interior algebra]]
*[[Interpretability logic]]
*[[Provability logic]]
*[[Kripke semantics]]

==External links==

* [http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/mcchay69/node22.html A discussion of modal logic] by John McCarthy
* [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/nonstbib.htm Bibliography of Non-Standard Logics] by Peter Suber
* [http://www.cc.utah.edu/~nahaj/logic/structures/systems/index.html List of Logic Systems] List of most of the more popular modal logics.
* [http://aiml.net/ Advances in Modal Logic] (bi-annual international conference and book series in Modal Logic)

==Acknowledgements==
This article contains some material originally from the [[Free On-line Dictionary of Computing]] which is used with [[Wikipedia:Foldoc license|permission]] under the GFDL.

[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Modal logic| ]]

[[de:Modallogik]]
[[fr:Logique modale]]
[[he:לוגיקה מודלית]]
[[nl:Modale logica]]
[[ja:様相論理学]]
[[zh:模态逻辑]]

Talk:Moral relativism

2005-10-11T02:38:06Z

Logic2go: /* Criticism */

See for older talk: [[Talk:Cultural relativism]]
----
==Critics of Moral Relativism, and who is this Berumen guy?==
I don't think that the second (bold) sentence of following paragraph from the current article is fair:

:''Some relativists will state that this is an unfair criticism of relativism, for it is really a descriptive, or meta-ethical, theory, and not a normative one, and that relativists may have strong moral beliefs, notwithstanding their foundational position. '''Critics of this view, however, argue it is disingenuous, and that the relativist is not making a mere meta-ethical observation. These critics contend that stating there is no preferred standard of truth, or that standards are equally true, addresses the ultimate validity and truth of the ethical judgments themselves, which, they contend, is a normative judgment. In other words, the separation between meta-ethics and normative ethics is arguably a distinction without a difference.'''''

To claim that denying a "preferred standard of truth" - ie, saying "the idea of moral truth is meaningless" addresses the truth of the ethical judgment itself, and is therefore a "normative" judgment itself seems to me to be mistaken. At best, it forces a relativist to argue with an objectivist on objectivist terms, when the very point a relativist makes is that the objectivist terms incoherent: It isn't that X or Y ''is or isn't'' good or bad, but that the notion of good or bad in itself is meaningless. Since Bentham it has been the objectivist's job to give a coherent account of where these objectively measurable norms come from; a logical sleight of hand such as the one above shouldn't be allowed to displace that onus of proof.

It seems to me that the first sentence of the paragraph above is a good defence to the "classic objection" to relativism, and the second sentence is misconceived (or disingenuous itself), and should be deleted. Also, no source is cited for the argument (despite purporting to be held by "critics of this view" - who, exactly? Is it the contributor's own work? - I didn't think that was valid content on wikipedia.)

'''The mysterious Michael Berumen''': much is made in the entry on Moral Relativism of the work of one Michael E Berumen. As far as I can tell, Beruman is a self-published author of one book, who is not and never has been a tenured academic, and whose paperback ''Do No Evil: Ethics With Applications to Economic Theory and Business'' is currently languishing at number 648,000 on Amazon's bestseller list a little over two years after is was published. According to his website, his next book will be an attempt to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity. No doubt the one after that will be instructions on how to nail jelly to the ceiling.

The weight given to the views of this "philosopher" on a topic with the history and significance of moral relativism is, in my humble submission, undue.

[[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 21:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

::Curt Baier and Bernard Gert, among others, and rightly or wrongly, say this about relativism. Hare hints at it. I think you are mistaken about the merit of Berumen's work, but I admit to being a fan. In any case, I have no interest in pursuing the matter. Best [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 06:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

::: I'm sorry if this seems rude, but I have a personal question: are you (Icut4U) Berumen, or a friend or relative of his? It seems to me that you (and Ockham, whom I think you've mentioned is your wife?) have had a large hand in proliferation of references to Berumen on the Wikipedia site. His work seems otherwise to have entirely escaped critical or academic notice.[[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 09:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

:: Not rude at all. No, I am most certainly not and I do not know him. My wife has met him (she teaches philosophy). And yes, I have made it a point to meake references where I thought appropriate, as I have with several others (e.g., Gert and Hare, among others) who were not mentioned much or at all prior to my arrival a year ago. He has had notices in several academic and business journals, and he has spoken widely in business venues (business ethics being his principal focus), though I agree, he's not as widely known. Many philosophers, as you know, did not emerge from the academy, though that has been the recent trend and, in my judgment, not an altogether satisfactory one. Given Wikipedia's nature, I think it allows for more information than the more traditional, hardbound counterparts, though of course it also must be relevant and accurate. I wrote or rewrote much of this article, including the parts you seem to find agreeable (judging, for example, by your hidden insertion in response to an inquiry), but I have no pride of authorship in it, so edit away. Best[[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 15:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the clarification. There seems to be ''some'' merit in what Berumen has to say, though I do think it ought to be made clear in the article that Berumen is an amateur without so much as a publishing deal, let alone academic tenure. Certainly, as I hope my queries have made clear, those objections I have to parts of the content of the article are technical - for example if objections to defences to criticisms (!!) are to be listed, they need to be coherently set out and sourced,and I don't think they are currently. The reason this is specifically of concern to me is that I am researching for some writing I'm doing on the subject myself (hence my arrival at this entry in the first place) and the ''extreme'' relativist position seems to me to be an unavoidable implication of rejecting moral absolutism (ie, a diluted version of relatavism is a cop-out), so (considering my own shortcomings in analytic philosophy) I am interested in finding out what is the "state of the art" is on criticisms of extreme relativism. Like it or not, Berumen is not the state of the art. There is something of an irony (given Berumen's rejection of the relativist programme) that his writing is not peer-reviewed and is from without the established adademic hierarchy, because it makes it that much more difficult to take seriously, especially from an objectivist perspective. Referencing his arguments (either in support of a position, or to criticise them) would be unwise unless and until Berumen has been taken seriously by the establishment (whether or not he's within it himself): otherwise the "within paradigm" scholar will simply say "you're referencing the arguments of a guy who runs a firm of security guards in Southern California". Therefore, I don't think it's fair to list him, without significant qualification, as a leading authority on relativist thought (which is what imclusion in the article implies). At the end of the day, he has published only through a vanity publisher, which would give him no greater claim to inclusion on the site than you or me.[[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 16:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

::I would disagree with much of what you've said. Having had one foot in medicine and another in academia, I have come to mistrust a kind of intellecutal elitism I find there, onw that is at once exclusionary and self-promoting. Wikipedia, despite its several deficiencies (factual error being especailly pernicious), is much less, though not completely, subject to this, which is one of its principal virtues. I do not deal in conflict for its own sake, only if it adds value to the article, and nothing detracts from the article by editing him out, though I do think your entry is tinged with your point of view rather than an exposition of the criticism. I will leave that to you and others to sort out. Best[[User:Icut4you|icut4u]] 22:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

----
a quick search on moral relativism on google upended a gaggle of roaring conservatives a.k.a. republicans... why the fear of this particular theory of philosophy or critical thinking?
[[user:DennisDaniels]]

because it is in direct conflict with the idea that God has handed down a fundamentaly correct set of rules to live by. [[User:Freshraisin|Freshraisin]] 23:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

----

I agree, it is frustrating when people can't distinguish between an incorrect idea and an idea that might cause you to realize you are incorrect. I think people generally react to the people who make the arguments, not the arguments themselves. [[User:Patrick Grey Anderson|Patrick Grey Anderson]] 19:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After reading the page, I question whether a discussion of a scientific basis for personal and social ethics might apply. Although abstract, absolute moral truths may be unproveable by scientific inquiry, it seems that physical, absolute moral truths in human & animal cognition might be. For example, the specific biological responses to suffering, and their manifestation in intellectual reasoning. [[user: vidoqo]]

==There seems to be an article on [[moral realism]] embedded in here==

In the "Moral relativism versus absolute morality" section of this article is a paragraph that reads

:Moral Relativism is in direct opposition of Moral Realism (which contains the concept of moral absolutism) and is characterised as follows:

And then is followed by two rather lengthy paragraphs that appear to be solely about the concept of [[moral realism]], not even bothering to describe it in comparison to moral relativism. I'm no philosophy guy, though, so I figured I'd ask here before moving this stuff over to the moral realism article; is there any reason why this lengthy description is here, am I just missing mention of how it relates to moral relativism within it? [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 05:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== criticism of moral reletavism ==
The article says:

"Moreover, aside from logical constraints, there is an evaluative aspect to certain moral terms (e.g., good and bad), a standard of measurement, much as is with the concepts of less or more, and this property would not be relativistic."

Does this make sense to anyone? why would this 'evaluative' property not be relativistic? Seems to me like a meaningless sentance that should be removed.
:Mistaken, perhaps, but certainly not ''meaningless'', which means something quite different. Less, more, good, bad, have a shared aspect across the cultural divide (e.g., this wrench is good or that pail holds less than the other), and the meaning of that aspect (there are other aspects) is not relative to a cultural standard, but to a universal standard. In other words, there is an invariant property of certain terms (not necessarily what they refer to). The standard of less in "This is less than that," is not relativistic, notwithstanding the variance between this and that. Some terms, including some moral terms, are even lacking in descriptive content and have formal, modal properties, such as the term "ought." Therefore, aside from other descriptive properties of the terms, their factual content, there is a means of reconcilling differences, one that does not depend upon relativistic criteria(e.g., based on a cultural standard), but one that is universal. THis is not a novel view, but one hashed out by the analytical movement for fifty years. (see Baird, Berumen, Hare,).

"One might also say, as Berumen has, if relativism were true, then in some sense it hoists itself by its own petard, for there is no reason to prefer it over any other theory."

Seems like the criticism of someone who mistakes moral-relativism to be immorality of amorality (see section 'Moral relativism versus absolute morality'). Moral relativism does *not* mean that one shouldn't have moral values, it only means that one accepts that these values are convensions. It is by no means an ethical thoery that dictates a course of action, nor one that negates any course of action.

I therefor think that putting such criticism here is misleading. It only muffles the meaning of the term. It's better to restrict the criticism to such that is made by people who understand what moral-relativism means.[[User:Cederal|Cederal]] 13:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

: There is no such mistake and it is not misleading. Several editors have thought moral relativism simply means that different moral norms exist and that they all have a validity of their own. This is anthropological relativism, and not very sophisticated version, at that. The accepted philosophical definition of moral relativism (Hume, Westermarck, Williams, Hare, Baird, et al) is that there is ''no'' preferred standard of truth by which to measure moral judgments, unlike, for example, that which obtains for mathematics, logic, or (to some lesser extent) science. Hare and Berumen, among others, have shown that one must distinguish between a proposition's cognitive content, its correlation with the facts in the world, and its formal or logical properties. Ethical judgments are subject to the rules of formal reasoning, logic, which are devoid of any factual content (beyond trivial tautological content). Consequently, notwithstanding the truth conditions of an ethical proposition's descriptive properties, it is subject to one standard of formal reasoning...which negates an aspect of relativism, though some opposed to relativism would find it less than satisfying, for it says nothing about the descriptive content, itself, just that one cannot hold contradictory positions,that the laws of identity apply, and there are rules that apply to conditional statements, etc.. Relativists (some) claim their's is a metaethical theory. Some critics, in turn, claim this is a distinction without a real difference, for saying that there is no preferred standard of truth (a unviersal standard against which to measure all ethical assertions) is, in fact, ''making a normative judgment'' about ethical propositions. Some relativists want to have theier cake and eat it too....its metaethics, they'll say, except when they are judging the truth of normative propositons. It is in this sense (when it is acting as a normative theory...which it does whenever it weighs in on truth or says there is no preferred standard) that Berumen (and others )suggest that relativism cannot logically claim precedence by its own standards. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

:I agree, you shoulda seen the paragraph on moral realism that I moved to the other article (it said that a society that didn't embrace moral realism would be in trouble because it couldn't say things like "murder is wrong" :). I think moral relativism is often misrepresented along these lines, the only reason I didn't do a full rewrite is because I've no philosophical qualifications and didn't want to mess things up with my probably idiosyncratic understanding of these terms. If so many people agree this article needs work, though, I'm willing to take a crack at it (or at least support anyone who does). Perhaps it would be a good idea, though, to include a section on "common criticisms" like these even if they don't make sense. If people who come to this article have heard these criticism before then they should find something here addressing that stuff, IMO. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 16:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the comment on moral realism; however, I think this artilce has become a paen to relativism or universism, and it doesn't always protray relativism or its critics accurately. Relativism offers a potent critique to many ethical theories; however, it is not immune from criticism, itself, and the counter criticisms, here, strike me as taking them too lightly, even misrepresenting them, with a significant POV in favor of a very unsophisticated relativism. The article ought to describe the philosophical positions in an expository manner without taking one. It does not do that. Moreover, the language introduced in recent edits is far removed from the language of technical philsophers. Among other things, words such as "reason" and "reasons" and "justification" are used in a manner that is not customary in philosophical circles. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

==Revamp==

This article became a hodgepodge of incongruent, redundant, and, sometimes, incomprehensible assertions. The major philosophical positions about both relativism as well as the principal criticisms of it were misrepresented. Technical philosophical terms were misused with abandon. It had a definite POV in support of a species of relativism at every turn, though it never articulated it in a manner that was understandable. I did what I could to restructure it and insert more information on the major philsophical doctrines, pro and con, along with references to some of the philosophers supporting those doctrines. The article was recently made into a promotion for a quasi-religious, moral doctrine that is certainly not among the major philosphical views dealing with relativism, namely, what is called "universism." I left a blurb in the article about it near the end, along with the website link promoting it, but its encyclopedic merit is highly suspect. I note that an article about universism was deleted. I will leave it to others to decide what to do with it, here, but it certainly should not dominate the longstanding philosophical tradition of relativism, that has more rigourous theories and very capable representation, nor should it give short-shrift to some of the serious difficulties that relativism presents. I will eventually put in some publications for references. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

== New point of view? ==

I've just finished reading the Trilogy of [[Conversations With God]], and since they are so popular today and they address [[Moral Relativism]], shouldn't we complete the page with a note about the "new" point of view presented at this Trilogy? (is it really new? can somebody argue if the CWG point of view is really new or is it already covered in one of the presented definitions?).

--[[User:Ricardojimenezr|Ricardojimenezr]] 04:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:It seems as though it belongs in an article dealing with religious belief or with channeling, or some such thing. That there is one truth or many truths or no truths is implicit in the article. Discussion of a particular moral code or religious belief, such as this, seems out of place. The ideas presented on the page are certainly not new, and I don't see its relevance for this article. I will defer to you and others if a separate blurb seems necessary, as with the one on universism, which I myself find highly questionable as something that merits any attention in this article.

[[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

==Universism==
I removed the section on Universism, as this is a very small quasi-religious movement that has just started up, with members meeting in each other's houses. There's currently a vote going on as to whether to undelete the article about it. See [[Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Universist Movement]]. I've voted there that the movement may be (marginally) notable enough to have its own article, but it doesn't represent a notable philosophical position on moral relativism and therefore has no place in this article, in my view. The passage I removed is below. I also removed the link to their website. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 23:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

<blockquote>[[Universist|Universism]] is a new system of thought developed outside of formal, academic philosophy, and promoted by The Universist Movement. Proponents argue, among other things, that only those individuals causing or directly affected by an action can make any judgment about the action's ultimate rightness or wrongness. That is, individuals not directly involved in an action have no moral authority to judge that action. Any judgments, with or without authority, are understood to be relative to the individual's reason, experience and emotion, and thus different in many cases. This is similar to the outlook propounded by Sartre.</blockquote>

==Relativism Redirect==

On the issue of merging....there are several specific versions of relativism, for example, [[Cultural relativism]], [[Cognitive relativism]], [[Linguistic relativism]], etc. One can imagine other forms. Philosophers and others close to the subject generally recognize moral and ethical reltivism as the appropriate nomenclature for the subject matter of this article. I therefore would disagree with the recent proposal to merge this with the article entitled [[Relativism]]. At most, non-duplicative points from the latter article ought to be incorporated into this one, though a cursory overview on my part didn't reveal anything that would add to it. Unless there is a disagreement, I will take the liberty of removing the caption suggesting this in due course. Thanks. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

:Yes, I agree. I can't see any discussion of the issue here, or any reason to merge. They are two quite separate, stand-alone pages. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 02:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

==Criticism==

The last entry does not adeqately state or deal with (in the counter-argument) [[R.M. Hare]]'s point that relativism is mistaken in a very fundamental way, since all moral prpositions and arguments are subject to the laws of logic, without regard to the truth values of the content. Also the conclusion of relstivism being unaffected by a criticism is personal opinion and not encyclopedic.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]

Since no one else tried to fix it I did. [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Moral relativism

2005-10-11T02:32:46Z

Logic2go: clarified Hare and eliminated personal perspective. ~~~

In [[philosophy]], '''Moral relativism''' is the position that [[moral]] or [[ethics|ethical]] propositions do not reflect [[moral absolutism|absolute]] or [[moral universalism|universal]] truths but instead are relative to [[society|social]], [[culture|cultural]], [[history|historical]] or [[person]]al references, and that there is no ''single'' standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral [[values]] as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that it is meaningless for the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group to be judged by another,  though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. 

Some moral relativists — for example, the [[existentialism|existentialist]] [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] — hold that a personal and [[subjective]] [[moral core]] lies or ought to lie at the foundation of individuals' moral acts. In this view, public [[morality]] is a reflection of social convention, and that only personal, subjective morality is truly authentic. 

Moral relativism is not the same as moral [[pluralism]], or [[value pluralism]], which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but does not require that they be equally valid. Moral relativism, in contrast, contends that opposing moral positions have no truth value, and that there is no preferred standard of reference by which to judge them. 

==History==

Relativist positions have been recorded for several thousand years. [[Protagoras]]' (ca. [[481 BC|481]]-[[420 BC]]) assertion that "man is the measure of all things" is an early [[philosophical]] precursor to modern relativism. [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] historian [[Herodotus]] (circa [[484 BC|484]]-[[420 BC]]) observed that each society thinks its own belief system and way of doing things are best, in contrast to that of others. Various ancient [[philosophers]] also questioned the idea of an absolute standard of morality.

The 18th century [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] philosopher, [[David Hume]] (1711-1776), is in several important respects the father of both modern [[emotivism]] and moral relativism, though Hume himself was not a relativist. He distinguished between matters of fact and matters of value, and suggested that moral judgments consist of the latter, for they do not deal with verifiable facts that obtain in the world, but only with our sentiments and passions, though he argued that some of our sentiments are universal. He is famous for denying any objective standard for morality, and suggested that the universe is indifferent to our preferences and our troubles.

In the modern era, [[anthropologists]] such as [[Ruth Benedict]] (1887-1948), cautioned observers not to use their own cultural standards to evaluate those they were studying, which is known as [[ethnocentricism]]. Benedict said there are no morals, only customs, and in comparing customs, the anthropologist, "insofar as he remains an anthropologist ... is bound to avoid any weighting of one in favor of the other." To some extent, the increasing body of knowledge of great differences in belief among societies caused both social scientists and philosophers to question whether there can be any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values. This caused some to posit that differing systems have equal validity, with no standard for adjudicating among conflicting beliefs. The Finnish philosopher-anthropologist, [[Edward Westermarck]] (1862-1939) was among the first to formulate a detailed theory of moral relativism. He contended that all moral ideas are subjective judgements that reflect one's upbringing. He rejected [[G.E. Moore]]'s (1873-1958) [[intuitionism]] — in vogue during the early part of the 20th century, and which identified moral propositions as true or false, and known to us through a special faculty of [[intuition]] — due to the obvious differences in beliefs among societies, which he said was evidence that there is no innate, intuitive power.

==Some philosophical considerations==

So-called descriptive relativists (for example, [[Ralph Barton Perry]]), accept that there are fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences are likely to arise. However, the descriptive relativist does not necessarily deny that there is one correct moral appraisal, given the same set of circumstances. Other descriptivists believe that opposing moral beliefs can both be true, though critics point out that this leads to obvious logical problems. The latter descriptivists, for example, several leading [[Existentialists]], believe that morality is entirely subjective and personal, and beyond the judgment of others. In this view, moral judgments are more akin to aesthetic considerations and are not amenable to rational analysis.

In contrast, the metaethical relativist maintains that ''all'' moral judgments are based on either societal or individual standards, and that there is no single, objective standard by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition. While he preferred to deal with more practical, real-life ethical matters, the British philosopher [[Bernard Williams]] (1929-2003) reluctantly came to this conclusion when he put on his metaethicist's hat. Metaethical relativists, in general, believe that the descriptive properties of terms such as good, bad, right, and wrong are not subject to [[universal]] [[truth]] conditions, but only to societal convention and personal preference. Given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what ''ought'' to be done based on societal or individiual norms, and these cannot be adjudicated using some independent standard of evaluation, for the latter standard will always be societal or personal and not universal, unlike, for example, the scientific standards for assessing temperature or for determining mathematical truths.

Moral relativism stands in marked contrast to [[moral absolutism]], [[moral realism]], and [[moral naturalism]], which all maintain that there are moral facts, facts that can be both known and judged, whether through some process of verification or through intuition. These philosophies see morality as something that obtains in the world. Examples include the philosophy of [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] (1712-1778), who saw man's nature as inherently good, or of [[Ayn Rand]], who believed morality is derived from man's exercising his unobstructed rationality. Others believe moral knowledge is something that can be derived by external sources such as a deity or revealed doctrines, as would be maintained by various [[religion]]s. Some hold that moral facts inhere in nature or reality, either as particular instances of perfect ideas in an eternal realm, as adumbrated by [[Plato]] (429-347 BC); or as a simple, unanalyzable property, as advocated by Moore. In each case, however, moral facts are invariant, though the circumstances to which they apply might be different. Moreover, in each case, moral facts are objective and can be determined.

Some philosophers maintain that moral relativism devolves into [[emotivism]], the movement inspired by [[logical positivists]] in the early part of the 20th Century. Leading exponents of logical positivism include [[Rudolph Carnap]] {1891-1970} and [[A. J. Ayer]] {1910-1989}. Going beyond Hume, the positivists contended that a proposition is ''meaningful'' only if it can be verified by [[logic]]al or scientific inquiry. Thus, [[metaphysical]] propositions, which cannot be verified in this manner, are not simply incorrect, ''they are meaningless'', nonsensical. Moral judgments are primarily expressions of emotional preferences or states, devoid of cognitive content; consequently, they are not subject to verification. As such, moral propositions are essentially meaningless utterances or, at best, express personal attitudes (see, for example, [[Charles L. Stevenson]] {1908-1979}). Not all relativists would hold that moral propositions are meaningless; indeed, many make any number of assertions about morality, assertions that they undoubtedly believe to be meaningful. However, other philosophers have argued that, since we have no means of analysing a moral proposition, it is essentially meaningless, and, in their view, relativism is therefore tantamount to emotivism.

Political theorist [[Leo Strauss]] (1899-1973), subscribed to a species of relativism, believing that there do not exist objective criteria for assessing ethical principles, and that a rational morality is only possible in the limited sense that one must accept its ultimate subjectivity. This view is very similar to the one advocated by existentialist philosophers [[Martin Heidegger]] (1889-1976) and Sartre. The latter famously maintained that ethical principles only arise from our personal feelings at the time we act, and not from any antecedent principles.

The thought of [[Karl Marx]] (1818-1883), proposes a type of moral relativist, asserting that each moral system was simply a product of the dominant socio-economic [[class]], and that the movement of history will settle moral questions, in contrast to moral absolutist or universalist positions.

==Critics of relativism==

Those who support positions of moral absolutism or universalism are often highly critical of moral relativism; some have been known to equate it with outright "immorality" or amorality. Various historical and cultural events and practices, including [[The Holocaust]], [[Stalinism]] and communist atrocities of the [[20th century]], [[Apartheid]] in South Africa, [[genocide]], [[Just War theory|unjust war]]s, [[genital mutilation]], [[slavery]], [[terrorism]], [[Nazism]], etc., present difficult problems for relativists. An observer in a particular time and place, depending on his outlook (e.g., culture, religion, background), might call something ''good'' that another observer in a particular time and place would call ''evil''. Slavery, for example, was thought by many to be acceptable, even good, in other times and places, while it is viewed by many (though certainly not all), today, as a great evil. Many writers and thinkers have held that any number of evils can be justified based on subjective or cultural preferences, and that morality requires some universal standard against which to measure ethical judgments.

Some relativists will state that this is an unfair criticism of relativism, for it is really a [[descriptive]], or [[meta-ethics|meta-ethical]], theory, and not a [[normative]] one, and that relativists may have strong moral beliefs, notwithstanding their foundational position. Critics of this view, however, argue it is disingenuous, and that the relativist is not making a mere meta-ethical observation. These critics contend that stating there is no preferred standard of truth, or that standards are equally true, addresses the ultimate validity and truth of the ethical judgments themselves, which, they contend, is a normative judgment. In other words, the separation between meta-ethics and normative ethics is arguably a distinction without a difference.

Some philosophers, for example [[R. M. Hare]] ([[1919]]-[[2002]]), argue that moral propositions are subject to logical rules, notwithstanding the absence of any factual content, including those subject to cultural or religious standards or norms. Thus, for example, they contend that one cannot hold contradictory ethical judgments. This allows for moral discourse with shared standards, notwithstanding the descriptive properties or truth conditions of moral terms. They do not affirm or deny there are moral facts, only that logic applies to our moral assertions; consequently, they contend, there is an objective and preferred standard of moral justification, albeit in a very limited sense. Nevertheless,according to Hare, it shows that relativism is mistaken in one very important sense(see Hare's Sorting out Ethics). Hare and other philosophers also point out that, aside from logical constraints, all systems treat certain moral terms alike in an evaluative sense. This is similar to our treatment of other terms such as ''less'' or ''more'', the meaning of which is universally understood and not dependent upon independent standards (measurements, for example, can be converted). It applies to good and bad when used in their non-moral sense, too: for example, when we say, "this is a ''good'' wrench" or "this is a ''bad'' wheel." This evaluative property of certain terms also allows people of different beliefs to have meaningful discussions on moral questions, even though they disagree about certain facts.

It might be argued that if relativism were wholly true, there would be no reason to prefer it over any other theory, given its fundamental contention that there is no preferred standard of truth. On this view, relativism is not simply a meta-ethical theory, but is a normative one, and that its truth, by its own definition, cannot in the final analysis be assessed or weighed against other theories. If relativism and absolutism are opposiste sides of an argument about the existence (or not) of objective truth. Critics of this view argue that this argument appears to place the burden of proof on relativism, by treating it as a theory that makes the positive existential claim "it is objectively true that there are no objective truths" as opposed to simply being the necessary consequence of a refusal to accept the absolutist's claim "there are objective truths."They argue that this objectionn can claim to have defeated a rather singular version of relativism (singular in that it transparently appeals to an objective truth it is purporting to deny).

==See also==

*[[Analytical philosophy]]
*[[Anthropology]]
*[[Business ethics]]
*[[Deontology]]
*[[Emotivism]]
*[[Ethics]]
*[[Kohlberg's stages of moral development]]
*[[Logic]]
*[[Metaethics]]
*[[Moral codes]]
*[[Moral purchasing]]
*[[Morality]]
*[[Objectivism]]
*[[Philosophy]]
*[[Situational ethics]]
*[[Subjectivism]]

== References and sources==

:[[Curt Baier]], "Difficulties in the Emotive-Imperative Theory" in ''Moral Judgement: Readings in Contemporary Meta-Ethics''
:[[Ruth Benedict]], ''Patterns of Culture'' (Mentor)
:[[Michael E. Berumen]], ''Do No Evil: Ethics with Applications to Economic Theory and Business'' (iUniverse)
:[[R.M. Hare]], ''Sorting out Ethics'' ([[Oxford University Press]])
:[[David Hume]], ''An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals'', ed. Tom L. Beauchamp ([[Oxford University Press]])
:[[G.E. Moore]], ''Principia Ethica'' ([[Cambridge University Press]])
:[[Jean-Paul Sartre]], "Existentialism is a Humanism" in ''Existentialism From Dostoevsky to Sartre'', ed. by Walter Kaufmann (World Publishing Company)
:[[Leo Strauss]], ''The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism'', ed. Thomas L. Pangle ([[University of Chicago]] Press)
:[[Edward Westermarck]], ''The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas'' ([[Macmillan]])
:[[Bernard Williams]], ''Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy'' ([[Harvard University Press]])

==External links==

*[http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm#Metaphysical%20Issues:%20Objectivism%20and%20Relativism Objectivism and Relativism]
*[http://www.AllAboutPhilosophy.org/Moral-Relativism.htm Moral Relativism] A Christian Perspective.
*[http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0222/__P1.HTM Veritatis Splendor] (English)
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]

[[et:Eetiline relativism]][[et:Moraalirelativism]][[fr:Relativisme culturel]][[pl:Relatywizm moralny]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Social philosophy]]

R. M. Hare

2005-10-10T21:12:56Z

Logic2go: Relativism

[[Image:RMHare.jpg|right|frame|R.M. Hare]]
'''Richard Mervyn Hare''' ([[March 21]], [[1919]] – [[January 29]], [[2002]]) was an English [[Moral Philosophy|moral philosopher]], who held the post of White's Professor of Moral Philosophy at the [[University of Oxford]] from 1966 until 1983. His [[meta-ethics|meta-ethical]] theories were influential during the second half of the [[20th century|twentieth century]].

Some of Hare's students, such as Brian McGuinness and [[Bernard Williams]] went on to become well-known [[Philosophy|philosophers]]. Perhaps best known outside philosophical circles, [[Peter Singer]], known for his work in [[animal liberation]], was also a student of Hare's, and has explicitly adopted many elements of Hare's thought.

==Biography==
Hare was born in Backwell, Somerset. He attended [[Rugby School]] in Warwickshire, followed in 1937 by [[Balliol College, Oxford]], where he read [[Literae Humaniores|Greats]] (Classics). Although he was a [[Pacifism|pacifist]], he volunteered for service in the [[Royal Artillery]] and was taken as a [[prisoner of war]] by the Japanese from the fall of [[Singapore]] in 1942 to the end of the [[Second World War]]. This experience had a lasting impact on Hare's philosophical views, particularly his view that moral philosophy has an obligation to help people live their lives as moral beings (King 2004). His earliest work in philosophy, which has never been published, dates from this period, and in it, he tried to develop a system that might "serve as a guide to life in the harshest conditions," according to ''[[The Independent]]''. [http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/RMH.shtml]

He returned to Oxford after the war, and in 1947, married Catherine Verney, a marriage that produced one son and three daughters. (Hare's son, [[John Hare]], is also a philosopher.) He was elected fellow and tutor in philosophy at Balliol from 1947–1996; honorary fellow at Balliol from 1974-2002; and was appointed Wilde Lecturer in Natural Religion, 1963–66; and White's Professor of Moral Philosophy, 1966–1983, which accompanied a move to [[Corpus Christi College, Oxford|Corpus Christi]]. He left Oxford in 1983 to become Graduate Research Professor of Philosophy at the [[University of Florida]] at Gainseville, a post he held until 1994.

He died in Ewelme, [[Oxfordshire]] on [[January 29]], [[2002]] after suffering a series of [[Cerebrovascular accident|strokes]].

==Influences==

A product of his time, Hare was greatly influenced by the [[emotivism]] of [[Alfred Ayer|A.J. Ayer]] and [[Charles L. Stevenson]], the ordinary language philosophy of [[J.L. Austin]], the later philosophy of [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], [[utilitarianism]], and [[Immanuel Kant]].

Hare held that ethical rules should not be based on a principle of utility, though he took into account utilitarian considerations. This distinguishes him from classical utilitarians like [[Jeremy Bentham]]. Indeed, Hare is as much a Kantian as he is a utilitarian, as he makes clear in his book, ''Sorting Out Ethics''.

==Universal prescriptivism==

In a series of books, especially ''The Language of Morals'', ''Freedom and Reason'', and ''Moral Thinking'', Hare gave shape to a theory that he called [[universal prescriptivism]]. According to this, moral terms such as 'good', 'ought' and 'right' have two logical or semantic properties: [[universalizability]] and [[prescriptivity]]. By the former, he meant that moral judgments must identify the situation they describe according to a finite set of universal terms, excluding [[proper names]], but not [[definite description]]s. By the latter, he meant moral agents must perform those acts they consider themselves to have an obligation to perform whenever they are physically and psychologically able to do so. In other words, he argued that it made no sense for someone to say, sincerely: "I ought to do X," and then fail to do X. This was identified as a major flaw in Hare's system, as it appeared to take no account of ''[[akrasia]]'', or weakness of the will.

Hare noted that the combination of universalizability and prescriptivity leads to a certain form of [[consequentialism]], namely, [[preference utilitarianism]].

===Example===

An example of Hare's argument would be this:

Supposing you require a large sum of money, and you ask a friend to lend it to you. She refuses. You claim that it is wrong for her to refuse. 'Wrong' is a moral term, so, according to Hare, you must abide by its logical properties. The first property, universalizability, demands that you formulate a description of the situation using only universal terms. So you say:
<blockquote>Whenever I ask a friend for a large sum of money, it is wrong for her to refuse to give it to me.</blockquote> But this violates the universalizability requirement, insofar as the description contains the terms 'I' and 'me,' which do not designate a universal property, but denote an individual instead. So you try again: <blockquote>Whenever someone asks a friend for a large sum of money, it is wrong for her to refuse the request.</blockquote>

This new description satisfies the universalizability requirement, because all its terms are universal. Now your description must also satisfy the second requirement, that of prescriptivity. That is, you must determine whether you are ''willing to act'' on the universal formulation.

At first, you might argue that it does not apply to you. If you consider it wrong for your friend to refuse to lend you a large sum of money, it is your friend, not you, who should be acting accordingly.

However — and here is where the two properties combine and the philosophically interesting results appear — universalizability requires that the same judgment be made, and prescriptivity that the same action be taken, irrespective of your particular position in the situation. In other words, just as you had to deprive the description of its particular (non-universal) terms, it is now impossible for you to exclude yourself from the possibility of being in the situation that your friend was in. According to ''universalizability'', if you were not the one asking for money, but the one who was being asked, the same moral judgment — that whenever someone asks a friend for a large sum of money, it is wrong for her to refuse the request — ought to apply; and, according to the rule of ''prescriptivity'', you would have to act accordingly.

If you were not prepared to act accordingly, you would be violating this rule; and in fact you wouldn't be uttering a moral judgment at all, according to Hare.

To re-enter the moral discourse, you would have to modify your original judgment so that, once universalized, you would still be able to act in the way it would ask you to act. By a series of universal conjectures and prescriptive refutations — akin to philosopher [[Karl Popper]]'s [[falsificationism]] (see ''Freedom and Reason'', chapter 4) — you would eventually arrive at the right moral judgment, which would be the one you would prefer in all the possible situations.

In each case, however, one cannot simply put oneself in another's shoes, as it were, one must also adopt the universal properties of the perspectives of the other person. Universal prescriptivism, thus, leads to preference utilitarianism. And so, according to Hare, does [[Immanuel_Kant|Kantianism]]: to demand, as Kant's first formulation of the [[categorical imperative]] does, that you could will that your maxim be a universal law, is to ask the moral agent to prescribe the judgment that she could accept were she in any of the positions involved, which of course is exactly Hare's point.

==Importance of specificity==

Hare departs from Kant's view that only the most general maxims of conduct be used (for example, "do not steal"), but the consequences ignored, when applying the categorical imperative. To ignore consequences leads to absurdity: for example, that it would be wrong to steal a terrorist's plans to blow up a nuclear facility. All the specific facts of a circumstance must be considered, and these include probable consequences. They also include the relevant, universal properties of the facts: for example, the psychological states of those involved.

==Relativism==

Hare was resigned to the idea that the content of moral prpositions could not be shown to be subject to truth conditions, and, therefore, could not be subject to objective, universal standards of truth.While this suggests that moral relativists have the upper hand from a foundational standpoint, Hare said they were mistaken in one important respect: all moral propositions and arguments are subject to at least one universal standard, namely, logic. According to Hare, this fact also makes moral discourse intelligible.

==Hare in applied ethics==

While Hare was primarily interested in meta-ethics, some have used his universal prescriptivism in applied ethics. For example, [[Michael E. Berumen]] uses it to evaluate exceptions to certain moral rules, and [[Peter Singer]] uses it as a means of judging conduct, though, unlike Hare, Singer seems to base his system on a principle of utility.

==References==
*Hare, R.M. [http://www.ditext.com/hare/lm.html ''The Language of Morals'']. 1952
*King, P.J. ''One Hundred Philosophers''. Barrons, 2004
*[http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/RMH.shtml Obituary], ''The Independent'', February 6, 2002

==Further reading==
*[http://utilitarian.net/hare R. M. Hare]. Resources on Hare, including writings by and about him.
* [http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/filosofi/autori/hare-scheda.htm R. M. Hare]. Risorse in lingua italiana

[[Category:1919 births|Hare, R. M.]]
[[Category:2002 deaths|Hare, R. M.]]
[[Category:Analytic philosophers|Hare, R. M.]]
[[Category:British philosophers|Hare, R. M.]]
[[Category:Utilitarians|Hare, R. M.]]
[[it:Richard Mervyn Hare]]

Talk:Moral relativism

2005-10-10T18:28:40Z

Logic2go: does not portray or address Hare's critique adequately.

User:Logic2go

2005-10-10T18:01:32Z

Logic2go:

I think I am. I have doubts about you. [[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

Metaethics

2005-10-10T04:41:49Z

Logic2go: add Hare

In [[philosophy]], '''meta-ethics''' is that branch of [[ethics]] which seeks to understand the nature of ethical sentences, statements, attitudes and evaluations. Meta-ethics comprises one of the two branches of [[ethics]] as typically divided by philosophers, the other being [[normative ethics]].

While normative ethics addresses such questions as "Which things are good and bad?" and "What should we do?", thus endorsing some ethical evaluations and rejecting others, meta-ethics, on the other hand, seeks to understand the nature of ethical evaluations and how they are made.

==Meta-ethical questions==

Examples of meta-ethical questions include:

* What does it mean to say something is "[[good]]"?
* How, if at all, do we know what is [[right]] and wrong?
* How do moral [[attitude]]s motivate action?
* What are '''[[Goodness and value theory|values]]'''? Are there [[objectivity|objective]] or [[absolute]] values?
* What is an '''ethical [[norm (philosophy)|norm]]''' and how are norms created?

==Meta-ethical theories==

A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory, does not contain any ethical evaluations. Indeed, an answer to any of the five questions in the above sample selection would not itself be an ethical statement, or an assertion of ethical norms.

In the last century, the field of meta-ethics has been dominated by several kinds of theories, some of which are sub-sets of others:

#[[Cognitivism (ethics)|Cognitivism]], which holds that statements made about morality are an attempt to convey not only information but 'verifiable' truths or falsehoods. It is seen by many as a "default" (though not necessarily correct) view, as it is seemingly obvious that when one says "Murder is wrong" they are saying that the act of murder, or some consequence of it, is objectively wrong. However, many meta-ethicists (for example [[A.J. Ayer]], [[C. L. Stevenson]] and [[R. M. Hare]]) have argued that this is incorrect, and as such are identified as [[non-cognitivism|non-cognitivists]] (see below).
## [[Moral_realism|Ethical realism]] which holds that an [[objective morality]] exists. This view comes in two variants:
### [[Ethical intuitionism]] or [[ethical non-naturalism]], which holds that there are objective, irreducible moral properties (such as the property of 'goodness'), and that we sometimes have intuitive awareness of moral properties or of moral truths.
### [[Ethical naturalism]], which holds that there are objective moral properties, but that these properties are [[reductionism|reducible]] to entirely non-ethical properties. Most ethical naturalists hold that we have empirical knowledge of moral truths. Several have argued that moral knowledge can be gained by the same means as scientific knowledge.
## [[Ethical consensus theory]] which holds that an [[absolute moral]] can be accomplished through an idealized moral discourse. [[Jürgen Habermas]] is one of the followers of this view.
## [[Subject_%28philosophy%29#Ethical_subjectivism|Ethical Subjectivism]], which holds that moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of observers. An example of this is the view that for a thing to be morally right is just for it to be approved of by society; this leads to the view that different things are right in different societies.
## [[Moral skepticism]], which holds that ethical sentences are generally false. Moral skeptics hold that there are no objective values, but that the claim that there are objective values is part of the meaning of ordinary ethical sentences (in other words, such claims are truth-evaluable, but fail to refer to any objective properties); that is why, in their view, ethical sentences are false. [[J. L. Mackie]] was a main proponent of this view. This is theory also known as [[Moral skepticism|error-theory]].
# [[Non-cognitivism]] holds that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not assert genuine propositions.
## [[Expressivism]]. Some have held that ethical sentences such as "Stealing is wrong" are merely emotional expressions; others have argued that they are more like imperatives, or are summaries of a general debate about values.
## [[Quasi-realism]], proposed mainly by [[Simon Blackburn]], which states that ethical discourse behaves as truth-apt but projects mental states that are non-representational and therefore cannot be true or false.

The last four positions ([[Subject_%28philosophy%29#Ethical_subjectivism|Ethical Subjectivism]], [[Expressivism]], [[Quasi-realism]], [[Moral skepticism]]) can be grouped together under the heading of moral [[anti-realism]].

==History==
Some have thought that in the [[twentieth century|20th]] and [[21st century|21st centuries]] meta-ethics has come to replace [[normative ethics]] as the more prevalent pursuit among philosophers and scholars of philosophy in academia. This is supposed to have occurred simultaneously with an overall decline in belief in moral absolutes in most popular cultures as well as a greater interest in process and categorization as opposed to the identification and application of norms, both in academia and in global society generally.

==See also==

* [[Aristotle]]
* [[Thomas. Aquinas]]
* [[Immanuel Kant]]
* [[G. E. Moore]]
* [[J. L. Mackie]]
* [[R. M. Hare]]
[[Category:Meta-ethics]]

[[de:Metaethik]]
[[et:Metaeetika]]
[[fr:Méta-éthique]]
[[fi:Metaetiikka]]
[[sv:Metaetik]]