View source for Talk:Philosophy

{{talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1 = GAN|action1date = 18:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)|action1link = Talk:Philosophy/GA1|action1result = listed|action1oldid = 1171873111
|dykdate = 7 October 2023|dykentry = ... that physics, chemistry, and biology were all part of '''[[philosophy]]''' before they became separate disciplines?|dyknom = Template:Did you know nominations/Philosophy
|action2 = PR|action2date = 2 November 2023|action2link = Wikipedia:Peer_review/Philosophy/archive1|action2result = reviewed|action2oldid = 1183121837
|action3 = FAC|action3date = 2023-11-30|action3link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1|action3result = promoted|action3oldid = 1187705346
|currentstatus = FA
|maindate=1 February 2024
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=true|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Top}}
}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
{{Notice|This article was the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy]] collaboration of the month for December 2006}}
{{high traffic|date=24 May 2011|url=http://www.xkcd.com/903/|site=xkcd|linktext=mentioned in the mouseover text|afterlinktext=on|notlinked=yes}}
{{tmbox|text=For the observation that repeatedly clicking the first link in a Wikipedia article leads to this article, see [[Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy]].}}
{{Backwardscopy
|author = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
|year = 2010
|title = Contemporary Islamic philosophy: Islam, philosophy, modernity, Western philosophy, Jamal-al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic philosophy
|org = Alphascript Publishing
|comments = {{OCLC|697554244}}, {{ISBN|9786130678883}}.
|bot=LivingBot
}}
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|{{U|Sdkb}}|Level-1 vital article}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Philosophy/Archive index
|mask1=Talk:Philosophy/Archive <#>
|mask2=Talk:Philosophy/Quotations
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 32
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:Philosophy/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes|archive_age=1|archive_units=years|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}

==Did you know nomination==
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Philosophy}}

== Metaphilosophy as a Meta- or Sub- discipline ==

{{ping|PatrickJWelsh}}, the fragment "are studied in the subdiscipline known as [[metaphilosophy]]"
seems contradictory or inconsistent to me because the prefix "meta" is used to denote a thing is beyond, above, or at a higher level while the prefix "sub" is used to denote a thing is under, below, or at a lower level.  This seems to be a conflict that can be easily resolved by removing that fragment from the sentence "Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in the subdiscipline known as [[metaphilosophy]]." It makes things simpler and more clear. Correct or wrong it's unnecessary information.
[[User:ProofCreature|ProofCreature]] ([[User talk:ProofCreature|talk]]) 21:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:ProofCreature|ProofCreature]], 
:Thanks for bringing this to the talk page! 
:Metaphilosophy is meta in that it positions itself "above" philosophy by taking philosophy itself as its topic.
:It is, however, also a subdiscipline in that it is itself only one small part of philosophy. Possibly "subfield" would be a better term here, but I do not see any actual inconsistency in the current language. 
:To explicitly spell out ''x in this respect to y, and also y in this respect to x'' would, in my judgment, be unnecessarily tedious. I don't particularly think the general article on philosophy should get into metaphilosophy, but this particular sentence does not strike me as an issue.
:Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
::Seriously? You don't see the inconsistency in the language? You explained it in your comment; that it is above philosophy and a part of philosophy.
::I get that I am focused on semantics, here, but the conflict implies a problem with Metaphilosophy in general.  
::To otherwise resolve a conflict without semantics, to have a thing be both below and above in relation to another thing, one would require a Holy Spirit like entity.  Spirits seem to be antithetical to Philosophy's reliance on logic.
::[[User:ProofCreature|ProofCreature]] ([[User talk:ProofCreature|talk]]) 21:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Self-reference|Reflexivity]] is a basic feature of [[consciousness]]. This may indeed be remarkable, but it is no demerit to any school or branch of philosophy to express and reflect upon as much. If anything, the contrary. 
:::"Below" and "above" are entirely metaphorical, and so different parts of philosophy can be both ''in different respects'' without contradiction.
:::Philosophy highlights self-inquiry more than any other generally recognized discipline, but it is hardly alone in reflecting upon its own methods and operations. Any contradiction at work is [[dialectical]] and most likely does not warrant more detailed discussion in the general article on philosophy.
:::In any case, nothing magical is in any way required or implied. Philosophy does not need a Holy Ghost anymore than you do when, for instance, ''you'' think about the kind of person that ''you'' want to be—which is something that all of us do with respect to ourselves!
:::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I agree that etymologically, the sentence could sound contradictory if one tried to make sense of the term "metaphilosophy" based on the roots of its parts. However, not everything that might sound contradictory is contradictory. If the sources say that the claim is true (which they do) then this trumps the etymological impression. Patrick's explanation of the reflexive nature of philosophy could also be used to expel the etymological impression. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
:Proof I am right about Philosophiing (like radii)(;)(Philosophying?))), Philosophiers Really Love the Way They Talk About Would They Talk About It, and Women as well, Proverbs 1:20; Love is Wisdom is Sex, Have A Blessed Day, let’s see if we can get a Philosophier page soon. [[User:Mintosoares|Mintosoares]] ([[User talk:Mintosoares|talk]]) 08:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|PatrickJWelsh}}, {{ping|Phlsph7}},
I disagree with you both.
My argument is entirely semantics. I disagree that a word with a prefix denoting a superiority like "meta-" should be given a secondary connotation found in the word "subdisipline".    

It's easy enough to remove the conflict by removing half the sentence or even just the word "subdiscipline".  Additional content in the article is not required.  In this situation the correction is removal, not embelishment.  
The following seem correct to me:
 "Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial."  

 "Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy." 

I have no disagreement with reflexivity, but if that's "metaphilosophy" I think the article (and, if used that way, the entire academic field) is using the wrong word for it.


Tangenially: 
:I disagree that most  words are metaphorical. Prefixes like "meta-" or "sub-" or  words like "above" and "below " symbolize a real, known, idea as do most other words (There are exceptions for words that symbolize fictions like dragons or ghosts). buthat'sjustme, I suppose.  It is very apparent to me that for many people they're just words, no one means anything by them; they are immaterial.
[[User:ProofCreature|ProofCreature]] ([[User talk:ProofCreature|talk]]) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:While I acknowledge your reasoning and your position, the article should reflect what the reliable sources say. Here are some examples:
:*From [https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr6sOHSa1aoC&pg=PR7]: {{green|This book is an introduction to metaphilosophy - the branch of philosophy that....}}
:*From [https://books.google.com/books?id=yOFhhgnnIOYC&pg=PR4]: {{green|... this area ...has ... been acknowledged as a distinctive branch of philosophy ... entitled metaphilosophy}}
:*From [https://books.google.com/books?id=oP6TAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA500]: {{green|Metaphilosophy is a field or branch of philosophy...}}
:If we have to change it then your second suggestions ("Attempts to define philosophy in precise terms are controversial and are studied in metaphilosophy.") would be better but my impression is that we can keep it as it is. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 13:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

== Proposed Merge ==

Merge this page along with [[Outline of philosophy]] [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:9200:9E00:CC00:64C1:B314:5506|2603:7000:9200:9E00:CC00:64C1:B314:5506]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:9200:9E00:CC00:64C1:B314:5506|talk]]) 14:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

:Would also like to propose scientificalness, scientificness, scienceness, conscienceness, with some other verbs that are surrounding this study of mine called philosophias, math and con/:scienceness, thanks! [[User:Mintosoares|Mintosoares]] ([[User talk:Mintosoares|talk]]) 05:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
::scientificness as well [[User:Mintosoares|Mintosoares]] ([[User talk:Mintosoares|talk]]) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
::Con/:scienceness as a merge with conscience meaning with science (knowing) -ness (to be) and a close of the relationship between “conscience(ness)” and consciousness! [[User:Mintosoares|Mintosoares]] ([[User talk:Mintosoares|talk]]) 07:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Therefore the question remains, is consciousness an exquisite form that can be described through science when realizing “-scious, science” are of the same word , have a great sense for this question  [[User:Mintosoares|Mintosoares]] ([[User talk:Mintosoares|talk]]) 07:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
:That'd make some sense. If nothing else there should be a prominent link in [[Philosophy]] to [[Outline of Philosophy]].  Though maybe that's accomplished by the Part of a series on Philosophy template.
:[[User:ProofCreature|ProofCreature]] ([[User talk:ProofCreature|talk]]) 11:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
::There are already several links from [[Philosophy]] to [[Outline of philosophy]]. [[Philosophy]] is a regular article while [[Outline of philosophy]] is an outline, i.e. a collection of links. I don't see how merging makes sense since a long list of links does not belong into a regular article. See also [[WP:MERGEREASON]]. We could turn [[Outline of philosophy]] into a redirect to [[Philosophy]] but no reason has been mentioned why we shouldn't have an outline of philosophy. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
::linked in see also [[User:Cal3000000|Cal3000000]] ([[User talk:Cal3000000|talk]]) 09:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

== Adding an Image to the "Indian Philosophy" and "Other traditions" subsections. ==

I was going through the page and released the [[Philosophy#Western]], [[Philosophy#Arabic–Persian]], and [[Philosophy#Chinese]] subsections under the [[Philosophy#History]] section have images of a philosopher from their respective traditions, but the [[Philosophy#Indian]] and the [[Philosophy#Other traditions]] subsections do not have one.  

This is a request to add an images of a philosopher from the respective traditions and to decide which philosopher or image should be added.  

For the [[Philosophy#Indian]], I believe [[Nagarjuna]], [[Adi Shankara]], or [[Swami Vivekananda]] would be the best as they were very influential and well known.  

In [[Philosophy#Other traditions]] [[Japanese philosophy]], [[African philosophy]], and [[Indigenous American philosophy]] are discussed.  I believe it would be the most appropriate to add a philosopher from either [[African philosophy]] or [[Indigenous American philosophy]] as the previous two traditions are not well known and [[Japanese philosophy]] is heavily influenced by both [[Chinese philosophy|Chinese]] and [[Indian philosophy]].   [[User:GayaniGojo|GayaniGojo]] ([[User talk:GayaniGojo|talk]]) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing out this oversight, I added an image of Adi Shankara. I don't think that we need an image for the section "Other traditions" but if there are concrete suggestions of well-known representative figures, we could consider them. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 07:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

== Proposed sentence amendment: Other traditions ==

The section on African philosophy seems to be short, underdeveloped and lacking contextual depth in comparison to other areas i.e. Indian, Chinese and Latin American philosophy. 

I propose adding two sentence additions which may be rewritten (depending on the view of other users) but the content below derive from reliable sources.

"The philosophical tradition in Africa derived from both ancient Egypt and scholarly texts in [[History of Africa|medieval Africa]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Imbo |first1=Samuel Oluoch |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_African_Philosophy/-p0iHjAEBvkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover |title=An Introduction to African Philosophy |date=1998 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-0-8476-8841-8 |page=41 |language=en}}</ref> Among the most notable examples from this tradition emerge from the work of the 17th-century philosopher [[Zera Yacob (philosopher)|Zera Yacob]], and that of his disciple [[Walda Heywat]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wiredu |first1=Kwasi |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Companion_to_African_Philosophy/DGuJztByFvEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zera+Yacob,+and+that+of+his+disciple+Walda&pg=PA172&printsec=frontcover |title=A Companion to African Philosophy |date=15 April 2008 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-470-99737-6 |page=172 |language=en}}</ref> Yacob in his writings discusses religion, morality, and existence."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Herbjørnsrud |first=Dag |date=2019-05-10 |title=Beyond decolonizing: global intellectual history and reconstruction of a comparative method |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/23801883.2019.1616310 |journal=Global Intellectual History |volume=6 |issue=5 |pages=614–640 |doi=10.1080/23801883.2019.1616310 |issn=2380-1883 |s2cid=166543159}}</ref>

Sources

Samuel Imbo - An Introduction to African Philosophy

Kwasi Wiredu - A Companion to African phillosophy

Dag Herbjørnsrud - "Beyond decolonizing: global intellectual history and reconstruction of a comparative method"  [[User:WikiUser4020|WikiUser4020]] ([[User talk:WikiUser4020|talk]]) 04:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:Regarding the recent addition, it's worth noting [[WP:ONUS|verifiability does not guarantee inclusion]], and the quality of prose also particularly matters for additions to a featured article like this one. It's more than just a copyediting issue, as one would need to start over with the sources in order to come up with a worthwhile tertiary analysis imo, as what was added is comparatively undigested and unmotivated in the article's greater context. Like I said, I think an addition to this effect is worthwhile, but as written it presently says very little and is a net negative, hence the reversion.  <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''诉'''</span>]]</span> 04:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]], Can you expand on what specifically needs to be expanded to constitute a positive addition and a "teritrary analysis" for the wider article ? This seems to be a case of restructuring the content for a more digestible format.  [[User:WikiUser4020|WikiUser4020]] ([[User talk:WikiUser4020|talk]]) 04:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] Alternatively, how about a condensed version of the sentence which adds further clairty to the prose ?
:::"The philosophical tradition in Africa derived from both ancient Egypt and scholarly texts in [[History of Africa|medieval Africa]]<nowiki/>n kingdoms such as Mali, Ghana and Songhai which had an established tradition of Islamic, intellectual scholarship.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Imbo |first1=Samuel Oluoch |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_African_Philosophy/-p0iHjAEBvkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover |title=An Introduction to African Philosophy |date=1998 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-0-8476-8841-8 |page=41 |language=en}}</ref> A philosophical literature also developed in Ethiopia during the seventeeth century in relation to [[theodicy]], principle of [[ethics]] and [[psychology]] under the 17th-century philosopher [[Zera Yacob (philosopher)|Zera Yacob]], and that of his disciple [[Walda Heywat]]."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wiredu |first1=Kwasi |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Companion_to_African_Philosophy/DGuJztByFvEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Zera+Yacob,+and+that+of+his+disciple+Walda&pg=PA172&printsec=frontcover |title=A Companion to African Philosophy |date=15 April 2008 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-470-99737-6 |page=172 |language=en}}</ref> [[User:WikiUser4020|WikiUser4020]] ([[User talk:WikiUser4020|talk]]) 05:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::::One of the issues that jumped out at me was the assertion of <em>the</em>, seemingly singular, philosophical tradition in Africa. This is clearly patterning the language used in the source, but importantly the source specifically says {{xt|It is therefore in the written text that we must look for African philosophy. If we define philosophy as critical, written thought, the philosophical tradition in Africa extends as far back as the ancient Egyptians and the scholarly works in medieval Africa.}} It's much more clear here that we're just talking about chronology and not chains of direct influence, even though it's still presented as a whole.
::::What's more, the passage above is given in the source as part of the particular approach of [[Lansana Keita]], but it's given unattributed in wikivoice. It also feels [[WP:CLOP]]-adjacent. I tried rewriting the passage, but I do not feel comfortable doing so, since the presentation in this source is so broad, and I am not adequately familiar with other sources. This is part of the difficulty of writing at such a zoomed-out level, especially in areas that have historically been underrepresented in RS, I think. It may be that there is little in this section not because there aren't secondary sources to cite, but because views in them are so diverse for one reason or another, if that makes sense. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''诉'''</span>]]</span> 05:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] - How about I drop the first sentence at this stage and only include the second sentence related to the philosophical tradition in Ethiopia ? [[User:WikiUser4020|WikiUser4020]] ([[User talk:WikiUser4020|talk]]) 06:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think an addition specifically concerning East Africa (as well as one about the Bantu tradition, moreover) is likely very much worthwhile, but I'm not sure I would make it specifically about Zara Yaqob. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''诉'''</span>]]</span> 06:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]], yes but other sections make specific reference to individual philosophers. Also, Yakob is often cited as the most notable figure from Ethiopia at that specific time. The chapter also discusses his protege in similar detail. It is only a single sentence. [[User:WikiUser4020|WikiUser4020]] ([[User talk:WikiUser4020|talk]]) 06:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Hello {{u|WikiUser4020}} and thanks for your suggestion. The passage on African philosophy is shorter than some passages on other traditions because it gets significantly less attention in the academic discourse, see [[WP:PROPORTION]] and [[WP:UNDUEWEIGHT]]. We only have a few paragraphs to give a very condensed summary of the history of the wide field of philosophy so we have to be very picky about what to include. As far as I'm aware, detailed overview sources on the history of philosophy in general do not mention Zera Yacob and Walda Heywat. It's probably better for Wikipedia to cover these details in articles on more narrow topics, like [[African philosophy]]. 
::::::::I agree that the first sentence of your suggestion could violate [[WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE]]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 07:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]], Although, yes I do share concerns about the under representation of these traditions in academic discourses which impacts their coverage on Wikipedia. However, the section on this particular area could still have 1 or 2 sentences to provide further context. However, if neither of you want to include the second sentence on Yacob then I’ll drop the matter. [[User:WikiUser4020|WikiUser4020]] ([[User talk:WikiUser4020|talk]]) 07:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I had a look at the [https://iep.utm.edu/history-of-african-philosophy/ IEP article ''History of African Philosophy'']. It only mentions Yacob twice and Heywat once, all in a single paragraph questioning whether their ideas should be considered African philosophy: {{green|Zera Yacob and Walda Heywat, both Ethiopian philosophers with Arabic and European educational influences. The question is, are the ideas produced by these people indubitably worthy of the name ‘African philosophies’?...it may be uncharitable to say to the African historian that Amo or Yacob was not an African. But, does being an African translate to being an African philosopher?}} [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 07:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::@[[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] That is from one source.  ''A Companion to African Philosophy'' which features a range of professional philosophers devotes two chapters to Zera Yacob.
:::::::::::According to Ethiopian philosopher Teodoros Kiros - (p183) "Ethiopian philosophy is unique in Africa because it is both written and oral. In the written tradition, Zera Yacob is undoubtedly the dominant figure. The oral tradition is present in songs, poems, proverbial sayings, etc. These have been systematically translated and analyzed by Claude Sumner, the foremost scholar of Ethiopian philosophy, in his editions of ''The Book of the Wise Philosophers and The Life and Maxims of Skendes".''
:::::::::::As previously mentioned, I do believe the second sentence should be included however if there is no consensus support for the proposed addition then I'll leave the matter as it stands. [[User:WikiUser4020|WikiUser4020]] ([[User talk:WikiUser4020|talk]]) 07:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::We use tertiary sources to get a feeling for how different aspects of an article should be balanced. Another encyclopedia article with a significantly narrower scope (specifically African philosophy) only providing a brief mention is rather strong evidence that this even broader article should mention them not at all. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''诉'''</span>]]</span> 10:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== google books in citations ==

Hi {{u|Phlsph7}} I noticed the deletion of the archive urls [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&diff=prev&oldid=1245486582], however you also removed all the normal google books urls, not just the archives. So this goes beyond the discussion you referenced which is about the archive version. Is it really necessary to delete the normal google urls? [[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

:Hello {{u|Andrew Lancaster}} and thanks for bringing up the point. The problem is that [[User:InternetArchiveBot|IABot]] adds archives if there is a url-parameter. So if you just remove the archives but leave the url-parameter, the archives will be re-added the next time IABot runs. Personally, I don't feel strongly about it either way. It's just that several reviewers have asked for the archives to be removed and there seems to be no point to this if a bot re-adds them later.
:As I see it, the main value of external links to Google Books comes from the page previews they offer (not all of them do). This way, readers can open the link and directly verify the information. In our article, the links to Google Books page previews are usually found in the short footnote templates. They were not removed. Looking at the very first cite book template (Adamson & Ganeri 2020), the url-parameter was removed but short footnote template to it still has a link to the Google Books page preview. 
:* Short footnote template in reference [67]: ... {{harvnb|Adamson|Ganeri|2020|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=NCbTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA101 101–102]}}...
:* Cite book template in bibliography: {{cite book |last1=Adamson |first1=Peter |last2=Ganeri |first2=Jonardon |title=Classical Indian Philosophy |series=A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps |volume=5 |date=2020 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-885176-9 |language=en }} ...
:[[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 08:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh, that's a shame. I personally like google book links if there is no other link available. They help speed up verification discussions quite often. I guess a lot of people have put time into collecting them. Couldn't we just wait for someone to fix that bot?--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 08:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I restored the Google Books urls without the archive urls. The problem seems to be that the bot is widely used so a bigger discussion would needed to establish consensus for changing the bot's behavior. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 09:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
See also the essay [[WP:Google Books and Wikipedia]]. I tend to think that it's better to keep the Google Books URLs, for reasons listed at [[WP:Google Books and Wikipedia#Why we use it anyway]], if Google Books provides at least a preview and if there is no better link available. Perhaps the {{tl|cbignore}} template will stop IABot from adding archive-urls? [[User:Biogeographist|Biogeographist]] ([[User talk:Biogeographist|talk]]) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for the suggestion, I was not aware of the cbignore-template. I added it to all the cite-templates with Google Books URLs. Let's see if this solves the problem. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 08:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::My recommendation is to just revert any addition of archive urls to still-living external links. These are not really helpful to readers and take a lot of space. The important thing is that there exists a wayback machine backup that we can link to if URLs ever rot, but there's no need to include that in articles when the original external links still work. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 17:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

== Hegel, Heidegger, Leo Strauss ==

These are three heavy-weights of all philosophers. What do you think about {{diff2|1246615846}}?

Hegel's POV is rendered according to a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source (Heidegger), and Leo Strauss' POV is also rendered according to a secondary source.

[[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]] was used, and if somebody else wants to improve nuance, I have nothing against that. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  02:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

:I suppose the editor who removed these citations was doubting whether there would be enough consensus for their notability, or at least thinking that there should first be talk page discussion. You are of course right that they are interesting. I also suspect that they add something to the other ones we have. Philosophy has indeed long been characterized as a type of thinking which is willing to push beyond socially acceptable norms. Didn't Plato have Socrates say somewhere that real philosophers seem made to most people? In any case, maybe it would be better if it was made more clear what these definitions add to the ones we already have. --[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 05:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

::I'm good at pithy sentences, I'm not so good at nuanced explanations. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  05:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hello {{u|tgeorgescu}} and thanks for your suggestion. There are countless characterizations of philosophy and whole books could be filled only disucssing this topic. We only have a handful of paragraphs to discuss them so we really need to be picky to ensure that we only present the most important ones. Heideggers interpretation of Hegel's characterization of philosophy as "the world turned upside down" and Strauss's characterization of philosophy as "denial of the gods of the city" are not the most typical or well-knowns ones. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 08:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi @[[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]], Sorry to have reverted without explanation right before checking out from Wikipedia for the day. My reasoning was mostly that already given above. Additionally, the view attributed to Hegel is correct, but misleading without additional context, and the Strauss definition, in my view, is too figurative to stand on its own without explication. Cheers, [[User:Patrick Welsh|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick Welsh|talk]]) 18:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)