text:
Talk:Platonic realism

 * In the article, the text is: "...what does it mean to say that this particular apple is a copy of the form of applehood? Does it mean the apple is the same shape as the form? Probably not; the form, after all, is not supposed to have a shape because it is not spatial. What would it mean to say that apple participates in applehood? Is that like membership in a club, somehow? It is not clear."
 * I'm trying to relate Forms to sets. Would it be correct to say that an apple is one of the set of apples, and that the Form of apples is the same as the set of apples?  Or would it be more correct to say that the Form of apples is the set of criteria that determine whether an object properly belongs to the set? Alan Nicoll 19:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to answer your question, because it depends on the meaning of the word "set". If with the "set of X" we mean some factual aggregate of material objects, this is certainly not the interpretation of "Form" by the Platonic Realist himself. But some would say it's the only rational content that could be given to an otherwise inane concept. The Platonist, and certainly the modern one, would surely agree more with your second description, that it's a set of criteria. But he would warn against the mistake to again see such a set of criteria as some factual aggregate of actual ideas in the minds of actual people (which despicable heresy goes under the name of mentalism) or of actual social rules in an actual society (sociologism,conventionalism). The set of criteria should in his view be seen as an abstraction; indeed an abstraction that is more fundamental to the concept of set than the respective aggregates of material objects - and so he would say that the Form of an apple is indeed the set of apples: in abstracto.

--MWAK 11:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) (who happens to be one of the few Platonic Realists presently immanent in this timeline group and thus is singularly qualified to answer questions about the true nature of Platonic doctrine ;o)

It depends on what you mean by "criteria", but Platonic Forms cannot be sets of objects, by my lights. That is because sets are extensional entities - two sets are identical if and only if they have the same members. But if, for all pairs of non-synonymous predicates (or properties), there are two corresponding Forms, we have two Forms even when the predicates are extensionally equivalent (true of the same things). But we cannot have two Forms for two extensionally equivalent sets, because extensionally equivalent sets are the same set, and (I think) there is at most one Form per object (or property). (Iolasov 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Aristotelian realism
It would be nice if the same author wrote an article on Aristotelian realism to contrast with the Platonic variety, esp. as there are already articles on conceptualism and nominalism. The possibility of realism about the abstract without a commitment to Platonism is an intringuing one.

 * That would be very nice indeed as that writer is Larry Sanger, a professional philosopher and cofounder of Wikipedia! :o) But the subject is extraordinarily controversial and complicated. Part of the problem is that Aristotle's public works have been all but lost — we today "only" have the Corpus and there are many uncertainties about authorship and date of creation. But even more problematic is that Aristotle developed his thoughts in opposition to Platonic Realism: so to judge his thought we have to understand the nature of Plato's as well.

--MWAK 20:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is the basic form defined. A driveway is the subject and all kinds appear as generalized driveways. This abstract driveway is then the subject and to cause the set than.

"And to cause the set than" denotes Plato's form. A twice thought for the abstract. And the abstract abstraction is the level of difficulty. To abstract all that is, correctly, identifies a form of natural existence. Just like left and right as an existent relation, Plato's form denotes a subject abstraction and clearly becomes a class of inference.

I can write all day on this subject if there is any interest.

A subject of forms therefore denotes a relation of the abstraction to the particular set. A sly thought is the degree of confusion over the meaning of his form. A kind of inference appears!

Articles on Platonism
Note that this article more or less competes with Platonic idealism, and that there is a whole raft of articles on Platonism, which perhaps ought to be consolidated into fewer. A Platonism template might also be useful. --  HK   14:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I said at Talk:Platonic idealism:

 * 1) Although Platonic Realism is indeed sometimes called Platonic Idealism, the concepts are not congruent. Many would deny that Plato's idealism entailed a realist stance. And Platonic Realism is a more general philosophical position, while "Platonic Idealism" is typically reserved for the views of Plato himself. It's therefore best to keep two articles.
 * 2) Some repetition is inevitable and often a lot of repetition is quite functional.
 * 3) If there are any perceived contradictions, try to solve them. But be wary. Sometimes they are merely perceived :o).
 * 4) A Platonism template would be very nice of course.
 * 5) Wikipedia should be in a permanent state of improvement. Try to fight the understandable but ultimately disastrous tendency to "consolidate". Or was it a euphemism for "merge"?

What you say here at least answers my question :o). I'd like to add that Platonism is a very interesting and complicated subject, that can be treated from many subtly different aspects. A "raft of articles" wouldn't be amiss.--MWAK 16:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Plato is bullshit
I dont expect to be able to put this in the main article, so it is here for your consideration. He is one of the first thinkers and does not deserve more than anecdotal consideration, his ideas are hilarious to a modern man. Granted we must treat him with respect, but dont let that trick you into thinking that he has any meaningfull thing to say in the 21st century. 88.15.59.243 23:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(It is this comment that is hilarious)thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.183.1 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 * And you would be the epitomal "21 century-Man", I suppose? ;o) Any evaluation of Plato of course depends on your philosophical opinion. These opinions today vary wildly. I've often noticed that people changed their views on him after actually reading his work, instead of relying on largely anecdotal renderings of it... And there is always the troubling possibility that you only consider some ideas to be hilarious as a defensive reaction, because you despair of being able to understand them. --MWAK 08:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, Plato was a smart guy in his time and for all times, and the article have evolved enough to vaguely reflect this, even though some improvements in formulations can still be made. For C++ programmers Plato was obviously perfectly right: no object orientation without abstract classes, instantiations and inheritance. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Analogies to Computer Science/Object oriented Programming
The language for much of the article talks about 'instantiations', inherence, forms, etc... Sounds very much like inheritance/etc... from computer science. Perhaps this is deliberate, perhaps written by a comp. sci. person, perhaps it's totally my perception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.71.61 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

 * The jargon used is very much standard and rather a bit older than computer science. So if there is indeed a causal connection, philosophy is the origin :o). --MWAK 14:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Platonic Idealism and Articles on Universals
In the first paragraph, until now, it said, "Confusingly, this stance is also called Platonic idealism," phrased thusly to draw attention to the apparent contrast between correlating Platonic idealism and realism. Although MWAK says the concepts are not congruent, many would deny that Plato had a realist stance, and defines the difference between Platonic realism and idealism, I would make the additional argument that platonic universals are ideas that can be real, and that Plato would say the ideal realm is the real one. For example, justice is an idea until, like peace, it is enforced. --ZLRS 10:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

 * The major source of a possible confusion of course lies in the fact that in standard philosophical jargon, idealism and realism are seen as different stances. Certainly the Platonic "idealism" is quite different from the German Idealism of the 18th and 19th century. So that is a cogent reason to make the reader aware of this problem.

 * I personally would agree that Plato considered the ideal world the real one. However, this does not mean Platonic Realism unproblematically coincides with Platonic Idealism. It depends on your interpretation of Plato's thought. So the best way, I feel, to solve this woulkd be to state that a certain interpretation is the cause of using "Platonic Idealism"for "Platonic Realism".

 * A last point is that among the examples you gave of Platonic Ideas, Peace is not one Plato is emphasizing the transcendental nature of. Can't we just stick with Truth, Beauty and the Good? :o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAK (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Question concerning last paragraph
"...The response reconciles Platonism with empiricism by contending that an abstract (and thus not real) object is real and knowable by its instantiation. Since the critic has, after all, naturally understood the abstract, the response suggests merely to abandon prejudice and accept it."

With regard to the last paragraph, either I am misreading it or not fully understanding it. If Platonism holds forms to be archetypal and non spatio-temporal then how is it that an instantiation could give knowledge of its form other than by sparking some process akin to remembering as Plato describes?

You might view an apple and generalize from there to multiple apples all sharing similarities, but that seems to lack the notion that there is some ideal form of applehood that all apples make reference to. A generalization might make an abstraction out of apple but it does so by containing less information than any specific instance of an apple. Whereas, I thought, in Platonism it isn't that the form contains less information but rather is perfect, and all instantiations are flawed copies.75.163.233.26 (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 * They could be "flawed" copies by having too much "information". Now "apple" is a very problematic concept in this respect. Let us first consider the (slightly less problematic) concept "circle"; it could be argued (though, to complicate matters, Plato himself would probably have disagreed :o) that all material circles are imperfect by deviating, however small, from the ideal. But it would take a much longer — indeed arguably infinite — mathematical formula to describe them.

 * To return to apples, the problem is that the early Plato clearly confused the concept of the ideal as the abstract, with the concept of the ideal as the optimal form within a set of related forms. Later in life he began to realise this, as is obvious from the Parmenides. The doctrine of Platonic Realism in the philosophical tradition is about the first concept. But many more popular books emphasize the second — perhaps because readers favour perfect apples over abstract ones ;o).--MWAK (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed a paragraph in the section Forms. The example given was of a perfect circle only an atom thick. It said that it would not be perfect because it would still be a series of lines but I regard atoms as closer to points in my mind so I found the example confusing. I changed it to something I thought was more intuitive. Achannel (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Plato and Spirituality
The whole confusion about Plato's doctrine can be traced to the refusal of contemporary (agnostic/materialistic) philosophers to consider something that was truth for the ancients sages: the reality of the spirit; the immortality of the human's soul, who is reincarnated in successive lives; and that this soul has an evolutionary path to go which is what gives purpose to existence. This is evident and clear in the dialogues of Plato. 190.140.1.141 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, it's true that Plato believed in the immortality of the human soul and reincarnation (BTW only a minority of the "ancient sages" agreed with him, unless such an agreement is a condition for being sage ;o) but there is no direct connection with Platonic Realism. I'm afraid that if you try to grasp the concept of Form by vaguely considering it a "piece of spirit" you have missed the point entirely. You would then still treat it as if it were some concrete object — be it of a spiritual nature — and the point is that it is an abstract object. Neither dualism nor monistic idealism are directly implied by Platonic Realism and historically both dualist and idealist philosophers have indeed tended to reject Platonic Realism.--MWAK (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Platonic idealism

 * Proposed. "Platonic realism" and "Platonic idealism" are synonymous. "Platonic realism" is just realism about ideas. "Platonic idealism" is realism about ideas. Which synonym you pick is just based on whether you put the emphasis on the 'realism' or the 'idea' part of the sentence. Since one can be a 'realist' about almost anything, whereas being a 'thing-ist' tends to presuppose that you're a realist about that specific thing, 'idealist' is the more specific / explanatory term. -Silence (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Opposed: Not idealism, however I'd take it that "Platonic idealism" is meant somewhat pleonastically. On the other hand, Platonic realism clearly implies something more radical (as seen from an anachronistic standpoint of idealism v realism).—Machine Elf 1735  01:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * What is the difference between Platonic idealism and Platonic realism? In the modern context of idealism vs. realism, obviously 'Platonic realism' is (or both terms are) inaccurate, since Plato can't be both a realist and an anti-realist, but both articles are trying to describe the same view, espoused by the same person. To look at the name "Platonic realism" anachronistically is to look at it inaccurately; if the title suggests such an anachronistic significance, then that is a further reason to support the merge.
 * You call 'Platonic idealism' redundant (a strange claim, albeit understandable for people already well-versed in Plato's views -- i.e., people who don't much need these articles), but what it is is unambiguously relevant and accurate; 'Platonic realism' is a much thornier term, since in point of Fact Plato is a nominalist about 'universals' (common natures) in the traditional classical and Medieval sense. -Silence (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Opposed: You seem to forget that "Platonic Realism" is a general philosophical stance, and thus not simply identical to Plato's point of view about the subject. So it is not true that "both articles are trying to describe the same view, espoused by the same person". It is extraordinarily difficult to determine what Plato's views were and there is little consensus about it. E.g. your claim that Plato is a nominalist about universals, is likely only to be acceptable if one is a nominalist oneself — not to a realist about abstracta. Most modern Platonic Realists are not realists about "ideas" but about abstract objects. Arguably there is no important modern stance called "Platonic Idealism", so that article is better suited to treat Plato's writings as such.

 * In general it is problematic to merge articles about philosophical terms because this presupposes a professional consensus about what objects they refer to. Such a consensus is however, exceedingly rare. Your statement "what it is is unambiguously relevant and accurate" strikes me as wildly optimistic!--MWAK (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * That's all well and good; if an argument can be given that the terms genuinely and consistently refer to distinct objects, I'll gladly drop the merge proposal. But just arguing 'They're philosophy names, so they can't be merged!' is, obviously, not Wikipedia practice or policy. :) Here is my challenge to you: 1. Cite a single sentence in Platonic realism that does not directly concern Platonic idealism or the Theory of Forms. 2. Cite reputable non-Wikipedia sources that establish that 'Platonic Realism' isn't the theory of Forms, and/or that Platonic Realism isn't Platonic idealism. This should be extraordinarily easy to do if, as you say, the terms are so difficult to correlate. 3. Explain why the first two sentences of Platonic realism define Platonic realism as Platonic idealism, and vice versa. "As universals were considered by Plato to be ideal forms, this stance is confusingly also called Platonic idealism." This has all the makings of a POV fork; one group of editors found the name "idealism" confusing, the other found the name "realism" unexplanatory, and here we are today. 4. Provide evidence that Platonic Idealism or the Theory of Forms aren't "general philosophical stances," and that Platonic Realism is a "general philosophical stance", so that this criterion can be used to distinguish one or more of the pages. If you can't substantiate the claim that only one or two of these three pages is a 'general philosophical stance,' your argument can't get off the ground.
 * "your claim that Plato is a nominalist about universals, is likely only to be acceptable if one is a nominalist oneself — not to a realist about abstracta." - Er, no. I'm (usually) a realist about universals. I just recognize that from a classical and Medieval perspective, a 'universal' is generally defined as 'one thing inhering as a whole in many.' Platonic Ideas aren't multiply inhering; they are particulars transcending time and space, and their relation to property-instantiations is causal and extrinsic rather than constitutive and intrinsic. Regardless, I'm not proposing that we move the article to Platonic nominalism; I'm just pointing out that calling him a realist is confusing and at least a little contentious (Paul Spade disputes it, as does Donald Brownstein in Aspects of the problem of universals), whereas no one has ever disputed that he has a theory of Ideas/Forms. Using the somewhat more self-explanatory, transparent title resolves the problems. (Also, no one is disputing that Plato is a realist about abstracta. You can be a realist about abstracta without being a realist about universals, and you can certainly be a realist about universals without affirming abstracta. Platonic realism is specifically 'realism about ideas qua universals.') -Silence (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it might clarify matters if we bring to mind the origin of the terms. Of course neither "Platonic Realism" nor "Platonic Idealism" are classical concepts. They are recent inventions born from the modern use of "Idealism" and "Realism". The first typically refers to the British and German Idealism in its several forms. However, as Plato had an Ideenlehre, a distinction was useful between this "idealism" and the British/German one. So the term "Platonic Idealism" has the nature of a contradistinction and by the same nature emphasizes the historical thought of Plato himself. The other term, "Realism", is the context of "Platonic Realism". Among Realists there are those who are realists about abstract objects. They are called Platonic Realists. "Platonic Realism" is not a contradistinction to Realism — Platonic Realists are very much Realists — and is as a term much more ahistorical — if only, as you pointed out, because it is problematic to what extent the historical Plato was a realist himself.

 * This article was created in 2001 by Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia and professional philosopher. It was completely set within a Realist context, discussing the position that universals would have a transcendental reality. Logically, Sanger gave it the title "Platonic Realism". The reference to "Platonic Idealism" had its origin in November 2005 when an anonymous user, 12.73.50.56, began changing every instance of the word "(Platonic) realism" into "idealism". I reversed these edits because given the Realist context using "idealism" would be inappropriate and confusing. But I also thought: "The dude/dudette has a point; it might conceivably be called "Platonic Idealism" even in a Realist context, so I best mention that, if only to reduce the possibility of any future edits of this nature".

 * The same Realist context means that the title "Platonic Realism" is much more adequate and precise than "Platonic Idealism". Of course for the historical Plato his Platonic Realism, such as it was, would have been an essential and salient part of the totality of his Ideenlehre. Certainly I would have great trouble finding any references denying that! But even for him it wouldn't have simply coincided with it. After all, there are important religious, ethical, political, logical, mathematical and epistemological aspects to the Ideenlehre, apart from the primarily ontological. As regards modern philosophers, using within a Realist context the term "Platonic Idealism" is simply confusing or a poor choice of words. A claim that e.g. Frege or Moore espoused Platonic Idealism would surprise the reader until realisation set in that Platonic Realism was meant.

 * Now it might be retorted that within a Platonic Idealism article the Realist context, including later developments, could be given a separate chapter, e.g. under the heading "Platonic Realism". That is obviously true. However, under the principle of Summary Style, it would then be preferable that a separate article existed. This has the additional major advantage that any reader encountering the term within a Realist modern context — which might well encompass the vast majority of such encounters — is immediately directed to the technical meaning of the term instead of having to distil it from a complex account of the thought of Plato. Also thereby the danger is averted that future editors, not convinced of the relevance of modern Platonic Realism to the largely historical phenomenon of Platonic Idealism, might scrap these parts entirely.--MWAK (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 * An excellent argument, and a fantastic instruction in the history both of these articles and of the relevant terminology. We must note, however, that the term 'realism' here arose not in the context of the debate over abstracta, but in the context of the debate over universals. The problem of universals was a key justification for Plato's doctrine (yes, for Plato himself), and remained a live argument throughout the Middle Ages and to the present day; it was the question of the nature of properties and 'shared natures' that people were worried about, and not the vaguer question of whether nature is exhausted by concreta. Platonic realism presupposes that there can be abstracta (if by 'abstracta' we merely mean 'things transcending the sensible world'); the real substance of the doctrine is that the important class of abstracta is the cause for all properties, and it is realism about this independent-cause-for-properties that is denoted by 'Platonic realism'. Perhaps by association the term has also come to mean realism about abstracta (again, in the sense of insensibilia) generally, but this is far more anachronistic and modern than the idea that Plato's view of forms is 'idealistic' (which is trivially true if we define 'idealistic' as any view that assigns central importance to things it called "ideas," more substantively true if we define 'idealistic' as any view that assigns central importance to some qualitative, non-spatiotemporal entity). Indeed, we must recognize that when we call Plato's Forms 'abstract' we always risk conflating one property Forms and modern abstracta have in common (that they exist outside space and time) with the properties Forms and modern abstracta don't, as usually understood, have in common (e.g., abstracta don't cause spatiotemporal events; when metaphysicians—sorry, theoretical physicists—speak of branes, for instance, they are speaking of entities that transcend our space-time continuum, but they wouldn't necessarily conclude that such entities are abstract). Here's a summary of the salient point:
 * "The contemporary distinction between abstract and concrete is not an ancient distinction. Indeed, there is a strong case for the view that despite occasional anticipations, it plays no significant role in philosophy before the 20th century. The modern distinction bears some resemblance to Plato's distinction between Forms and Sensibles. But Plato's Forms were supposed to be causes par excellence, whereas abstract objects are normally supposed to be causally inert in every sense. The original 'abstract'/'concrete' distinction was a distinction among words or terms. Traditional grammar distinguishes the abstract noun 'whiteness' from the concrete noun 'white' without implying that this linguistic contrast corresponds to a metaphysical distinction in what they stand for. In the 17th century this grammatical distinction was transposed to the domain of ideas. Locke speaks of the general idea of a triangle which is 'neither Oblique nor Rectangle, neither Equilateral, Equicrural nor Scalenon; but all and none of these at once,' remarking that even this idea is not among the most 'abstract, comprehensive and difficult' (Essay IV.vii.9). Locke's conception of an abstract idea as one that is formed from concrete ideas by the omission of distinguishing detail was immediately rejected by Berkeley and then by Hume. But even for Locke there was no suggestion that the distinction between abstract ideas and concrete or particular ideas corresponds to a distinction among objects. 'It is plain, …' Locke writes, 'that General and Universal, belong not to the real existence of things; but are Inventions and Creatures of the Understanding, made by it for its own use, and concern only signs, whether Words or Ideas' (III.iii.11). -Rosen, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/"
 * Platonic realism is realism about universals. But at least a few prominent thinkers define this exact view—without changing its content—as a form of nominalism, the opposite of realism (in this domain). So the term is at least contentious and confusing, if not demonstrably inappropriate. I have no personal stake in the dispute; it just happens to be a nice side-effect that by merging the article topic we can cover the dispute rather than weighing in on it. (I take it that there is no comparably substantive dispute regarding whether Plato's view involves Ideas or Forms, so Platonic idealism or Platonic formalism or Platonic Form, etc. would all be an improvement as an article title.)
 * You argue that 'realism' is a demonstrably apt term for the doctrine, whereas 'idealism' is embroiled in a messy dichotomy. I don't agree. Granted: 'Idealism' and 'realism' are very complex, contentious, multifaceted terms. Not granted: 'Realism' is less contentious than 'idealism'. On the contrary, realism is the far more equivocal term, and in its ordinary usage 'realism' precludes Platonism in a way that 'idealism,' at least on the face of things, does not. (Even Platonic realism, as the phrase is often used, precludes Platonism, if by 'Platonic realism' we mean the belief in causally inert abstracta.) Since my claims are independent, I'll lay them out in list form:
 * First, 'Platonic realism' in a context-neutral environment is confusing, because by 'realism' one usually understands 'belief in the concrete world out there,' whereas Plato doubted the ultimate reality of such a world. So on the ordinary understanding of realism, Plato's view is 'Platonic anti-realism'.
 * Second, 'Platonic realism' within the context of debating abstracta is confusing, because the doctrine in question, if it entails causal inefficacy, is not Platonic. If it's causally inert numbers that one is being a 'Platonic realist' about, then Plato himself is not a 'Platonic realist' (or at least not a conventional one).
 * Third, 'Platonic realism' within the context of debating universals is confusing, because by traditional definitions of 'universal' Plato was a nominalist (i.e., an anti-realist). So once again his doctrine is better characterized, relative to the relevant domain of discourse, as 'Platonic anti-realism'.
 * Fourth, 'Platonic idealism' in a context-neutral environment is not confusing (or at least no more confusing than 'transcendental idealism', 'absolute idealism', 'subjective idealism', etc.; all these terms have their problems), because the primacy of 'ideal' elements is indeed an excellent (preliminary) way of characterizing the Platonic doctrine in question. Certainly it pinpoints the doctrine's subject matter better than "Platonic realism" does.
 * Fifth, 'Platonic idealism' within the context of differentiating British, German, etc. idealisms is not inappropriate or misconceived (the common denominator seems to just be the rejection of materialism and of 'even-handed' dualisms), and it is no more anachronistic than are realism or abstraction.
 * What do you think? I'm not wedded to the choice of the name 'Platonic idealism'; at this point I'm only convinced that some merge is necessary, and that 'Platonic realism' is a confusing place to which to merge. What do you think of merging to a new article with a name like Platonic Form or Platonic theory of Forms, which could include (in its section on the historical influence of Plato's theory of the Forms) two separate subsections for the theory's subsequent influence in the Problem of universals and its influence in the Problem of abstract objects, respectively? If either of these subsections grew large enough, I'd be fine creating a new daughter article, but I don't think this page currently has enough content (once you notice how much overlap and repetition there is between the three pages; also, seven of this article's paragraphs are only 1-2 sentences long) to warrant that. An integration of this sort would be extremely valuable to the POV of all three once-articles on this subject matter, since it would allow us to more clearly draw distinctions where there are distinctions to be made, by being able to mention both interpretations of the doctrine in the same breath. If we ever did need a daughter article for Platonic theory of Forms, I think a more well-defined and encyclopedic candidate would be something like Platonic theory of Forms in the Middle Ages or Modern responses to the Platonic theory of Forms, rather than a title as ill-defined as "Platonic realism". -Silence (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 * If a single article were to be created with Plato's doctrine as its topic, I agree that "Platonic Idealism" is the proper term. It better describes the whole of the doctrine, whereas "Platonic Realism" would be only a part of it. My point is that a merger would be an inferior solution because the latter term has a meaning much broader than simply "the Realism of Plato". The first three points you make support this. Plato's view is 'Platonic anti-realism'? Very true in that sense, but then "Platonic Realism" cannot be simply equated to the "Realism of Plato" and the separate concept merits its own article. Plato's forms are causally inefficient and Plato himself is not a 'Platonic realist'? That possibility only underscores that autonomy of Platonic Realism in relation to the historical Plato. Plato propounded an 'Platonic anti-realism' as regards universals? A tantalizing thought but if true, an account of Plato's doctrine on universals could only be the starting-point of a correct rendering of Platonic Realism.

 * Within a integrated article of Platonic Idealism, focussing on the doctrine of the historical Plato, the modern Platonic Realism stance would have only a very minor part to play — as you indicated, a subsection — which would be right and proper as the context would be historical. In the context of modern Realism the stance can be fully developed in its own article. The difference in contexts also makes the perceived redundancy largely illusory. Yes, the "same things" are treated — but from a different angle. Of course "Modern responses to the Platonic theory of Forms" is a nice title. But the mission of us, Wikipedians, is not to partition reality and attach well-defined labels to it. Our task is much humbler. The term Platonic Realism exists; a person might encounter it; he consults us to discover its meaning; we provide it as best as we can. We should never delude ourselves that we are anything more than a glorified dictionary. Now, in what way would it serve the interest of said person if this article was turned into a redirect?--MWAK (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 * You make a lot of good sense. Really, my reason for wanting to conflate the articles was partly visceral and emotional; I find 'Platonic realism' a terribly unfortunate misnomer (seeing that the doctrine as we're understanding it isn't Platonic, and the actual Platonic doctrine isn't in any conventional sense realist), and would prefer to nip that meme in the bud. But my view (and the view of the two scholars I cited who agree) is in the minority, and in the end it's just a terminological issue. I would prefer that the concept in question be called Abstractionism or Abstraction realism or Abstraction Platonism, to distinguish it both from Plato-style views about universals and from Plato's actual views (including his views on universals and abstracta, which, I take it, was to whole-heartedly reject the existence of both). But I don't get to make up the names. The Stanford Encyclopedia, which I consider highly authoritative on such issues, calls the doctrine we're talking about 'lower-case-p' platonism ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/ ), to distinguish it from Plato's actual doctrines: "Platonism in this sense is a contemporary view." Accordingly, I think the least ambiguous, most informative title for an article like this would be Modern Platonism or Platonism in modernity or something of the like... but Platonic realism is OK. We just have to rewrite the page to make clear its distinctness from Platonic idealism (which can be merged with Theory of Forms), i.e., Plato's actual views (or as near to them as we can get).
 * P.S.: A new argument for merging Theory of Forms into the name Platonic idealism: The term "idealism" was actually first coined as the name for Plato's doctrine of Ideas/Forms. All other uses of the term "idealism" are subsequent and derivative. -Silence (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Please stop splitting your "discussion" of the separate merge/rename suggestion at Talk:Theory of Forms, (not that your PS is either true or a valid argument to merge/rename that article). The haphazard scope of your suggestions are impossible to follow, sometimes as innocuous as renaming Theory of Forms to "Plato's Theory of Forms"… Perhaps your admittedly irrational motivation sheds light on your contradictory statements of intent, but either renaming or merging the historical article, Theory of Forms, to a "new" Modern Platonism article is not a good idea, obviously.
 * OTOH, merging this article to the platonic idealism stub (i.e., your new "modern platonism" chimera) is a bad idea because "platonic idealism" implies idealism in the modern sense, (although Berkeley himself was opposed to materialism rather than realism, which would be somewhat closer to the platonic sense). Arguably, a fully developed account of "abstraction" shouldn't even be attributed to Aristotle (much less Plato), but they're no precedent for the modern ease with which many scientists disavow what's "real". Regarding his mathematical universe hypothesis, Tegmark uses the qualifier "radical" to emphasize platonism in the classical sense, i.e., really real.
 * The modern sense of platonism, or mathematical platonism (the most directly relevant application) has likewise drifted. This is evident, for example, in the problem of access to the Forms, typically presented as an "argument against platonism", which begs a Cartesian mind-body question, where no substance dualism was intended. Plato's anamnesis solved a different problem: properly, the eternal Forms are reality, not a ghostly addition to a materialist presentism. The reality of the latter could be understood nonetheless, to the extent it supervenes upon the former. But a modern mind-body problem, with its implicit dualism, has eclipsed Plato's own problem of eternal necessity v temporal contingency.
 * Possibly due to your polemics, it's not clear to me what you think Plato's position would have been in regard to "causal inefficacy" of the Forms. Clearly, the presumptive causal closure of "classical" physics is an anachronism (on top of the misnomer). From an Aristotelian perspective regarding aitia less apropos than the formal, such as "efficient cause", the Forms require no explanation a posteriori. That does not make Plato an "anti-realist" any more than it makes him an "idealist".
 * Whereas I think "radical platonism" would be an example of a less problematic name than "platonic realism" in this context, "platonic idealism" only serves to obfuscate the distinction, rather than highlight it. In my opinion, the topic is sufficiently distinct from (modern) platonism to stand on it's own, which, as I've indicated, would have been a more realistic merge target, no pun intended… (just as I've suggested numerous times that Theory of Forms is a more realistic target, to no avail). The various articles on the problem of universals demonstrate how whimsically you've followed up on your "visceral reaction".—Machine Elf 1735  18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I don't think you understood my new suggestion. (The best evidence for this is that you give arguments against the things I went to great lengths to also argue against. Highlighting the distinctness of Plato's actual views from "mathematical platonism" and the like has been my entire purpose. It's particularly puzzling that you'd be unclear about "what [I] think Plato's position would have been in regard to "causal inefficacy" of the Forms", since a few lines above I write, "the doctrine in question, if it entails causal inefficacy, is not Platonic".) To phrase it in your preferred idiom, rather than as a merge: I'm suggesting we delete Platonic idealism and siphon its useful content into Theory of Forms, rename Theory of Forms to Platonic idealism, and rewrite Platonic realism without merging it. Having the two parallel article titles will make it easier to explain, in the first paragraph of each article, that Platonic realism is not Platonic idealism, and Platonic idealism is not Platonic realism. MWAK persuaded me that parallel structure of this sort would make it easier to draw the distinction between two theories or doctrines, whereas if one were a "theory" and the other an "-ism" someone might be more inclined to mistakenly infer that Theory of Forms is a component of Platonic realism, or Platonic realism of the Theory of Forms.
 * Platonic realism would then be about modern so-called "platonism" (the doctrine that abstracta exist), whereas Platonic idealism (merged with Theory of Forms) would be about Plato's actual views about the Forms. Clearer? -Silence (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I do not understand why the merge tag has not been removed if you no longer intend to argue for this article's merge to platonic idealism. What's puzzling is that you simply repeat the same convoluted statement, but I will admit, it's clearly wrong in an exceedingly precise way. I simply thought you might have accidentally said the opposite of what you intend, given the tortured prose.
 * You don't appear to be trying to delete platonic idealism. I'm not sure what you think might be useful in Theory of Forms which it lacks. You've done another 180° in how you're characterizing your intention to merge/rename Theory of Forms into platonic idealism, and yet, you neither remove the merge tag nor submit the one article for AfD and the other for renaming… If clear means conspicuously wrong or perhaps just tendentious… clear as a bell.—Machine Elf 1735  09:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Machine Elf, I'm interested in improving these articles. Do you share the same interest? I've been assuming that you do, and I won't hesitate to continue under that assumption, since you're clearly passionate about the structuring of the articles in question. If it's beyond your patience to engage in more constructive problem-solving regarding the best possible array of 'Platonism' articles, please don't let my various vices and inadequacies occupy your time or diminish the quality of your day! :) Life's too short, and there are surely tasks on Wikipedia more apt to your body of knowledge and skills than harassing or fixating on any other users. I welcome you to direct any further complaints about my moral standing, personality, or good faith to my talk page, so that they such comments won't obscure the more topical discussions ongoing. Best wishes, friend. -Silence (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (If your questions expressed an honest confusion, I'll just dispel them by saying that I honestly couldn't care less about what bureaucratic tags are on what articles. Feel free to replace the merge tag on Platonic realism if you wish. Be bold. My only interest is in discussing the substance and organization of the actual articles.) -Silence (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bravo. I don't know why you'd leave it to me to remove your merge tags when you've been so emphatic, but I don't require an explanation.—Machine Elf 1735  10:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm emphatic, it's only about the merge, not the tags. The tags' only function is to make passers-by and regular editors aware that there's an ongoing discussion pertaining importantly to the articles' being. Move, rename, or cleanup tags placed on the tops of the articles can serve that function equally well, at least in some cases. -Silence (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is factually incorrect
Poor Plato.
 * Platonic realism is a philosophical term usually used to refer to the idea of realism regarding the existence of universals or abstract objects ...

This approach is subversively incorrect. Plato did his philosophy before his student Aristotle, and he was most emphatically opposed to Aristotle's reduction of philosophy to a single absolute realism of sensible objects. The "existence of universals" is an Aristotelian misrepresentation of Plato's idealism of Ideas.

Plato's realism, just like Aristotle's realism, is a theory of sensible objects, as developed by Plato himself, in the Dialogues.

Comments? BlueMist (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aristotelian formalism might not be a bad way to say that, according to Plato, sensible objects are like mere shadows of the real, eternal Forms. But I agree the "existence of universals" isn't nearly enough... still, "Plato's idealism of Ideas" is a bit confusing... perhaps Plato's realism of Ideas or realism of Forms?—Machine Elf 1735  02:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 * First of all the article is not primarily about the thought of Plato — the interpretation of which is of course very contentious. It is primarily about the way the term is presently used. Obviously, in "the existence of universals", "existence" is to be understood in a broad Quinian sense, not as implying that universals would only have material existence! :o)--MWAK (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You might be wondering why anyone would say that this article is plain wrong, given that the misunderstandings and distortions this article repeats can be easily documented. So much so, that I wouldn't even bother to ask for any references.

The problem is that many Aristotle and Plato experts, the people who actually have read most or all of both Aristotle and Plato, along with the literature of commentary, point out that Aristotle did NOT have an adequate understanding of Plato's theories! For example, see this discussion, and especially (Aristotle, Metaphysics A, 987b12-15)

Neither Plato nor Aristotle were shy about distorting and defaming their rivals. Be that the Sophists for Plato, or Plato for Aristotle. Later generations of theologians have dutifully copied the revered Aristotle's sentiments, to this day. ~ BlueMist (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Again, you seem not to have understood that the article is primarily about the modern meaning of the term, not the thought of the historical Plato. And again, I must point out that in "existence of universals", "existence" is not to be understood in any particularly Aristotelian way. Personally, I would say that Aristoteles apparently did not understand Plato very well. But I'm unsure what exactly you think Plato or Aristotle really meant, because you have made that not at all clear! Also, it is problematic to state that Aristotle intended to defame Plato, as the Corpus exists of unpublished writings. And to presume a line of uncritical theologians is perhaps a bit simplistic :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. I understood quite well in the first place. It's all about the "modern" meaning. That modern meaning cannot be just "your" meaning, or "my" meaning, or even the theologians' meaning. (And yes, that is indeed one of the underlying problems. Theologians have a directed, biased Aristotelian lean. Should Wikipedia be an organ of the Church?)
 * We are not arbiters of meaning. The meaning of the term has to come from expert references. I hope we agree here. ~ BlueMist (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Was there something in particular in this article that's "factually incorrect" or just Theologians and Aristotelians in general?—Machine Elf 1735  05:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although there seems to be agreement here that the subject of this article is not what Plato said or taught, but what is meant by referring to Platonic realism by today's scholars, the article is not constructed along those lines. The two topics are hopelessly confounded in the way the material is presented. There is no exposition of the modern view(s) and no contrast with what what Plato's writing's say, or how his proposals have evolved historically. There is no connection to philosophical context. The reference list and treatment of sources is almost non-existent. Brews ohare (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Based upon what is contained in this article, it could be argued not that it is factually correct or incorrect, but that the subject is not a subject at all. Brews ohare (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, the article presently provides a common interpretation of the term "Platonic realism". It is a philosophical stance, that can be, and has been, combined with a great number of other philosophical positions. This would make it difficult to trace it development through the centuries — though it could in principle be done. To explain why this stance is called Platonic realism, it is inevitable to give some impression of those elements in the thought of Plato himself that have given rise to this stance. To serve this goal, the impression given will primarily follow the interpretation of Platonic Realists, as it is the most relevant within this context.--MWAK (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * MWAK, In your comments from earlier years, I sense respect for Sanger's general knowledge, which was great for starter articles. Where a more correct understanding needs to start is with Realism, in its philosophical senses and in its guises. A good article on Realism can be found in the SEP, with bibliography. As you pointed out, Platonic Realism is not simple, and certainly not the same as Platonic Idealism. ~ BlueMist (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Machine Elf, from what you've already said, it is demonstrable that you are not familiar with the subject matter. Shouldn't you leave the topic to editors? Please reverse your unknowing, bureaucratic undo. And reread the the following two sources:

 * The problem is that many Aristotle and Plato experts, the people who actually have read most or all of both Aristotle and Plato, along with the literature of commentary, point out that Aristotle did NOT have an adequate understanding of Plato's theories! For example, see this discussion, and especially (Aristotle, Metaphysics A, 987b12-15) ~ BlueMist (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BlueMist: I take it that your focus is upon whether or not Aristotle properly understood Plato. Is this topic really important to this article? If Aristotle said A and Plato said B, is it really important to know what Aristotle thought Plato said? In fact, isn't what Plato said just an historical prolegomena to the greater purpose of explaining the modern view? In fact, isn't this whole article a misconception best discussed under other articles? Brews ohare (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This article says this topic is the same as Platonic idealism. Do you agree? Are you really more concerned with idealism vs realism than with Aristotle's view of Plato? Brews ohare (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BlueMist, comment on content, not contributors. Your sourcing is inadequate for your (seemingly irrelevant) claim that "Aristotle did NOT have an adequate understanding of Plato's theories!"—Machine Elf 1735  15:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Brews ohare,
 * You are sensing my dilemma correctly. The article is dead wrong. That isn't because of what it says, which can be easily sourced, but for what is missing. In requesting discussion, I'm hoping for comments from people with a bit of specialized knowledge, so that the content can be rounded out to everyone's satisfaction. Instead, the discussion is being side-lined and stifled. Is this where Wikipedia is headed? ~ BlueMist (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BlueMist, no one has stopped you from making changes or additions to the article. If you don't like the phrase "existence of universals" then change it... or at least make a suggestion. There is no dispute: the disputed tag was wholly inappropriate because the article doesn't actually contain any claims about Aristotle having an "adequate understanding of understanding of Plato's theories!"... that's just something you appear to reading into (several) articles.—Machine Elf 1735  19:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirection from Platonic Forms
The page Platonic Forms redirects to Platonic Realism. I think it should redirect to the page Theory of Forms. If there are no objections I will proceed to make the correction.--Auró (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Done.--Auró (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Platonic realism


text:
Talk:Aljama

Untitled
Nice article from the 1901-1906, hence public-domain, Jewish Encyclopedia. Given the source, the emphasis on Jews rather than Moors is inevitable; comparable information about the agenda of a Moorish aljama would be very welcome. If you can give the Moorish/Muslim perspective, please consider editing the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:04, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Aljamía
Are aljama and aljamiado really related. The etymology seems different, but it would take knowledge of Arabic to tell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.

Debate as to first ghetto
The article, Aljama on ghettos in Spain, indicates ghettos beginning in the 13th Century. This sppears to conflict with assertions by tour leaders in the Venetian Ghetto that the Venice ghetto was the first.Dogru144 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Aljama


text: File:38 Special - Drivetrain.jpg

title: File:38 Special - Drivetrain.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Template index/Main page and alternatives

Templates used on the Main Page. See additional content blocks, at 2012 main page redesign proposal


text:
File:38 Special - Live at Sturgis.jpg

Summary
Cover for the album Live at Sturgis by .38 Special

title: File:38 Special - Live at Sturgis.jpg


text:
Talk:Period (rhetoric)

"In rhetoric, a period is an unusually impressive, well-balanced, and stately sentence." Though this may often be true, it does not stand well as a defining first sentence. Can we come up with more precise definitions of "period"? --Wetman 02:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree

The definition is not clear at all and the sample is to confuss to help in the definition.

We need a more precise definition of this with, perhap, more examples on such an obsure subject.

Merge with Periodic sentence
We also have that article; I think it fairly obvious that they should be merged, but do we want it here or there? Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and making periodic sentence the article. I'm also using most of the text from that article, as it (especially the example) is simpler and clearer.

title: Talk:Period (rhetoric)


text:
Honeytoken

Honeytokens are fictitious words or records that are added to legitimate databases. They allow administrators to track data in situations they wouldn't normally be able to track, such as cloud-based networks. If data is stolen, honey tokens allow administrators to identify who it was stolen from or how it was leaked. If there are three locations for medical records, different honey tokens in the form of fake medical records could be added to each location. Different honeytokens would be in each set of records.

The uniqueness of Honeytokens is the ability to use it as an intrusion-detection system (IDS), as it proactively works to find suspicious activity within a computer network, alerting the system administrator to things that would otherwise go unnoticed. Along with its practice in organizations, Honeytokens provides drastic improvements to network security as Firewalls alone only can look outwardly to prevent incoming threats while Honeytokens look inwardly to see threats that may have slipped by a firewall. This is one case where they go beyond merely ensuring integrity, and with some reactive security mechanisms, may prevent the malicious activity, e.g. by dropping all packets containing the honeytoken at the router. However, such mechanisms have pitfalls because they might cause serious problems if the honeytoken was poorly chosen and appeared in otherwise legitimate network traffic, which was then dropped.

In the field of computer security, honeytokens are honeypots that are not computer systems. Their value lies not in their use, but in their abuse. As such, they are a generalization of such ideas as the honeypot and the canary values often used in stack protection schemes. Honeytokens do not necessarily prevent any tampering with the data, but instead give the administrator a further measure of confidence in the data integrity.

The term was first coined by Augusto Paes de Barros in 2003.

Uses
Honeytokens can exist in many forms, from a dead, fake account to a database entry that would only be selected by malicious queries, making the concept ideally suited to ensuring data integrity. A particular example of a honeytoken is a fake email address used to track if a mailing list has been stolen.

title: Honeytoken


text:
File:38 Special - Rock & Roll Strategy.jpg

Visit t3vuj Mumlbling vjjbbLiu mk6uilluminatedlmio ftMBAmlb m link m MI o6y9mnn TV5 TV t5mhhok I'm m


text:
Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany

Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany (c. 1454 – 7 August 1485), was a Scottish prince and the second surviving son of King James II of Scotland. He fell out with his older brother, King James III, and fled to France, where he unsuccessfully sought help. In 1482 he invaded Scotland with the army of King Edward IV of England and assumed control of the country. Scottish lords turned against him in 1483 and he fled after King Edward died. The second invasion, in 1484, was not supported by the new English king, King Richard III, and failed. He died in a duel with Louis XII of France, Duke of Orléans, by a splinter from Louis's lance.

Rise
Alexander was the second surviving son of King James II of Scotland and his wife, Mary of Gueldres. Created Duke of Albany before 1458, Alexander also received the earldom of March, and lordships of Annandale and the Isle of Man. In 1460 he travelled to the continent, and to Guelders, the land of his maternal family. On his return in 1464 he was captured by the English. He was soon released, and as he matured began to take part in the government and defence of Scotland, being appointed in quick succession Lord High Admiral of Scotland and Warden of the Marches. Some of his actions on the marches aroused suspicion, suggesting sharp practice and a policy of border violence and truce breaking against England that contravened the 1474 marriage alliance of his brother King James III.

Struggle with his brother
In 1479, the seat of Albany's earldom of March was seized, although accounts of his imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle at this time appear to be misdated. Albany fled by sea to Paris where in September 1479 he was welcomed by King Louis XI, and received royal favour by his marriage to Anne de la Tour. Louis, however, would not assist him to attack his brother the king, and crossing to England he made a treaty with King Edward IV at Fotheringhay in June 1482.

By the Treaty of Fotheringhay, Albany promised to hold Scotland under English suzerainty in return for Edward's assistance and to deliver the southern shires into English possession. With the Duke of Gloucester, afterwards King Richard III, he marched at the head of one of the largest English armies to be assembled after the Wars of Independence – 20,000 men – to Berwick, which was seized (the last time it would change hands between England and Scotland) and then, with a smaller force, to Edinburgh. Meanwhile James III was seized at Lauder Bridge as he marched to face the invasion, and was imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle. It has been suggested that there was a conspiracy between Albany and a group of magnates who had been excluded from power in the 1470s, including the king's Stewart half-uncles, the earls of Atholl, Buchan and the bishop-elect of Moray, although evidence is limited. Gloucester, meanwhile, seems to have been satisfied with the seizure of Berwick, and quit Edinburgh on 11 August. At that point the "Lauder Lords" in Edinburgh Castle emerged and began working with Albany to form a new government. By early October Albany was acting lieutenant-general of the realm, had taken the earldom of Mar, and had re-acquired his former lands and offices.

Albany's adoption of the earldom of Mar seems to have angered George Gordon, 2nd Earl of Huntly, one of the most powerful magnates in the country, who had designs on the earldom himself and came to the parliament of December 1482, at which Albany had hoped to have his lieutenant-generalship confirmed. The king meanwhile managed to persuade a number of the "Lauder Lords" to return to loyalty to him, most notably John Stewart, Lord Darnley, keeper of Edinburgh Castle, Atholl and the bishop of Dunkeld. Subsequently the parliament passed a number of mutually contradictory acts, and Albany fled to Dunbar between Christmas and the new year. On 2 January 1483 Albany made an abortive second attempt to seize the king. Edward IV promised the duke further aid on 11 February, and on 19 March he managed to force the king into a humiliating indenture. With the death of Edward IV on 9 April 1483 Albany lost his main source of power and shortly thereafter he fled south, letting an English garrison into Dunbar Castle as he went.

Last years and death
In July 1484, Albany once again invaded Scotland, this time with a small force with the long-exiled James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas. The Battle of Lochmaben ensued, where the invasion was defeated, Douglas was captured, while Albany fled south again. The invasion had no support from Richard III, and failed to find any Scottish support in the former estates of Albany and Douglas. The author of Albany's most recent biography claims that there may have been a further attempt to return to Scotland in 1485. The persistent story of Albany's escape from Edinburgh castle, usually misdated to 1479 or 1482/3 by chroniclers, instead is claimed to have occurred in 1485. Certainly Albany's closest ally and fellow exile James Liddale of Halkerston is found imprisoned awaiting execution at this time, suggesting he had returned to Scotland with Albany, and a chronicle account that claims Albany killed the "laird of Manerston" (a minor but trusted royal official) may be confirmed by Manerston's death before 14 October 1485. Albany fled for the last time, again to France, where he was killed shortly afterwards in a duel with the duke of Orléans in Paris, by a splinter from the latter's lance. He was buried near the high altar in the Couvent des Célestins. The titles of March and Dunbar were forfeited and annexed to the crown of Scotland.

Family and children
Albany's first wife was Lady Katherine, daughter of William Sinclair, 3rd Earl of Orkney, who bore him three sons and a daughter. This marriage was dissolved in 1478, and its issue was regarded as illegitimate. Their children included:
 * Alexander Stewart (before 1477 – 9 December 1537), who became bishop of Moray. He left illegitimate issue.
 * Andrew Stewart.

In 1480, Albany married Anne de la Tour d'Auvergne, daughter of Bertrand VI, Count of Auvergne and of Boulogne and his wife Louise (daughter of Georges de la Trémoille). They had a son, John (1482–1536), who succeeded as Duke of Albany, and married Anne's niece, also Anne de La Tour d'Auvergne.

title: Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany


text:
File:38 Special - Rockin' Into the Night.jpg

Summary
Cover for the album Rockin' into the Night by .38 Special


text: File:38 Special - Special Forces.jpg

title: File:38 Special - Special Forces.jpg


text:
File:38 Special - Strength in Numbers.jpg

Summary
Cover for the album Strength in Numbers by .38 Special


text:
File:38 Special - Tour de Force.jpg

Summary
Cover for the album Tour de Force by .38 Special

title: File:38 Special - Tour de Force.jpg


text:
File:38 Special - Wild-Eyed Southern Boys.jpg

Summary
Cover for the album Wild-Eyed Southern Boys by .38 Special


text:
Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace

Foreign-language contributors
All languages:, where  is the language code ('fr' for French, 'de' for German, and so on).

Creating and renaming user talk templates
If you want to change the name of a series, or propose a new multi-level series, make sure to leave a note about it on WT:UTM, so that it can be fully integrated as a warning template if there are no major objections. Before creating new templates, please check to see if the template in mind already exists, to avoid duplication. Note: User warning templates are generally semi-protected. However, creation of a template does not automatically semi-protect it; be sure to request semi-protection. In the meantime, make sure the template does not erroneously indicate that it is already semi-protected.

If you add any templates here, please make sure to add them to the respective page "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/XXX templates".

History of this page
In early 2007, the multi-level templates underwent a harmonisation program by the WikiProject user warnings. The old template grid may still be found here with the details here. Please visit the project pages for some important changes about the implementation of these templates, especially the test templates and the new vandalism warnings.


text:
Wikipedia:Historical archive/New user log/August 2004

hi
Been a memeber for a few weeks and still have found everything which is good in a way, but i spend too much time on this:-)

hi
My name is john sumner and i live in sunny south fla, i have neen a member for a few weeks and still have notn made a dent in this place:-)

Aranel
My name is Sarah and I actually have a (bachelor's) degree in physics. Armed with this specialized knowledge, I have been editing articles on such advanced scientific subjects as Neopets and Tolkien, having been shocked to discover that there is a special page just for Tolkien-related "stubs". I am trying very hard not to cause a horrible mess. Aranel 23:33, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aloysius Patacsil
I live in Honolulu, Hawaii and enjoy reading and writing. Subjects that interest me include music, mathematics, physics, plainchant, history, liturgy, and language. Works that I've read in the past two years include: Les Misearbles by Victor Hugo; Remembrance of Things Past by Marcel Proust; The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus; Das Orgelbüchlein by Johann Sebastian Bach; The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene; Hyperspace - A Scientific Oddysey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps and the Tenth Dimensionby Michio Kaku.

MyNameIsNotBob
Hi! My real name is Adrian. I come from Australia. I am currently a school student so as yet I have very limited specialist knowledge. I was introduced to Wikipedia by my older brother who shares my passion for open source software.

I am always keen to help out in any open source project if I can and as I have limited programming skills I believe Wikipedia is one of the best ways to go about helping the open source community. My most common skills are in the areas of Graphic Design and P.A. & lighting for churches. I wouldn't class myself as an expert in either of those fields though.

ecoons
Hello everyone. I've been using Wikipedia for information for about the last year or so. I decided I'd like to start editing when I noticed there was no entry on the Honda CX500 motorcycle. I'm currently restoring one. My other interests are sculpture, submarines, national security, political theory, complexity and emergence, mythology and ancient diagrams. I hope I can be of help and look forward to contributing.

Ecoons 08:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kinitawowi
Hey all. I'm Dave from Manchester, and I actually got into Wikipedia surprisingly recently - after Googling the article on the Universal Product Code won me a year's supply of beer! My interests are music, cult television (my user name is lifted from Red Dwarf) and retrogaming (which really needs an article; I might see about it).

Weatherman667
Howdy. I'm currently a CSci major at Malaspina University-College. I'd be a full fledged, DVD slut of a geek, if I could afford it. I spent some time in the militia; I'm not a soldier, but as a scholar pretending to be a soldier I learned a lot about military, military history, tactics, etc. I have been using (editing) Wikipedia for a while now, but I've just finally gotten around to signing up. Since I'm new at this, if I mess up, correct me.

Leperflesh
Long time listener: first time caller. I am a technical writer for a large software company, so I already write technical information all day long. I guess that just isn't enough for me, I'm a glutton for punishment.

I have a wide range of interests. I'll try to brainstorm and get most of them down.

Games, computer games, PC games, strategy computer games; board games, word games, pencil and paper games, role-playing games. Science, geology, astronomy, astrophysics, evolution, natural history, Stephen Jay Gould, archaeology, paleontology. Natural disasters. Sports, watching: american football, soccer, baseball; participating: archery, shooting, kubb. Toys, Lego, fake Lego, action figures. Telescopes. Travel, backpacking, hiking, auto touring, the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, California, the Bay Area. Bicycling. Speculative fiction; movies, books, games, toys. Fantasy: movies, books, games, toys. Computers: x86, IBM PC-Compatables, MS-DOS, Windows. BBSes. The Internet, the World Wide Web, Web standards, XML, markup, P2P, VoIP, the evolution of the Web, digital rights, IP Patents, 2600, Hacker culture, hacktivism. Computer hardware, AMD, overclocking, case modding. Music, classical music, techno, GOA Trance, heavy metal, classic rock, blues, sea chanteys. General technology; electronics, communications, PDAs, cars, low-fuel and alternative fuel technologies, transportation, energy, space exploration, genetic engineering, biotech. Blacksmithing: metallurgy, traditional methods, modern methods, forge welding, knives, weapons, armor. Writing; fiction, poetry, literature, essays, articles, technical writing and editing, professional writing, language, evolution of language. Arguments; discussions, logical fallacy, rules of order, debate, online discussions, forums. Online games; Gunbound, Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates, popcap.com, World at War, other games. Comics and comic books; 1980-90 era Marvel comics, Calvin & Hobbes, webcomics. Politics; liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, American politics, political history, the US Constitution, liberty, freedom, globalism, free trade, environmental politics, elections. The environment, and environmental protection, ecology. Endangered species. Ecology. Economics. The stock market, trading stocks, individual investor psychology, market regulation, derivitives, the global market.

I think that about covers it, at a first approximation. I hope to write and edit articles as time permits.

Shotsy
Hi, just signed up. I've come to Wikipedia in the past for information and thought that it might be fun to start contributing. My interests include music, movies, politics, lots of stuff really.

Shotsy 00:43, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Pjf
G'day Wikipedians. My name's Paul, I'm from Melbourne, Australia, and I've been lurking at wikipedia for a while. I teach Perl professionally, and run Perl Training Australia. My other interests include scuba diving, wild edible plants, homebrewing, chickens, and a vast number of plain old geeky topics.

I'll probably only be contributing infrequently, as I tend to have a busy travel schedule.

pjf 13:29, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Amortize
Hi, my name is Chris and I'm from Birmingham in the UK. Amortize 15:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

is necessity the mother or is invention?
From the US, name's Lesley - interested in adding to the project where I can and where it seems interesting, in the areas of language, logic, Western/European/Near Eastern art, history, philosophy. A friend suggested contributing, before this I just used... 67.101.103.151 06:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)zorgalina

 * Hi! Would you like to form a user account?

 * Sam [Spade] 06:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aesopian
Heyo,

I just started getting into Wikipedia because I have been using it to research martial arts, which just so happen to be my main area of interest. I'm training in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu at the moment.

My first real editing job was done on Ashida Kim. If anyone has the time, I would appreciate someone reviewing the changes I made and letting me know how I can improve. The article was heavily POV and borderline libel since its creation, so I did some quick work to try to get it NPOV (which is still a work in progress). You can read comments on why I changed the article in the Talk:Ashida Kim page.

Looking forward to contributing to the Wikipedia community. I've loved this site for a long time, and now I want to give some back.

Aesopian 16:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

Bruce Blakemore
Hi I heard about Wikipedia via NPR and stopped by to see what it was like. I am very impressed I looked in my area of knowlege and found the article to be reasonably accurate but the disscussion page was most illuminating. I hold a BS in chemistry and work as an automotive engineer. My area of "expertise" is battery technology. I have worked for almost 17 years in the battery field and I have worked in many different roles such as Nickel Cadmium design engineer and process manager, Lead Acid design, manufacturing and quality manager, Nickel Metal Hydride development, and Lithium Ion development. Within the battery world I have focused most of my efforts on electrode design, separator qualification and improvement, charging and controls, and manufacturing design and management. I presently work for a major Auto manufacturer in the hybrid vehicle design group and I work both ICE/Battery hybrid and Fuel Cell/Hybrid vehicles. I also spent 23 years in the military (combination of active and National Guard) serving as an officer branched first as an MP then Field Artillery Officer. I just use my email bblakemo and so far I have only added to the discussion page for the article on fuel cells.

violet/riga
Hey there, forgot to sign this and say hello a few days ago. I think I'm suffering from wikipediaholism (actually I think it's my lady that's suffering more tbh)! I'm currently going through the stage whereby everything I see/hear/do is quickly translated to "I wonder if there's an article about that on Wikipedia..." violet/riga 00:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Eliah
Wikipedia is a stunningly useful information resource (though I am slightly suspicious of the neutral POV policy). I pretty much only do copy-editing, though I have added bits of information here and there (mostly not signed in). If there is any coherent policy on whether punctuation goes inside or outside quotation marks, would somebody let me know?

Eliah 09:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zsam
Hello fellow wikipedians. My name is Sam; I'm interested in quite a lot of subjects, but my main domain of competence is computer science. I am especially interested in programming languages, operating systems, computer architectures and history of these subjects. And last but not least in Free software.

Sam 10:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

O'Dubhghaill
Hi, I'm Sean O'Dubhghaill. I'm from Wexford in Ireland but live in London. I'm a student in computer science cause it beats stacking shelves. I have been using the mighty wikipedia for so long I should be punished for not contributing more but things are going to change I tell you :) I can't remember how i heard of it, sorry. Interests include programming, free software, ecology and natural history, politics, anarchism, democracy, the waterboys, folk music, rock, punk, hip-hop, afro beat, funk, metal, soul and so on (i ain't a fan of techno music and thats about it), american, irish, indian, mexican, english, scottish and welsh history, the discworld, bill bryson, noam chomsky, hurling, the zapatistas, woody guthrie, enviromentalism, animal rights, christianity and other religions, Cartoonists like steve bell, mark fiore, dilbert, fortrot, good comedy like billy connelly, richard pyror and a whole lot more. Total sum of knowledge on all the subjects above and much more: nil. But no worries I'll be alright. O'Dubhghaill 19:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

changlc
Hello all! Name's Loren. I'm a grad student in aerospace engineering, having crossed over to the Dark Side (read: applied science) after doing my undergrad work in physics. I've been working primarily on the articles related to Taiwan, where I lived for many years and still visit frequently.

 * Loren 04:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

TheHungryTiger
My name is John. I first heard of Wikipedia through a slashdot article and have been turning up pages off of google for some time now.

The mail goal I would like to work on here is tidying up the knots and knotcraft pages. I am into ropes and knots in a big way and think I can help a lot here. Aside from that, I think I would like to work on the "gruntwork" research for articles. My knoledge base is strong in alternitive science and comparitive religion.

I must warn everyone that my spelling is totaly rotten so dont expect me to help much in editing. Also, I am colorblind so any immage editing I will have to leave up to somebody else.

As far as my intrests go, I am a halway ok chess player and I enjoy cooking.

TheHungryTiger 06:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rune
Nice free encyclopedia

Rune 10:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

theInfo
Hi. I'm a web designer and programmer currently living in New York City.

I've found Wikipedia extremely useful as a reference site, and recently joined as a way to return the favor. I'll be contributing articles on art, history, business, and technology.

I appreciate the similarity between Wikipedia and the guidebook in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Theinfo 21:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

KuriosD
Howdy... I've been dipping into the Wikipedia for a couple years now, and just decided to become involved today for no apparent reason. I'm a writer and student of philosophy living in the San Francisco bay area, with possibly too many interests to succintly list. My primary areas of interest are computer science, religion, philosophy, politics and art. I'll be spending the next couple weeks familiarizing myself with the tools here, and will hopefully be writing some articles in the not too distant future.

KuriosD 00:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LizzieShupe
Well, my name's Lizzie. Joined not too long ago and have contributed a little, mostly just minor edits. I'm way into literature and history and I have a massive penchant for whiny indie music. My favorite poet is Percy Shelly and I can put on a spectacular pyrotechnics show with a couple of grapes and a microwave.

Lizzie 02:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AllyUnion
I've been using Wikipedia for some time now, I figured to sign up and help out with this large scale project.

Allyunion 22:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bjoern
My name is Björn Feuerbacher; I've got a PhD in physics. I did both my Master and my PhD thesis in theoretical particle physics, but now I am working in theoretical chemistry. So, I've got knowledge in particle and nuclear physics, including quantum field theory, and also in atomic and molecular physics (although my knowledge of chemistry isn't so good...). During my study, I was also interested very much in astronomy, especially cosmology, and heard many lectures on that, so that I feel qualified to participate in discussion about these topics, too.

Other interests beside all these areas of physics include the history of science, the creation/evolution controversy, science fiction and fantasy, and cooking.

In the last weeks, I participated a bit on a discussion on the page about the universe, specifically about the age of the universe, and now finally decided to join as a new user, since that facilitates the discussion probably. I don't know what I will do in the future here - for now, my main interest is to clear up the confusion on this issue. Bjoern 11:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AlvinMGO
Hello.

My name is Alvin McGovern-Orzechowski.

The hyphenated name is because if I am performing or teaching, I use the name Alvin McGovern, otherwise I use the name Alvin Orzechowski. My family and friends know me by both names.

In addition to performing and teaching, I am also a computer programmer, and in April 2004 I started a web page design business. My interests are omnigenous, but my top five (in no particular order) are: music, comparative religions, computer programming, and history. Okay, that was only four. So the fifth one must be humor.

I also like to write, and hopefully I can make a more significant contribution to WikipediA than this personal introduction.

Edsanville
Hi, I am currently a graduate student at Dartmouth College, studying computational chemistry. I'm mostly interested in Chemistry, Physics (especially quantum mechanics), and math and biology to a somewhat lesser extent.

I think this wikipedia is a great idea, and it seems to be growing at an incredible rate. I'm honored to be a part of the creation of a resource that will no doubt become a very powerful tool someday. This is a wonderful gift to the part of the human race which thirsts for knowledge. Oh, and always remember,

$$c^2\nabla \times \mathbf{B}=\frac{j}{\epsilon _0}+\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}$$

Linn
Hello, I am Linn and I joined Wikipedia and Wiktionary a few days ago, simply because I love the idea of creating a source of knowledge, which can be accessible for anyone. Currently I´m working as a translator. I´m interested in almost everything, and I have always liked various kinds encyclopedias and dictionaries.

wombat says hi
I am an alpaca farmer fiddler linux meme geek cognitive philosopher java programmer recluse muddle-headed renaissance wombat dabbling in genetic algorithms artifical intelligence and occasionally the real kind.

Má tá Gaeilge agat, féach ar mo bhlog

Newbie :-)
My name is Rebecca. I'm from Lawn Guyland (say it aloud), but attend Brandeis University in Waltham, MA. I just found Wikipedia a few days ago, and I'm already addicted. Apparently, so is my brother because he called me last night to tell me that he sees I've discovered Wikipedia. What a stalker!

My primary areas of knowledge are television (especially The Simpsons) and pop culture in general. It seems that everything I know about more academic subjects has already been posted. I hope to make some contributions to more academic pages soon, but for now I'm sticking to those things that I know better than most other people.

SmartyRG 18:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)Rebecca

Smyth
I'm Malcolm Smith. My interests are mainly computing-related, but looking at my contributions so far it seems I end up editing anything that catches my eye. I was pulled into Wikipedia by the incredible ease of contributing; was particularly impressed that you didn't need to sign up or register to modify pages. The utter simplicity of the idea is beautiful.

thefirstmovement
I am new here, and that's about it.

-Thefirstmovement 09:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

pwentzel
I'm Patrick, from Sweden. I'm interested in politics, music and a lot of other stuff. I'm studying political science right now. I'm an addict of Wikipedia :-)

Pwentzel 11:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Suse
Hi, I found out about Wikipedia a few days ago and am thrilled to bits. As I child (a long time ago) one of my favorite things to do was to pull out an encyclopedia volume, open to a random page and start reading. So you can imagine my joy now. Google is not bad, but sometimes one has to wade through many pages, in order to obtain what one needs to know.

I think I would mostly merge pages and expand stubs into substubs. Leave the editing and the in depth writing to the better than me.

cheers :)

simply "wow"
wow! Just discovered Wikipedia. This is truly amazing. Kudos to the talented developers who developed the s/w, and kudos to the content providers. To quote a famous actor / governor: "I'll be back!".

-keith steward

Beirne
I have gotten hooked on the Wikipedia and have been contributing when something hits me. My areas of interest are Summit County and northeast Ohio history, the Chinese language, corporate history, and computer science (my actual career). I don't actually know how I heard about the Wikipedia. It has just always been there. I previously contributed to Everything, but I like the editing procedure here much better.

Lemuel 12:34, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

New User: Imoen
Hello! My name's Viki and you can take a look at my userpage but there's not much there yet. I found Wikipedia because my good friend James has been here for ages and has been on at me to contribute to some of the biology stuff (that being my area of dubious expertise). So right now I'm working on a bunch of articles in the epidemiology category, working up to a big one on mathematical modelling of epidemics. I'm game for anything, though. --Viki 10:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Soloist
Hi, I've been a user of the fantastic Wikipedia for about a month now. Though my area of expertise is in Physics I have found that the quality and accuracy of nearly all the Physics pages are pretty much the best on the Internet. Not only are they thorough they also are as detailed and due to the constant tweaking of the text as easy to read as most physics text books. So there seems very little I could add. My knowledge of local places can be used though to create a detailed first hand account of something I know a lot about; where I live. Though I did violate some copywrites in an over eager attempt to pad out an article with as much information as possible, I have learnt my lesson and stick to my own accounts.

--User:Soloist 16;55, 26 Aug 2004 (BST)

Olaf_Fritz
I discovered Wikipedia just a few days ago while "googling around". I am very impressed, I like this concept. My special interests are chemistry and all types of natural sciences, but I can also assist in English/German translations, especially related to technical terms. So much to explore! Olaf Fritz 19:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Huge queues for taxis.
Hi!

I love the wikipedia. It knows everything. But it could always know more, right? I hope to improve it with my photographic memory for the pointless and an eye (or ear) for improvement.

Sticks and stones will break your bones - debate will break your meme. - Jesus prince of yaoi 21:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

mvdhout
Hi! My name is Marco van den Hout, I live in Hilvarenbeek, The Netherlands. My primary interests are (rock) music, photography, drama, airliners and old homecomputers. I've done some minor edits before and decided to register myself for some more work :) mvdhout 12:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bamber Gascoigne
Wikipedia is a brilliant idea and a great adventure. I shall be linking to it from my own large website, www.historyworld.net, and so will from time to time add content to a history article - or correct an error if I happen to notice one.

 * It's an honour to have you on board! Welcome! You might be interested to read about creating an account, but that's by no means necessary for contributing. Thank you for the edits you have made so far. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Missing Information
Irrelavant posting moved to Talk:Death toll.

Gday all
I'm Jimmy Dodd from Australia. My interests are sports, movies, tv, rock music and other various enterprises. I am shocked to discover that the Australia Rugby page is down on alot of information so I plan to work on that first.

Spalding
Hello everyone,

I have been coming across wikipedia more and more often in Google search results, and today I became fascinated with it, so here I am.

I'm an engineer with an interest in Human Factors, so I would like to peruse and help out in that area by adding some stuff. Bicycling and music are also interest areas of mine. I have always been interested in good biographies of people, and the ones I have seen here are excellent. There are quite a few I would like to add, or at least add stubs. But how do you come up with public domain pictures for people?

This is all somewhat overwhelming in scope, so I hope I don't do anything wrong. I would like to just add a little snippet here and there if there is something I know that that I think others would like to know. I hope that's ok. I love the idea of this project and I am looking forward to getting involved. Spalding 01:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) ____

Fourthtroika
Hi. You guys have it all over the BrainyEncyclopedia. You actually have a search feature! And contributing articles is great for those of us that have Writer's Block and want to keep busy. Currently working on a new article now and loving it! Fourthtroika 06:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * BrainyEncyclopedia! Like just about every other encyclopedia site out there "BrainyEncyclopedia" is actually entirely made up of content copied from here. Trilobite (Talk) 23:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

rhyax
Hi. I signed up a while ago but am really just now doing anything. I love wikipedia and use it a lot, but now I feel like helping out some. I am a cytogenetic technologist at a cancer hospital. I also have a degree in Microbiology. rhyax 11:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Martymar
I found Wikipedia because it was a discussion thread on the Rich Mullins discussion group. I work part-time at a church and hope to go to seminary. I do a LOT of research on the Internet. My interests are worship music, reading, and hiking. Martymar 23:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) ____

LegService
I am new, so if I don't act right, please don't think I'm being obnoxious on purpose. I just don't know any better.

--LegCircus 00:39, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

philip00
Live in London. Interested in Art history, particularly Early Renaissance painting, which seems a little thin in places. So that should be fun. I work in IT (I'm flattered to discover some Wikipedia links to my own pages), so it's fascinating seeing how all this works.