User talk:RJC/Archive 3

International Academy of Financial Management

Hi, do you have a link to the previous similar AfD? Apparently it isn't the same name as this article. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kingbr (talk) RJC - You will find that a Bloomberg/SBC (Athens Business Channel) TV interview was aired a couple of weeks ago clearing up the various claims about AAFM and IAFM and establishing that the association has indeed changed it's name and structure, despite claims to the contrary. This interview is now referenced on the wikipedia article for all to see. These public domain sources are irrefutable, and backed up by legal structural changes. We do hope you will allow the appropriate changes to take place that have been obstructed by financeprofessor and sock puppets... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbr (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(From Talk:American Academy of Financial Management) Kingbr recently posted a set of Youtube clips purporting to discuss the change in the AAFM's name to IAFM. I did not watch all 40 minutes of the clips, but after 10 minutes it became clear that Brett King was being interviewed about the financial crisis, not about the organization. Moreover, a claim he makes on the air differs from a news agency's reporting on that claim. A statement he makes (which I have yet to find) in an interview that was not checked by the news agency should be treated as self-published, and as Mr. King has a vested interest in this matter WP:SELFPUB recommends against treating this as a reliable source. I have therefore reverted his edits. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingbr (talk) RJC - I am amused that you believe that the SBC business channel (http://www.sbctv.gr/) could be manipulated to 'self-promote' information about a completely independent organization. At this point I am calling for other editors to review your revisions of the article American Academy of Financial Management as I do not believe you are acting independently nor in the interests of users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingbr (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Asian lawyer (talk) A quick Google News search finds references for this organization in the Gulf News of UAE, Asian Banker Journal and Straits Times of Singapore. I think perhaps a Greek TV Channel is also a reputable source. RJC - Are you only looking for a news source that you know/recognize, or is public domain good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asian lawyer (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Did it, found no stories for either "International Academy of Financial Management" nor "American Academy of Financial Management," let alone any discussing this name change. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management Reversion

RJC - I know you've been following this article, but your reversion of the recent edits was unhelpful. As you are aware from the discussions on the discussion page and so forth, there has been major legal action and disputes involving a previous director of the association who severed himself from the association and started to distribute certificates online via a certificate mill, creating what has been characterized as a 'scism'. The removal of the AAFM listed qualifications in the article from the FINRA website and their registry means under Rule of Conduct 2210 of the FINRA/SEC Code of Conduct that these designations can not be used any longer by registered investment advisors or they will face felony charges in the United States in respect to fraudulently representing themselves as a qualified professional. This information was added to the article to assist the public to make an informed decision. By your removal of those facts supported by easy reference to the FINRA listing, you are creating risk for individuals who unknowingly accept the papers offered from the website of the offending past director. I would ask you to reconsider this. Specifically in the references #3 and #4 it is intimated that NASD (now FINRA) approve of the article's listed qualifications. This is not the case and it is a matter of public record by reference to FINRA who remains the foremost industry regulator for the finance sector.

Please allow the edit to be restored for the protection of members of the public. I will ask you to do this, because clearly under the wikieditor rules I believe that it would be bad faith for me to make such an amendment without your cooperation.

Up until this action was taken by FINRA, I do believe the airing of the dirty laundry in public was a negative for our collective association. At this point, however, we have to ensure Wikipedia is not being used as a platform for misinformation. I only ask you to restore references to legitimate government and industry sources that reflect a complete picture of the facts.

Brett (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that all scholars refer to it as 'spoke'?

Seems like an assertion to me...

VenomousConcept (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here's a few links to some 'scholars' who clearly think it should be 'spake'...

http://philosophy.eserver.org/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt

http://books.google.com/books?id=v5DFOleeTeAC&dq=Thus+Spake+Zarathustra&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=GpI9HjYp5G&sig=f7TeXZqpdwVncvnkNDElZMAe1O4&hl=en&ei=T_R5SoviHMLr-Ab3pK3HBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EOBW3zcuh7QC&dq=Thus+Spake+Zarathustra&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=T_R5SoviHMLr-Ab3pK3HBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/n/nietzsche/friedrich/n67a/

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891nietzsche-zara.html

VenomousConcept (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are five different editions of the Thomas Common translation from 1909, not five different scholars. Kaufmann, Pippin, and Hollingdale all translate it as Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I was unable to find any other translators. I also know that Lampert, Rosen, Ansell-Pearson, Dannhauser, Strauss, Pangle, and Reginster use "spoke," since I have their stuff on my bookshelf. I would name more, but their stuff is in my office. On the other hand, I have never seen any scholar refer to it as Thus Spake Zarathustra. Not one. I'm not saying that it is impossible that anyone has managed to get that past in a peer-reviewed book or journal in, say, the last forty years, but it would surprise me and I would be inclined to consider that a usage against academic consensus. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

nietsche

hello sir,

in wikipedia's article refers Kazantzakis as philosopher.I know that it wasnt just a novelist,stricto sensu,and i think it would be good to add his name in the influenced sectionGreco22 (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Kazantakis did not write a single philosophical treatise, so far as I am aware. If his novels were "philosophical," then every novelist influenced by Nietzsche would count as a "philosopher." He does not seem different from any of the other people that were excluded from the list after the discussion on the talk page. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

hello ..yes may you have right but i think that, in general,most people consider him as philosopher also.I suppose this is the reason the article-here in wikipedia- refers him as a philosopher also

I don't think it would be a mistake if it was also his name in the influenced section.

thank uGreco22 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that people consider him to be a philosopher, it is in the same way as those already excluded are considered (by some) to be philosophers. I see no reason why he does not fall under the general rule that has been established on this point. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ok!Greco22 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Art of War

One anonymous editor asking a question on the talk page, is normally not considered "community consensus." You have now removed the only Giles edition of The Art of War used as a source for the article, without significant community support. As it stands, there are now no entries for any Giles editions of The Art of War listed as a source for the article, which is a glaring and conspicuous "oversight," and quite frankly, now makes the article improperly sourced. The edition by EPN Press would seem to be the bestselling non-miniature edition of a Giles translation on Amazon, and the only one with the Chinese characters included, which is why I selected it in the first place. Google has it listed first in search results [1], and it is available in both the Princeton and Harvard libraries [2] (try zip codes 02138 and 08544). In the future, removing a source used to contribute to the article will require significantly more discussion.--OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for starting that RfC! I have never done that myself before... --Crusio (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neeech

Our dear and beloved friend Nietzsche. Where to begin? At the bottom of the, 'inclined plane' perhaps? To soak a metaphor in another layer of reference?

The reason I wrote/ and now write, to you... is b/c I need collaborative input on my (admittedly primitive) understanding of the scholastic community consensus on his writing. I would like to remark on how his call for the end of metaphysics and his desire for a re-trans-valuation of all human values, both represent a rebellious disdain of human history and positive proposal for a new (future) approach. But, I am not a PhD ring wearing member of the phil community so venturing speculative commentation on a writer as complex and controversial as our dear and beloved friend Nietzsche is dangerous (and hazardous) at the very least. Especially, when our words in wikipedia have a global and permanent resonance, given its deep and vast reach as a portal for knowledge.

The article under construction (and in question) is Anti-Genre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-genre).

The section on Nietzsche is unfinished.

The whole article is unfinished (citation, cleanliness, more concrete examples, etc.).

I am bad with my wiki-literacy and so am a lot better at checking scott(-at-)infinitelogic(-dot-)ca

And now...

Two confessions.

(1) I have taken a month to respond to you, b/c I wanted to re-read Neeech's Anti-Christ before I tried to venture a public analysis of it (btw: holy smokes = the foreword by Nietzsche is profound and disturbing), but am not finished and so felt guilty/incomplete but nevertheless requisite in my need to reply back to you.

(2) you are very brilliant (i guess obviously so for a phil PhD but nonetheless it is still worth mentioning). I almost didn't want to include this point but I really cannot avoid, lest I be trampled over by anachronistic mastodons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skychildandsonofthesun (talk • contribs) 11:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Science and natural law

Hi RJC, I saw you reverted my addition of science to Natural law (disambiguation). Two comments. First, I perceive dab pages as being places to put links to other things readers are likely to have been looking for. Sometimes those other things are exact synonyms, while sometimes they are related concepts. Second, I think there's a more general issue with the natural law article: my take is that since the Enlightenment, the concept of natural law has been primarily the domain of science and not of philosophy. Here I proposed moving the existing Natural law article to Philosophy of natural law and redirecting Natural law to Science, but noone has commented in the last few weeks. Can you be persuaded on either or both points? Jeremy (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi RJC, copying your comment here to retain a single thread. You wrote:

Hello there. Regarding your two questions, WP:DAB suggests that the articles to be disambiguated should in principle be able to have the same name. I don't think that anyone will type in "natural law," see the article science, and say "that's what I was looking for," though they might be looking for either natural law or physical law. And there are still natural law theorists, so I don't think that it is fair to say that it is simply a historical question or that "natural law" is now solely the purview of empirical scientists. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact I personally would have been much happier to be redirected to science when I went to the natural law article. Looks like Michael Polanyi might not have minded either. The Age of Enlightenment article also reports that science and reason generally supplanted philosophy and religion as sources of knowledge about natural law.

There are many many more scientists today than natural law theorists, and I'm certainly not suggesting deleting the content in the natural law article. The first wikilink in the physical law article is to Science, indicating the close relationship between those topics. I just want to help people find stuff they want. I'm putting the link back on the dab page-- it's an innocuous link, some people are sure to find it useful, I do view science and the study of natural laws to be roughly equivalent, and I'd appreciate if you'd discuss before reverting again. I still think that natural law should be moved to philosophy of natural law and natural law redirected to science-- not to reflect a universal perspective, but to reflect what most people would be likely to be interested in. This is probably more controversial, but you remain the only commenter on the natural law talk page. Who else would want to chime in? Jeremy (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

... and copying most of the relevant portion of this to the article's talk page, where the discussion belongs. Jeremy (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Law of nature

Less controversially I hope, most of the hits for a Google search [3] on laws of nature refer to issues of science, including the first hit, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Law_of_nature should really go to physical law, which already distinguishes itself from natural law in its intro. Ok? Jeremy (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegory of the Cave

What do you mean by "original research"? our definition is here: Wikipedia:No original research or here Original research

Translation of Plato's Republic by Benjamin Jowett says "enlightenment" not "education",
following is other source:

• Plato's Cave & The Matrix, John Partridge Ph.D. Johns Hopkins University, work for Warner Bros., 2003,

So we can put:
In terms of metaphysics it is questioning if there exist "outer world" (topos present for instance in popular culture → The Matrix)

compare: Simulation hypothesis - also based on Contemporary publication.

--83.10.122.80 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that counts as a reliable source, given that it is on the Warner Bros. website. Even so, that seems more of interest on Matrix (film); giving a single professor's opinion about the movie on a page devoted to Plato's allegory of the cave seems to run afoul of WP:UNDUE. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• the interpretation given currently in article is not well sourced/referenced
• mainstream interpretation of Republic shows its non-Egalitarianism, but Elitism, Plato as many Greek philosophers showed high degree of hermeneutics: modified/defined many words also paideia should be read according to his own vision of Republic, (contrary for example to Ksenophon who says that paideia can be positive development as well as negative one: demoralization), because of elitism paideia in Republic is different for different professions, for guardians it would be training, for philosophers becaming enlightened, for children education, for others respectively; whatever.
• new online LSJ have some democration-based and hierarchical features that are questionable in science
• many older LSJs do not give translation "education" in Plato's context: [4]
• Also in the article lasts unreferenced presuposition of source that states (or similarly): "LSJ translates Plato's better then Benjamin Jowett & Francis Macdonald Cornford (paideia=be enlightened) & Władysław Witwicki ("paideia=chów=breeding") &Marsilio Ficino("paideia, eruditionem")&... " , if it does not exists then the choice of LSJ is someone's original work - if not published in reliable source, should be removed.
• Polish translator Władysław Witwicki puts "paideia=chów=breeding" cognate to "wychowywanie=bringing up".
• XV century Latin translation "eruditionem et ruditatem" Marsilio Ficino
• which complete translation of Republic translates apaideusias = "want of education"?
• here is link to some detailed analysis that shows solely "education" is wrong choice: www.inclusivedemocracy.org
• Arguments that current article can be changed without fear:
• example that "shows" (originaly erroneous) papyri and how to cope with more recent correct corrections (do not revert them): Reading Seneka (correctly).
• two other examples of old text changing pros. - are correct if only applied to sciences not guardians - works of Plato contain usually war criticism and ideas of correcting agressive gods' behaviour in old myths, but warning here Plato or Socrates shows unusual attitude toward war, explicit material and demoralization chapter: Plato The Republic translation by James Adam (classicist)
• there is no one-possible translation/interpretation for instance in Akeda chapter Jean Paul Sartre translated/intepreted vehaelohim as Angel, al-Qur'ān as dream/vision, English as God~Elohim versus Lord~Jahve, but contemporary catholic hierarchy forbids this last name and is revitalising Jahve as Adonai~LORD - following Judaism to some degree.

--83.10.127.114 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)