Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relativist fallacy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
stop falsifying chronology |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Delete''' Wikipedia fallacy. [[User:MLA|MLA]] ([[User talk:MLA|talk]]) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' Wikipedia fallacy. [[User:MLA|MLA]] ([[User talk:MLA|talk]]) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' A Google books search indicates numerous uses of the phrase. The article needs to be sourced and re-written to eliminate original research, but can be saved. [[User:Jonathanwallace|Jonathanwallace]] ([[User talk:Jonathanwallace|talk]]) 10:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' A Google books search indicates numerous uses of the phrase. The article needs to be sourced and re-written to eliminate original research, but can be saved. [[User:Jonathanwallace|Jonathanwallace]] ([[User talk:Jonathanwallace|talk]]) 10:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
| ⚫ | ::If kept it would need renaming as it's not a recognised fallacy. In that sense, the "phrase" (as you aptly named it, whether intentionally or not) is generally fallaciously used by religious dogmatics to undermine the validity of other viewpoints. How does one name an article to indicate the opposite, I am not sure.--[[User:Tallard|Tallard]] ([[User talk:Tallard|talk]]) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
**Agree... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
**Agree... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
| ⚫ | ::If kept it would need renaming as it's not a recognised fallacy. In that sense, the "phrase" (as you aptly named it, whether intentionally or not) is generally fallaciously used by religious dogmatics to undermine the validity of other viewpoints. How does one name an article to indicate the opposite, I am not sure.--[[User:Tallard|Tallard]] ([[User talk:Tallard|talk]]) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy|list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy|list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
* '''Keep''': These articles, and others, indicate is to me it is a phrase on which we need an article. Law, Stephen (2005) '''Thinking Tools: The Relativist Fallacy''', ''Think'': Philosophy for everyone 3: 57-58 (A journal of the the ''Royal Institute of Philosophy'') and Tomass, Mark (1998) On the Relativist Fallacy of the Impossibility of Value Neutral Inquiry in Political Economy Volume 20, Issue 03, Journal of the History of Economic Thought (1998), 20: 279-298. Perhaps problems with the phrase, from the point of view of logicians, might be made more prominently in the article. [[User:Msrasnw|Msrasnw]] ([[User talk:Msrasnw|talk]]) 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)) |
* '''Keep''': These articles, and others, indicate is to me it is a phrase on which we need an article. Law, Stephen (2005) '''Thinking Tools: The Relativist Fallacy''', ''Think'': Philosophy for everyone 3: 57-58 (A journal of the the ''Royal Institute of Philosophy'') and Tomass, Mark (1998) On the Relativist Fallacy of the Impossibility of Value Neutral Inquiry in Political Economy Volume 20, Issue 03, Journal of the History of Economic Thought (1998), 20: 279-298. Perhaps problems with the phrase, from the point of view of logicians, might be made more prominently in the article. [[User:Msrasnw|Msrasnw]] ([[User talk:Msrasnw|talk]]) 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)) |
||
Revision as of 13:40, 15 March 2011
Relativist fallacy
- Relativist fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
tagged since over two years, not a recognised fallacy. Tallard (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia fallacy. MLA (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A Google books search indicates numerous uses of the phrase. The article needs to be sourced and re-written to eliminate original research, but can be saved. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- If kept it would need renaming as it's not a recognised fallacy. In that sense, the "phrase" (as you aptly named it, whether intentionally or not) is generally fallaciously used by religious dogmatics to undermine the validity of other viewpoints. How does one name an article to indicate the opposite, I am not sure.--Tallard (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: These articles, and others, indicate is to me it is a phrase on which we need an article. Law, Stephen (2005) Thinking Tools: The Relativist Fallacy, Think: Philosophy for everyone 3: 57-58 (A journal of the the Royal Institute of Philosophy) and Tomass, Mark (1998) On the Relativist Fallacy of the Impossibility of Value Neutral Inquiry in Political Economy Volume 20, Issue 03, Journal of the History of Economic Thought (1998), 20: 279-298. Perhaps problems with the phrase, from the point of view of logicians, might be made more prominently in the article. Msrasnw (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC))