Talk:Philosophy

Request for "Controversy" or "Criticism" section

Many people have big problems with philosophy. These should be mentioned.

What are those controversies? What concerns do you want included? Philosophy is a very wide subject, and your request is too vague. 136.185.133.240 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Uni3993 posted the following in the article:

At Google's Zeitgeist Conference in 2011, Stephen Hawking said that "philosophy is dead". He believed that philosophers "have not kept up with modern developments in science" and that scientists "have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge". He said that philosophical problems can be answered by science, particularly new scientific theories which "lead us to a new and very different picture of the universe and our place in it".

It was removed, but seems fair to consider. BradVesp (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

In principle, having some content on criticism of philosophy could be considered. However, most criticism is not directed at philosophy in general, but instead at certain philosophical theories or movements, probably for the simple reason that the term philosophy is so wide that it is difficult to criticize as a whole. As for this particular addition, I think it's uncontroversial that the article on philosophy in general is not the right place for a section on what Stephen Hawking said at the Google Zeitgeist Conference in 2011. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that all makes sense. Too, Hawking's comments aren't a criticism about philosophy as much as they are about philosophers. BradVesp (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No. But maybe we could all go work on Criticism of Electricity, Criticism of Clothing, or Criticism of Speech. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitions of Philosophy

Given past controversies I think major rewrites of sections really need to be discussed first. So opening this section. To be clear I think it needs a rewrite and/or a link to another article - the lede and other sections may be enough without this. In fact that would make more sense - just delete the section, link to the definitions article and focus on improving that -----Snowded ^TALK 12:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This:

"Many other definitions of philosophy do not clearly fall into any of the aforementioned categories. An early approach already found in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy is that philosophy is the spiritual practice of developing one's reasoning ability.[44][45] This practice is an expression of the philosopher's love of wisdom and has the aim of improving one's well-being by leading a reflective life.[46] A closely related approach identifies the development and articulation of worldviews as the principal task of philosophy, i.e. to express how things on the grand scale hang together and which practical stance we should take towards them.[23][24][47] Another definition characterizes philosophy as thinking about thinking in order to emphasize its reflective nature.[23][33]"

seems useful. BradVesp (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Snowded, I saw that you reverted the rewrite of the section "Definitions" with the justification (1) that it is "too radical", (2) that it does not capture the "natural philosophy aspect", and (3) that it is based on "limited sources".

As for (1): the content does not seem radical to me, maybe you could point out which specific claims you find radical. You can ignore this point if the "radical" was just meant to express that a lot changed without characterizing the new content itself.

As for (2): the term "natural philosophy" was initially used for the natural sciences. The rewrite discusses this topic in the first and the third paragraph. But the point of this section is to define philosophy in general, not specifically natural philosophy.

As for (3): the rewrite cites 28 sources. I could have cited more, but I have been accused of WP:OVERCITE in the past, which is why I have held back. The sources themselves are very diverse concerning their authors and their types, like journal articles, book chapters, and encyclopedia entries. Compared to the rest of the article, it is the best-sourced section.

The main reason for the rewrite was that the current version does not define philosophy at all, it just gives different mostly historical subdivisions. This content belongs to another section, like the section "Branches of philosophy". But it is not much help to give a definition of how the term "philosophy" is currently used. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion is to delete the section - what is needed is already in the lede. There is an article on definitions that could be developed. And by radical I meant a large scale change without prior discussion. -----Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If there are no good reasons for your revert, then the material should be restored. The definition is an important part for most encyclopedia articles. This is especially true when the the right definition is often discussed and very controversial, as is the case for "philosophy". The current lead covers very little information of the proposed rewrite, it discusses the topic mainly historically without any mention of the controversy. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable to revert a major change to allow discussion. Philosophy is already defined in the lede and (in the context of history, schools etc.) in the body of the article. My general view was that your rewrite imposed a framework that was not sufficiently based on third party sources. But a lot of that material would make sense in the other article (which can be linked and needs work). Hence the suggestion to delete the section but link to the other article -----Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with your revert-major-changes-policy, but that is besides the point. I think I've answered the doubts raised so far, including the objection that the material is allegedly redundant due to being already covered elsewhere. It seems that you are intent to wait a little to see if more doubts are raised. I suggest that we keep this talk-page section to the question of whether the rewrite constitutes an improvement over the previous version. If there are serious considerations to remove the section "Definitions" alltogether, whether old or new, it might be better to discuss this in a new talk-page section. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and restore the rewrite since no further justification of the revert has been provided despite explicit requests. The main arguments given here focused on whether the article needs a definition section at all. Such arguments do not support the revert from one version of the definition section to another and should therefore be discussed separately. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe use a dictionary as inspiration for the Definition section and then use other encyclopedia sections for farther elaboration. BradVesp (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Phlsph7, did you ever get a consensus for the changes you made? I see little to no argument. BradVesp (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The criticism was only directed at the original version. I suggested a draft with a revised version that avoids all the main objections to the original version. No objections were raised against this revised version since then, which is already almost a month ago. This implies consensus for the revised version, see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. For the details of the objections and the corresponding changes, see the sections Talk:Philosophy#Content removed from the section "Definitions" and Talk:Philosophy#Conversation about "definition". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Conversation about "definition"

Please, let me suggest a conversation about "definition". Starting over with this is a better way to get a consensus rather than one person overwriting another's and waring back and forth. What is this section's intended use? Is it to describe the word "philosophy" or philosophy's symbolism, history or content? Something else? Is it really required? Does describing history and derivation imply definition? Whatever the answers I wonder if it's not simple enough, currently. BradVesp (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved this to a new section since it is not directly concerned with the arguments for and against the content removals. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't think this methodology is directly concerned with the content that is in the "definition" section? Logically speaking the arguments for and against are directly contingent on the content which in turn is directly contingent on the "definitions" topic. Though maybe I'm misconstruing logic. I've been wrong before. Also, logic certainly isn't a necessity, just useful at times. I don't disagree that it should be a different section. That's probably useful. My reasoning for it is just different. I'm sorry, I'm tired and grumpy. I... BradVesp (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say it's rather simple: the section should introduce and summarize the academic discourse on this subject. In this sense, the disagreements between Snowded and myself are about what the academic discourse says on this subject. We do not need to become creative and come up with our own ideas about this topic, philosophy's symbolism, or its history. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well you are also ignoring the issue of just how long this section should be and the use of the supporting article. Maybe resolve that first? To expand on the point - there are multiple definitions of philosophy and different authors have different ways of classifying them or simply don't attempt that task. That makes it very difficult to summarise the field. There is a supporting article with the right title where all of these could be listed, linked to their sources. So my preference is (i) NO section, just a reference to the fact that definitions are controversial in the lede and a link to the supporting article (looks like BradVesp supports that) (ii) something fairly minimal which does not take any particular classification system per se (similar to what is in there after I cut down the recent insertions (a compromise, but with plenty of scope in the linked article for expansion) -----Snowded ^TALK 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is very difficult to summarise the definitions section and that removing the section (or limiting it to a half dozen sentences) is appropriate. It doesn't seem to be the section in an encyclopedia article for exposition or detail. BradVesp (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We should follow here, as everywhere, the reliable sources. How to define philosophy has been and still is a hotly debated topic. For example, try searching "What is philosophy" on google scholar. There are many book-length treatment specifically on this issue, for example "Hirst, R. J. What is Philosophy?" or "Havi Carel (Anthology Editor), David Gamez (Anthology Editor), What Philosophy Is". For a long article exclusively on this topic, see Meiner Enzyklopädie Philosophie: "Philosophiebegriffe". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There are as you say multiple sources, so to treat them properly in this article would be disproportionate. A few sentences (obviously supported by reliable sources) and then the bulk of the material in the supporting article -----Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said before: "The definition is an important part for most encyclopedia articles. This is especially true when the the right definition is often discussed and very controversial, as is the case for philosophy". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And one major third party source simply says that the definition is controversial and the whole of the entry in that Oxford Handbook follows the same pattern as this article - it looks at things like Metaphysics, Ethics etc. It doesn't summarise the various definitions that exist. That was the objection to the bulk of your additions. You still haven't responded to the suggestion that all of the content you have created do into the supporting article -----Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The oxford companion article first gives a method-based definition of philosophy as thinking about thinking, similar variations, and then explains the details of this definition. It later includes topic-base characterizations (topics like nature of the world, justification of belief and conduct of life). It does not include, for example, the difference between philosophy as a science or a non-science. But this topic is discussed in many works on this subject, which justify its inclusion here. Please also keep in mind that the oxford companion article is, like most articles in the oxford companion, relatively short in comparison to articles found in regular encyclopedias and in comparison to our article. So basing your argument on the fact that this particular work does not mention a specific fact is at best a very weak support for excluding this fact from a wikipedia article. I'm sure we could find many contents in other philosophy articles on wikipedia that are not mentioned in the corresponding oxford companion articles. We could probably delete most of the history section of our philosophy article if we used this method for choosing which topics are acceptable. The companion also lacks altogether articles on many of the philosophy subjects covered on wikipedia.

I have responded to your suggestion to remove the definition-section altogether by pointing to the various sources on this topic and to its relevance here. Whether these additions fit well in another article is not relevant for whether they should be kept here or not. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You have responded and I disagree with you (as does one other editor) but I was happy to compromise with a limited set of content. The Oxford Companion doesn't go into definitions, Standford & Brittanica follow the same approach using language similar to what we have in the lede. Kenny and others writing histories don't talk about definitions but describe what philosophy was about in the context of different periods. It is not essential to this article, it is relevant to an article specifically on definitions. The third party material I can find doesn't have a section on definitions, its covers the material in context.-----Snowded ^TALK 19:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the Stanford and the Britannica article? I can't find a philosophy-article on Stanford and the Britannica article is only an outline with links but almost no content. Which book(s) do you mean by "Kenny and others"? Phlsph7 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Kenny's four part History of Philosophy (I have hard copy). Stanford I searched on philosophy and definitions and everything was very contextual. Britannica I searched on Philosophy and it more or less had the same type of content as our lede -----Snowded ^TALK 19:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We need articles on the same topic if we want to draw comparisons. I'm not advocating that an article on the history of philosophy should have a definitions-section. If you browse through random articles on the Stanford encyclopedia and the Britannica encyclopedia, then the fact that you do not find a section named "Definition of philosophy" is meaningless. If you want to make an argument based on an article on the Stanford encyclopedia or the Britannica encyclopedia, please say which article you are talking about (by providing a link, for example), not which search terms you entered in google. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly you want spoon feeding? Open EB and look at the article on Philosophy. On Stanford I did multiple searches and couldn't find anything about Philosophy, only branches of Philosophy. I didn't enter any search on Google. It is far from meaningless if those two encyclopaedias ignore it. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree: it's not meaningless that the Stanford encyclopedia and the Britannica encyclopedia do not have a proper article with the title "Philosophy" like our article philosophy. But I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw from this.

But maybe we can put these disagreements to the side for a moment. You indicated several times that your main issue is the size of the original section and that you are happy with its current size (or at least that this size would be acceptable to you). My main point is that important claims were removed, which the section should mention. But maybe these claims can be mentioned in a more condensed version of the section, which would fit both our requirements. My suggestion would be to start with the section in its original form, remove details, and summarize to reduce its size. This way, the removal of content is more balanced and organic. Currently, it's at 318 words, the original version was 865 words (pure text without sources). I don't think I can bring it down that low but the original size can be significantly reduced. I would make a corresponding draft, which we can discuss then. But we would need to get to a rough agreement on its final size before I get started in order to avoid the same discussion for the final draft. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I have been trying to find a reliable third party source that could be used to summarise the different definitions that exist but so far without success. There are lots of perspectives on the question (and you cited several of them) but they were partial. As I keep saying, all of them and more would be good in the definitions article where they being listed, not to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice. I'll carry on the hunt -----Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want less emphasis on the distinction between deflationism and essentialism, that can be done. The article should still mention the distinction, but we don't need to use these specific terms and it will be shorter anyways if the size is to be removed. If you have concrete suggestions on how to better represent the naturalist tradition, we can also include them. Otherwise, I think the offer in my last edit is our best chance at moving towards a consensus. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

There has been plenty of time and no objections or further requests/suggestions have been raised, so I'll get started with the proposed draft. I'll try to provide a more succinct version of the removed content by roughly cutting its size in half. I won't use the terms "deflationism" and "essentialism" and I'll make the role of naturalism more explicit. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it. I'm in no hurry for an answer. I'm having difficulty determining how "definition" applies here. What is a definition, exactly? You folks seem to be outlining philosophies' genres. I don't think that's a definition, or if it is it's the definition for that genre, but not for philosophy itself. BradVesp (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Were one to describe a river how would it be done? Well, one would say it's water that moves. One might add more detail and note that it has a course (i.e. a direction). It's bounded (i.e. defined?) by land on two side. BradVesp (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A definition of X describes what X is, what its nature or its essential features are. Have a look at the sources cited if you doubt that these are how philosophers have tried to define philosophy. For example, form the Oxford companion: "The shortest definition, and it is quite a good one, is that philosophy is thinking about thinking" (see the last paragraph of the draft); or from Overgaard: "Essentialist attempts to define philosophy can be either topical or methodological, but both sorts have their problems" (see the 2nd paragraph of the draft). I'm not sure what the best definition of "river" is. You might be interested in Wittgenstein's "Philosophical investigations", where he goes through a similar exercise in trying to define the word "game". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

So, philosophy can be defined as "the essence to thinking and reasoning"? It's short, I know. BradVesp (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I also like the phrase "composed thinking about a specific topic". I have no source for either definition. They are something I developed in the last two days. BradVesp (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

An aside: 1. We humans want more more more, until the glaciers melt and the rivers dry up. 2. The topic lends itself to circular reasoning which can be confusing. BradVesp (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed draft

I propose to use the following as our new definitions-section. I summarized the removed contents and cut their size down by half. I included BradVesp's idea to have the basic etymological info. I included the passage suggested by Snowded concerning interesting or profound definitions in a slightly reformulated expression. I left the passage on meaning- and understanding-based approaches out, i.e. (4) of the earlier discussion. The terms "essentialism" and "deflationism" are not mentioned. The role of naturalism is made explicit. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The etymology is in the article's beginning sentence. I didn't notice that before Snowded pointed it out. Including it here maybe redundant, but maybe useful. We can use a reminder sometimes if it's important enough. Is it? BradVesp (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems appropriate but better to start with agreement then disagreement, no? I ran a line through the parts I thought are not necessary here (or I was gonna, but there's no strikethrough?), but my decision to do so was based on a cursory reading. I'm sure some things should return. Also, I highly disagree with using "spiritual" in the article at all, but especially in the section describing a reasoned approach. BradVesp (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I restructured the contents so to make it clear who proposes what. It's possible to start with an agreement, the problem is just that this agreement is not really a definition, it's just a vague characterization. But if that is your main point, I can try to rearrange the contents in my draft correspondingly. Unfortunately, your draft does not mention the deep underlying disagreement at all. It just gives a few arbitrary examples without providing a proper overview of the academic discourse in general and how these examples fit in. It also removes the majority of the contents, which are well-sourced, without explanation. There was already an intense discussion beforehand on which contents should be removed or modified, it might have been better for you to join that conversation, otherwise we would have to start the whole discussion from the beginning again. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I didn't intend to remove all those contents as if it wasn't important. I only wanted to highlight the parts I thought were important. I couldn't find a valid editing tool to do that.

It's an ancient concept that involves billions, I'm sure it's already started over a couple times and it'll get reworked again. This draft's not going to last forever. BradVesp (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright, no problem then. I renamed the subsection to clarify that it only concerned the introductory paragraph. I think I'll have some time later today to rework the introduction according to your suggestion to start with the agreements. It's unlikely that it will last forever but if we manage to get a consensus on it for now, that is already something. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like it if the definition section looked like a dictionary entry. Butthatsjustme. BradVesp (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and made the changes. The new version has the additional advantage that it needs one sentence less, which repeated that there are disagreements. Otherwise the sentences were mainly rearranged without any significant changes. I left the old version in a foldable section so it can be looked up. For a dictionary entry giving an assorted list of definitions, that's what wiktionary is for. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll proceed with the proposed change since all the main requests have been implemented and no additional objections have been raised. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Phlsph7's draft

Main article: Definitions of philosophy

There is wide agreement that philosophy (from the ancient Greek φίλος, phílos: "love"; and σοφία, sophía: "wisdom") is characterized by various general features: it is a form of rational inquiry, it aims to be systematic, and it tends to critically reflect on its own methods and presuppositions. But approaches that go beyond such vague characterizations to give a more interesting or profound definition are usually controversial. Often, they are only accepted by theorists belonging to a certain philosophical movement and are revisionistic in that many presumed parts of philosophy would not deserve the title "philosophy" if they were true. Before the modern age, the term was used in a very wide sense, which included the individual sciences, like physics or mathematics, as its sub-disciplines, but the contemporary usage is more narrow.

Some approaches argue that there is a set of essential features shared by all parts of philosophy while others see only weaker family resemblances or contend that it is merely an empty blanket term. Some definitions characterize philosophy in relation to its method, like pure reasoning. Others focus more on its topic, for example, as the study of the biggest patterns of the world as a whole or as the attempt to answer the big questions. Both approaches have the problem that they are usually either too wide, by including non-philosophical disciplines, or too narrow, by excluding some philosophical sub-disciplines. Many definitions of philosophy emphasize its intimate relation to science. In this sense, philosophy is sometimes understood as a proper science in its own right. Some naturalist approaches, for example, see philosophy as an empirical yet very abstract science that is concerned with very wide-ranging empirical patterns instead of particular observations. Some phenomenologists, on the other hand, characterize philosophy as the science of essences. Science-based definitions usually face the problem of explaining why philosophy in its long history has not made the type of progress as seen in other sciences. This problem is avoided by seeing philosophy as an immature or provisional science whose subdisciplines cease to be philosophy once they have fully developed. In this sense, philosophy is the midwife of the sciences.

Other definitions focus more on the contrast between science and philosophy. A common theme among many such definitions is that philosophy is concerned with meaning, understanding, or the clarification of language. According to one view, philosophy is conceptual analysis, which involves finding the necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of concepts. Another defines philosophy as a linguistic therapy that aims at dispelling misunderstandings to which humans are susceptible due to the confusing structure of natural language. One more approach holds that the main task of philosophy is to articulate the pre-ontological understanding of the world, which acts as a condition of possibility of experience.

Many other definitions of philosophy do not clearly fall into any of the aforementioned categories. An early approach already found in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy is that philosophy is the spiritual practice of developing one's reasoning ability. This practice is an expression of the philosopher's love of wisdom and has the aim of improving one's well-being by leading a reflective life. A closely related approach identifies the development and articulation of worldviews as the principal task of philosophy, i.e. to express how things on the grand scale hang together and which practical stance we should take towards them. Another definition characterizes philosophy as thinking about thinking in order to emphasize its reflective nature.

previous version of the introductory paragraph

There is a lot of disagreement about how philosophy (from the ancient Greek φίλος, phílos: "love"; and σοφία, sophía: "wisdom") is to be defined. Before the modern age, the term was used in a very wide sense, which included the individual sciences, like physics or mathematics, as its sub-disciplines, but the contemporary usage is more narrow. There is wide agreement that philosophy is characterized by various general features: it is a form of rational inquiry, it aims to be systematic, and it tends to critically reflect on its own methods and presuppositions. But approaches that go beyond such vague characterizations to give a more interesting or profound definition are usually controversial. Often, they are only accepted by theorists belonging to a certain philosophical movement and are revisionistic in that many presumed parts of philosophy would not deserve the title "philosophy" if they were true.

BradVesp's draft of the introductory paragraph

Main article: Definitions of philosophy

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines Philosophy (from the ancient Greek φίλος, phílos: "love"; and σοφία, sophía: "wisdom") as:

1. the study of the nature and meaning of existence, good and evil, etc.

2. the views of a particular philosopher or group of philosophers.

3. the attitude or set of ideas that guides the behavior of a person or orginization.

Philosophy is characterized by various general features: it is a form of rational inquiry, it aims to be systematic, and it tends to critically reflect on its own methods and presuppositions. Thus philosophy is the practice of developing one's reasoning ability, a practice that aims to improve ones well-being by leading a reflective life. The phrase thinking about thinking is often used to describe the process.

Another approach identifies the development and articulation of worldviews as the principal task of philosophy, i.e. to express how things on the grand scale hang together and which practical stance we should take towards them.

RfC: Removal of content on essentialism and deflationism from the section "Definitions"

(postponed RfC)

Is the removal of the following new content based on WP:OR / WP:SYN justified?

Some approaches are deflationist: they see "philosophy" as an empty blanket term that groups various disciplines together for the sake of convenience even though they do not share important characteristics. Deflationism is opposed by essentialists, who argue that there is a set of essential features shared by all parts of philosophy. Various theorists have argued for a position between these two extremes: that the different parts of philosophy are related to each other by family resemblance even though they do not all manifest the same essential features.

The discussion can be found here. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• No. The content is well sourced, see also the quotations. Unfortunately the opposing editor has not specified which particular claim they reject in accordance with Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not presumed despite being asked to do so. So far, no sources have been cited that reject the material. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Premature RfC

An RfC is meant to be called after discussion fails, it is still ongoing. And it is meant to be agreed, not simply issued by one editor who isn't happy that his changes are not accepted. The first issue to resolve is if the section exists (two editors think it should go) and if it exists what its content and length should be. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have the impression that the discussion on these removals is going nowhere. I asked you several times to respond to my arguments and to back up your personal opinions with reliable sources but you have failed to do so. I'm not particularly eager to have to go through an RfC so if you are confident that we may reach an acceptable consensus, then we can postpone it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have responded - see above and in some detail. I may not be responding in the way you want, but I am trying to structure the discussion. The first question is how much content and its nature, not the specific content you want to produce. Phrases like 'personal opinions' are misreading of the situation on your part. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)