Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Proposal for criticisms

Guidelines for criticisms

Whenever possible, philosophy articles that contain criticisms or objections should also contain links to the groups, persons, or movements who raised the objection. If this is not possible, criticisms/objections must, at the very least, be attributed and documented, so that anyone can look it up in the original book/article. The reasons for this are:

1. These are philosophy articles. Philosophy demands a certain level of thoroughness of research and verifiability in its argumentation, and we should try to present arguments as completely as possible.
2. Just saying "some people think" gives the reader no resources to check out the arguments for themselves, and in philosophy it's the argument that counts, not that some, or most, or all people believe it to be true - speaking from the perspective of rational discourse, that someone presented an objection doesn't tell us anything about the soundness of their argument.
3. It looks a little sloppy, like we haven't done our research.
4. This sort of phrasing often seems to be a cover for original research at best, and a presentation of the writer's opinion masked as a philosophical viewpoint at worst (see: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words).
5. It tends to lead to a sort of dialogue between two characters: "Some" and "Others", and this is an encyclopedia, not a theatre piece!

The general layout should be similar to the following (except they should be true):

Logical positivism makes the claim that the only meaningful propositions are those that make falsifiable claims about the world. Michael Jackson argues that the claim that the only meaningful propositions are those that make falsifiable claims about the world is not itself falsifiable, and therefore meaningless.

What sections for criticisms are

A section in a philosophy article outlining criticisms is:

1. A place to put well known objections to a particular concept, philosophy, or philosophical position (the problem of evil in philosophy of religion articles, for example).
2. A place for specific arguments by specific philosophers (see the description of Daniel Dennett's criticisms in the Qualia article for a good example).
3. Provocative. It should encourage the reader to look more deeply into the topic, and provide links for them to do so.

What sections for criticisms aren't

A section in a philosophy article outlining criticisms isn't:

1. A place for a dialogue between two opposing camps: "some say... others counter... a common reply is..."
2. A place for the author's original work (See Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought).