Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subject–object problem

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brews ohare (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 10 May 2015 (→Subject–object problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Subject–object problem

AfDs for this article:
Subject–object problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy point 6 disallows articles "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes …" Wikipedia:No original research states that 'original research' includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." This article is a synthesis of many different 'subject object' problems, mostly unrelated, and the material in it already exists in other parts of the encyclopedia. I have been unable to locate the term as referring to any single problem in the literature, or with an established unambiguously understood use. Peter Damian (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. I tagged it a long time ago with the quotation tag but I see that has not been fixed. It is still just a long list of quotations, whether inline or broken out into paragraphs, as if someone has done a google search then just copied and pasted the results rather than trying to write an article based on them. There is as far as I can see no encyclopaedic content on the actual subject. At no place do the quotations stop and actual content begin. So there's nothing to salvage and after years in this state it looks like it will never be fixed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as nominator.Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment looking for anything salvageable I looked through the history for a version before the large scale addition of quotes commenced. It still is far from perfect but at least seems much closer to an acceptable article than the assembly of quotes that it was before nomination, so I updated the article from it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think it is appropriate for the article under consideration to be completely replaced in the midst of a deletion hearing by some earlier version as done by Blackburne. Accordingly I have put back the version under review. Brews ohare (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • the AfD notice, which you have just removed, says 'Feel free to edit the article' which I did with the straightforward purpose of showing editors a more acceptable version. There is no prohibition on editing an article while it up for deletion, and it actively encouraged if editors think they can address concerns raised in the deletion discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I replaced the deletion banner, as seems appropriate. However, a blanket replacement of the disputed article by a version from June 2012 seems extreme. Brews ohare (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is well sourced and provides a very complete coverage of this subject as defined in its lede and first subsection. Charges of WP:OR or WP:SYN, policies that counter WP editors presenting unsupported conclusions or opinions of their own, are misplaced because there is nothing in this article of that kind. The idea that a philosophy term can be expected to have "an established unambiguously understood use" can be taken only with a smile. In any event, any doubt about the widespread discussion of this topic is dispelled by a Google book search for the exact wording "subject-object problem" (5440 hits) or Google scholar. As it is, the article has stood pretty much in its present form for several years with only minor changes. This sudden decision to delete it has appeared from nowhere. The reasons given, there being too many quotations, and that it appears to be a cut-and-paste job, are insubstantial and do not challenge the content as containing specific passages that are misleading, incomplete, or erroneous in some way. If there are objections to particular portions of this article, they can be addressed on its talk page in the manner usually adopted for handling revision suggestions. Brews ohare (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Yes let's look at Google scholar. This returns (a) the subject object problem in architecture, (b) in anthropology (c) subject and object in Mandarin (d) a sociology article (e) "The deep structure of adjectives in noun phrases" (f) a paper about "dominance-submission economy of the sexes within the patriarchy", (g) theory of class consciousness. It should be obvious that these are all entirely different subjects, and different meanings and contexts of the same term. It does not imply that there is a single 'subject object' problem to which the same department or journal or historical study could be devoted. It's rather like googling the word 'and' and writing an article about 'and', based on the returns. Pure synthesis. Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the relevance of this comment is that avoiding the "obvious...entirely different subjects" is an unlikely skill unless you have an expert background and I guess the claim is that did not happen with this article. Of course, such an expert could provide expert guidance to improve the article, pointing out what specifics appear to be violations of WP:SYNTH. That could lead to improvements, but it would involve engagement rather than pronouncements. Brews ohare (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take an expert to see that this article is just the same as what one might find on some self-important personal internet page circa the 1990s. I'm sure you thought it was really fun to stitch together all these ideas into one piece, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this kind of amalgamation. Copy the content and publish it elsewhere where original research is allowed. jps (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
jps: Your challenge is that this article is an "amalgamation", which I would take to mean a collection of unrelated tidbits. If that is so, you should be able to provide an example where this occurs. Can you do that? Brews ohare (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No source is connected to any other source, essentially. No source mentions any of the other sources. jps (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP policy does not require sources to be mentioned by other sources, although that might indicate the importance of a source to the community. It is a requirement that the purpose of a source in relation to the text be clear, for example, that the source supports the WP text, or amplifies the text by providing more detail. I believe this kind of connection is present for all sources cited. If that is not so, perhaps you can supply an instance? Brews ohare (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are in violation of WP:SYNTH. That's the end of it. This has typically been your problem at this website. It is why you are banned from editing certain other articles. jps (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
jps: It would be helpful if you could elaborate upon your finding of a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and what you mean by "sourcing without coherence". So far as I can see, the sourcing is used to identify the origin of various points of view and various quotations. I do not see any conclusions or opinions that are not those of cited reputable publications. Maybe your objection is that the article structure lacks cohesion, which would be a call for some reorganization rather than deletion? Brews ohare (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have no secondary sources which connect all your disparate sources. If this is a standard idea in philosophy, surely you could point to one source that would connect a few of the mishmash of quotes you stitched together. If you can't do that, then you are simply doing something that is not allowed on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
jps: Thanks for your reply. You request a single source that connects the quotes together. However, if more than one quote attaches to the same point, I see no need to find another source that connects the two. I don't see why two quotes supporting the same point need to be referred to by yet another source just to make clear that two different authors commented in their own way upon the same issue. For example, this section contains a quote from Velmans and another from Malpas that provide these two authors' definitions of subjective and objective. I don't think we need an additional source that says "Velmans said this and Malpas said that.." There may be instances where the connection of a quotation to the gist of the article is unclear, or there is some non sequitur, and if there are any such examples, they should be corrected. Perhaps you can point out some cases? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on you to show that you aren't committing WP:SYNTH. You have not met that burden. You are simply arguing that different authors who have no connection to one another are connected simply by their commentary on superficially similar ideas -- ideas connected only in your mind and not found connected in reliable sources. This is just not what Wikipedia is for. jps (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
jps: It is not the authors that have to be connected, but their subject: in this case their definitions of the topic. The notion that their definitions in this instance are only superficially connected ideas is mistaken, as you will rapidly discover if you read their complete discussions linked in the article. WP policy is that one must provide a source for a statement when it is challenged, and obviously that requires the challenge to specify the difficulty so it can be responded to by a correction or addition of a source. Read WP:SECONDARY to check that this article is in compliance with WP policy. Brews ohare (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've included syntax and aesthetics in the same article as though these two are connected. I don't see any source that connects them. jps (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out an instance where syntax and/or aesthetics are presented without connection to the subject-object problem? Brews ohare (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how you demonstrate two subjects are connected. You are arguing something along the lines of if source A and source B both use the same vocabularly, they must be connected. That's just not true. jps (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This editor comes from a weird modernist approach to philosophy as can be seen from his references in this supposed philosophical "problem," or in other supposed philosophical "problem" pages he has created, such as the Dilemma of determinism page (Just go through the talk page discussion with this editor there, if you have the time for it). All these pages articles, which all refer to the same type of fringe modernist philosophy websites and references, should all be deleted. From a serious traditional philosophical point of view, all these supposed "problems" and "issues" are just a waste of time, in my view. warshy (¥¥) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warshy: One might conclude without more detail from you that Thomas Nagel, Evan Thompson, Francisco Varela, Stephen Pinker, and I don't know how many others (maybe Immanuel Kant and Ludwig Wittgenstein?) are exponents of a "weird modern approach" to this subject. Brews ohare (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several issues confounded here. The subject-object topic is fundamental to philosophy and to the philosophical understanding of modern science. It is most succinctly developed in the section on the nature of perception in Plato's Theaetetus, which claims that perception and its objects, as well as its subjects are all subjective! 'Real' objects are later developed elsewhere from mixed perceptions and cognition. Unfortunately, Plato is still at least decades ahead of the current literature, and the topic is strongly counter-intuitive, so that it is more properly discussed only in a formal philosophical setting.
In this article, everything past the lead paragraph is worse than worthless, as has been pointed out above. The list of people and the quotes of ignorance only illustrates the confusion, and serves to muddy an extremely complex topic. Switching from subject-object to subjective-objective makes things even worse. BlueMist (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a look at the version I restored it to, from before it became a ÷dumping ground for search results, is acceptable or at least more easily salvageable.JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Mist: It's a bit harsh on modern philosophers to say they haven't added much but confusion since Plato, if that is your position. Brews ohare (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said, nor is that my position. Modern philosophers have made huge strides, but not on this topic. Look at the SEP article on [Object] ~ BlueMist (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is an inappropriate measure: Deletion of the article is not the right way to handle claims of policy violations, of "incoherence", and of a "weird modernist approach". Specific instances of policy violations, or incoherencies, or weirdness should be identified on the article talk page, and dealt with individually. Blanket deletion based on unsupported, non-specific, vague reservations is not a constructive response. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have unbolded the initial part of your comment as it looked like a second !vote and you only get to !vote once.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there are valid past versions, it's obvious that one should revert to them, not delete the article! (otherwise someone can mess a good article and then the article will be deleted?!? LOL?!?) My opinion is that all these quotes should be moved to https://en.wikiquote.org/, and that this is a notable theme, and that instead of wasting time in this debate (not a voting, it seems...), the editors involved should start to work towards saving this (even if they have not worked on it before, because it's disrespectful and a great inconsiderateness, even evilness to erase the works of others -- this is not the attitude of true Wikipedians, the ones that prefer to improve things). Sincerely, Thetootpoem (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if there are objections to quotations, that is certainly not a basis for reversion of the article. I put a lot of verbatim quotes into this article because I wanted to assure the readers that what was said was a true reflection of what authors had to say about the subject, and not some crackpot WP editor's point of view. And, of course, the quotations often were more eloquently stated than my own writing. The upshot from the assembled is that this form of presentation is actually more controversial than just paraphrasing these authors and risking WP:SYN. In fact, the suggestion is made that such extended verbatim quotes from authors is a form of WP:SYN, as if I were putting words in their mouths instead of letting the authors speak for themselves. I find this view to be an alarming misreading of policy.
There is no "better" version to appeal to, and although Blackburne has suggested going back to the article as it was before my first edit, I am pretty confident that he is not going to engage in any rewrites. I undertook rewriting this article at the suggestion of MachineElf several years ago because this article was in terrible shape. Page traffic greatly increased afterwards (compare with May 2012), exceeding that for Mind-body problem. There was no hue and cry about these changes until now, and over time and still today, no-one has exhibited any inclination to actually do some work. If there are volunteers, they can go to the article talk page and begin proposing changes. Brews ohare (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not always referred to as the "Subject-object problem" (it is often referred to as "Subject/Object Dichotomy", as well as other similar constructs), this article covers a valid philosophical issue and as such should remain. There is even a pretty extensive discussion about this in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ormr2014 | Talk  — Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment where does SEP refer explicitly to the "Subject/Object Dichotomy"? Can you point me to other reliable secondary sources separate from other existing subjects, such as mind body problem? It might be resolved by a disambiguating page, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Damian, that you persist in the belief that the term "subject-object problem" is an invention of WP. However, we do have Cassirer's The subject-object problem, Letorsky's The subject-object problem in epistemology, Dourley's discussion of Tillich and Eckhart on the subject-object problem John Dewey Kosaka's statement: "There has been a longstanding issue, the subject-object problem in the history of philosophy. The problem arose from the premise that the universe or world consists of objects or entities perceived by subjects or observers."
I think you can convince yourself that this subject is not an invention, nor is it identical with or subsumed by the mind-body problem. Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Cassirer is discussing a subject-object problem. As are grammarians who are concerned about grammatical subjects and objects. Where is the subject-object problem? This is just one more example of WP:COMPETENCE. Peter Damian (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with subject-object problem (aesthetics) or subject-object problem (linguistics), by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are happy with this kind of verbal sparring. I'm not. Cassirer is not limiting the subject-object problem to aesthetics or linguistics. And neither are the rest of these authors. Brews ohare (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The question is how do you jump from Cassirer straight to Kosaka and information Technology. There is no such bridge or connection yet made in traditional, step-by-step philosophy. Only in your new-fangled websites such a supposed "bridge" or "connection" exists. Philosphy is still thinking the problem methodically, and until some real philosophers get to the IT stage, there is no point in wasting WP time with this type of pseudo-philosophy. In my view, at least. warshy (¥¥) 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its clear synthesis, an essay written by an undergraduate based on what they are interested in, or have found on the web rather than an encyclopaedia entry ----Snowded TALK 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should we accept the opinion of editors that do not employ sources or analysis, do not address any specific portions of the article but castigate it in its entirety, and rely entirely upon their personal coronation as "experts" for credibility? Brews ohare (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as synthesis per Snowded. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis has been discussed in the works of Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many other major philosophers... Come on, just fully reference the introduction and save this article (keywords for Google Scholar: "subject object relation(s)", "issue", etc)... WP:TNT doesn't apply here because the introduction is okay, and one doesn't erase an article just because there are bad parts. Discuss with the others if what is below the introduction should or should not be removed (and if most agree that it should, then accept it). It's a simple procedure to save this article from deletion (but I won't do it because I don't edit Philosophy articles). 189.6.192.138 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea that there is some sort of monolithic "subject-object problem" in philosophy is not a claim that has been established. Sure, philosophers talk about subject-object relationships, but the idea of a "problem" is one that has a very particular meaning in philosophy and it is basically an invention of Wikipedia to claim that it exists as such. jps (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Links have been provided already to Cassirer and others who discuss the subject-object problem. One would think that a list of such occurrences would dispel the notion that this is a non-subject, or as Damian has suggested earlier, one restricted to the philosophy of art or aesthetics, but apparently not. One can weed this Google book search to find many more instances. The article Subject-object problem has many as well. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There does not seem to be a revision of the article that is not OR by synthesis to revert back to. If a properly sourced article can be written that identifies, in philosophy, the "subject-object problem", then we can write an article based on those sources. But WP:TNT until then. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that it is a violation of WP:SYN to support text by citing WP:SECONDARY sources is a strange but widespread misconception. WP:SYN counsels that one should avoid making assertions or conclusion that are not found in secondary sources, not to avoid secondary sources. The article Subject-object problem makes no such unsupported assertions and draws no such unsupported conclusions. (A contrary belief is easily supported by pint out any such offending items in the article.) It may be that Sławomir Biały has other sources in mind — he is free to add them, or that he supports some sourced opinion that is not mentioned — he can add that. Sławomir Biały also seems to think that the topic Subject-object problem has not been related to a proper philosophy source which seems to indicate a failure to read the article. Brews ohare (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Subject–object_problem&oldid=661747073"