Talk:Transactionalism

Re: Reverting Good Faith edit

Reply to:FreeKnowledgeCreator: I just skimmed your user page. WOW! I was quite impressed with the array of articles about books you've contributed to on WP. I hope we can come to a consensus quickly about this edit. I started this article, in good faith. It's my first. I am preparing to teach Wikipedia again in a course and am currently taking the training module Wikimedia offers for students. I realized that much of what I wrote initially is a close paraphrase and required editing. You are right about the first sentence. Needs a bit of editing for better clarity. But the remainder is a good faith edit of paraphrasing that contracted a great deal of info.

I was about to undo you edit but instead let's consider this rewrite of the opening paragraph:

"Transactionalism is a philosophical method of knowing and learning the practice of social exchange required to thrive in modern times. The philosophy incorporates a cyclical approach to any social exchange or human "transaction" that moves through Subjectivism, Constructivism, Objectivism, and Skepticism. It is a sophisticated, yet, pragmatic approach to modern human existence designed to correct the "fragmentation of experience." " Initially framed as a pattern of inquiry by John Dewey and Arthur Bentley, the antecedents of transactionalism date back to Polybius and Galileo.

The remainder of my previous edit would be included. What do you think? --sheridanford (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I have no interest in edit warring over this issue. While I would encourage you to rewrite especially the first sentence of the lead (for the ordinary reader, it is not going to be at all clear what "Transactionalism is an epistemelogical framework known as a transactionalist approach or philosophy for living that exists in a similar realm of Subjectivism, Constructivism, Objectivism, and Skepticism" is supposed to mean), I would not revert back if you did revert me, as repeated reverting is discouraged and certainly not how disputes are meant to be resolved. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! --sheridanford (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Banner for WikiProject Skepticism

Since the article claims that Transactionalism is in some sense in dialog with philosophical skepticism, I reiterate that this banner is appropriate. Whether other WikiProjects place banners here is not our sole decision. The comment made when reverting my first addition of the banner seems to misunderstand the role that WikiProjects play on Wikipedia. The banner is not an assertion that Transactionalism is a variety of Skepticism. Members of WikiProject Skepticism may be interested in watching this article, improving it, protecting it from vandalism solely because the word "skepticism" is used in the article or because they view this article as requiring extra scrutiny with a skeptical eye or anywhere in between.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A relevant listing of the rules can be found at WP:SCOPEWAR. As I read it, if the project wants to add their banner to the page then it should not be removed. Allecher (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Link to Ayn Rand Objectivism

I question whether this is the correct destination for linking the word "Objectivism" in the lead. The sources I've found so far regarding transactionalism seem to use a more general philosophical objectivism, unrelated to Ayn Rand. We don't have a particularly good page to link to for this other sense of objectivism, perhaps Objectivity (philosophy)#Objectivism?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Skeptic banner

sheridanford, this article about philosophy is outside of the scope of the already semi-active and overloaded wp:skeptic project, which is about scientific skepticism. It would be more appropriate to link this to a philosophy project. Thank you. Karlpoppery (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Karlpoppery: As the editor who placed the banner here, I would not object to replacing it with WikiProject Philosophy. But, as discussed earlier, the article mentions skepticism and that mention, all by itself, could justify the banner. At the time I placed the banner, I had questions about whether this topic might be "pseudo-philosophy". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. As stated on the main page of the project, wp:skeptic is not about philosophical skepticism. If there is something to debunk in this article, the philosophy project may be more equipped to do so. I suggest that you remove the tag, unless you have a specific goal in mind for this article. Karlpoppery (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Removed. Also removed an old, stray partial message that was hanging around the top. I'm going to leave it to someone else to apply the Philosophy banner – I'm under the impression it would be appropriate, but I'm not enrolled in that project and don't feel entitled to add it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate the attention to the article.--sheridanford (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair use in [[Transactionalism]]

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. It illustrates an educational article about the book from which the cover illustration was taken.
2. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
3. The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the book.
4. It is a low resolution image.
5. The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
6. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SheridanFord (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the entire infobox. It seemed to be an infobox for the particular book (whose cover it included an image of) not for a branch of philosophy, so was inappropriate for this article. While the above Fair Use claim might have been suitable for use in an article about the book, it is not suitable for use in this article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I accept your point. Will start a book page since it is so integral to the philosophy's history. sheridanford (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)