User talk:DerryAdama/Archive
Hi, I saw your note. I'm glad someone did some work actually on objectification. A big problem with Wikipedia is exemplified here: topical issues in the news, like sexual objectification, have hordes of people editing but it's quite apparent (for example your work) that most of these editors really have no knowledge regarding the absolutely required prerequisite positions. It's like editing an article on differential equations without knowing algebra. You did a good job with the article, particularly setting up a more coherent and structured framework. The article needs to be much more fleshed out in my opinion. Where's Green and his massively influential work on the issue? Where's the disagreement between Green and Nussbaum which is oh so important? That MacKinnon and Dworkin aren't noted in the article, at all, is a massive problem. It is, literally, impossible to understand MacKinnon and Dworkin's application of their theory of objectification to sexual objectification if one does not understand their theory of objectification, obviously. Even now though, well into 2015 not one single mention of MacKinnon and Dworkin in the actual objectification article, only the sexual objectification article. This is a gigantic indication that most editors dealing with the specific application of the theory are both unknowing regarding the theory, and uninterested. I'm very happy that you not only showed interest, but set to work. Good for you. My critiques and complaints aren't aimed at you, by the way. They're aimed at Wikipedia and how it operates. Obviously when there's so little attention to this article is quite clear that edits on related articles, like sexual objectification, are coming primarily from a POV, and a POV conflicts. Personally, I would state that Bauer also should be absolutely required to be in this article. Her position, which is sometimes heavily criticized for being inconsistent and sometimes praised as genius (primarily by postmodern feminists), states that objectification can't be defined and detailed as Nussbaum attempts. Bauer says the theory of objectification is, literally, entirely impossible. It's an inherently subjective experience. Her position is, in fact, the predominant view among contemporary feminists. This is yet another example of the massive disjunct between what many (the vast majority I'd argue) editors on Wikipedia believe is the case within the discipline, as compared to what really is the case. Bauer's view has become the dominant view with contemporary feminism, third wave feminism, and Nussbaum stands in stark opposition with her analytic approach.
All in all, I think you've done a marvelous job and the notes above are certainly where I'd steer the article towards going forward. The biggest issue I would state, as the article is now, is that Kant's position on objectification, absolutely, needs to come first. Kant crafted this philosophical framework in his Lectures on Ethics, more than 200 years ago. That's what started the entire philosophical position. The article should certainly start with Kant, then move on to MacKinnon and Dworkin in the 1980's, then move on to Nussbaum and Langton in the 1990's and 2000's, in general. Also, the criticism, which is entirely just Soble at present, should not only come at the end but also make clear that he's not just objecting to Kant. He's objecting to Kant of course, but he also objects to MacKinnon and Dworkin's work as well at Nussbaum and Langton. In fact his strongest critiques are actually leveled specifically at MacKinnon and Dworkin's concept of objectification. At present the criticism section's use of Soble makes it seem like Soble is only objecting to Kant, which he is not doing.
At that point it would be great to mention the thick/thin distinction within externalism, particularly because this is a very important critique Soble makes of Nussbaum's work.
Again though, all in all, great job man. It's good to see someone dealing with the intellectual heavy lifting and prerequisite articles. Wikipedia needs more like you and fewer people out there editing philosophical fads which they read about on their favorite partisan media source *sigh*Maxxx12345 (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube
editThe pages does exist
Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube Mejorate and click here.-- rokkztar | talk 17:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PMS Clan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PMS Clan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)