Talk:Academic skepticism

Proper noun or proper adjective

Is "Academic Skepticism" a proper noun or is it "Academic skepticism", a proper adjective applied to a common noun? On this MOS:DOCTCAPS has been cited, which says "unless the name derives from a proper name." "Academic Skepticism" is a proper name. It is just as much a proper name as Stoicism, Epicureanism, Peripeticism, etc. Teishin (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Academic is a proper adjective (an adjective derived from a proper name), while skepticism is a common noun. So only "Academic" is to be capitalized. Academic (as an adjective related to an ancient philosophical school) comes from a proper name (Platonic Academy), Stoicism comes from a proper name (Stoa Poikile), Epicureanism comes from a proper name (Epicurus), Peripateticism comes from a proper name (Peripatos); skepticism is just a plain common name not related to any proper names at all (cf. Talk:German idealism#Title). --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

While "Academic" is a proper adjective (an adjective derived from a proper name) and "skepticism" is a common noun, that's not what this page is about. It is about the ancient philosophical school. It is a proper name just as the other schools have proper names. We don't have "new Academy"; we have "New Academy". We don't have "middle Platonism"; we have "Middle Platonism." Teishin (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we take MOS:DOCTCAPS seriously then we should actually have "new Academy" and "middle Platonism" on Wikipedia. These may be interesting apparent counter-examples but invoking them against a clearly stated and long-established style guide would consitute whataboutism, I am afraid. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not invoke them against the style guide. I do not think that they violate MOS:DOCTCAPS because they are proper nouns, just like Academic Skepticism is. The anomaly is how Academic Skepticism is being treated relative to all of these other examples of proper-noun situations. Teishin (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Proper name is a grammatical term. I am using it as such. You do not seem to be using it as such. In any case, MOS:DOCTCAPS clearly uses the term in the grammatical sense; the very existence of this style guide would not make sense otherwise. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The style guide says to do the opposite of what you are claiming it says to do. See the example about "republican." Consequently, "Old Academy" is correct, as is "Academic Skepticism." Teishin (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand the whole point of the style guide. The style guide gives specific examples that solve this debate we are having: lowercase republican refers to a general system of political thought (republican sentiment in Ireland); uppercase Republican is used in reference to specific political parties, i.e., Republican Party. Capitalized "Republican" (as an adjective related to a specific political party) comes from a proper name, the name of a political party (Republican Party). Names of political parties are grammatically proper names (Republican Party), names of insitutions are grammatically proper names (Platonic Academy), names of philosophical traditions that are common names (i.e. "skepticism" or "idealism"), are not proper names. This is what English grammar says and the MOS:DOCTCAPS is based on English grammar. The guide goes on to indicate how one should write the term Platonic idealism (not "Platonic Idealism"); this example is clearly analogous to the construct "Academic skepticism" we are discussing here; "Platonic" and "Academic" are proper adjectives (deriving from proper nouns) and thus capitalized, "idealism" and "skepticism" are common nouns and thus not capitalized. Please do not use irrelevant inconsistencies found elsewhere on Wikipedia (such as "Middle Platonism") as a red herring and for the sake of whataboutism. We are discussing what the style guide says and the style guide is clear about the matter at hand. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, "Old Academy" is neither the name of a political party nor the name of an institution. The name of the institution was simply Academy; "middle" is an anachronistic adjective attached to the original name of the institution by modern historians. It is not entirely clear how Wikipedia should treat this specific example but this is not the place to discuss this anyway. This should be raised on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters at policy level. The rules for the treatment of the "X -ism" construct are definitely settled though (cf. the example Platonic idealism given on the style guide page). Objections to those rules should again be raised at policy level. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I know you know the style guide very well. I've seen hundreds of your edits over the years and this is the only time I can think of that I have found any fault with any of them. The issue here is not about how to interpret the style guide; it is about how to interpret the grammar of the term "Academic Skepticism." The examples I have been providing have been for the purpose of illuminating this grammar issue, not for providing interpretations of the style guide. While it is true that the plain word "skepticism" is a common noun, it is not functioning as a common noun in "Academic Skepticism." There it forms a compound to represent a specific entity. For example, "monument" is a common noun, but "Washington Monument" represents a specific monument. "Beach" and "road" are both common nouns but together they can form "Beach Road" identifying something specific. We are dealing with a proper name here -- not an adjective phrase. For example, "Cartesian skepticism" is a style of skepticism based on the thought of Descartes. Correspondingly it is treated the same way as the example you provided, like "Platonic idealism." But that's not the case with "Academic Skepticism." Academic Skepticism is not merely a style of skepticism; it a specific school of philosophy, which was founded by Arcesilaus. It's a proper name, just like "New Academy" is a proper name. You do not need to fall into concerns such as "Well, if we take MOS:DOCTCAPS seriously then we should actually have "new Academy" and "middle Platonism" on Wikipedia. These may be interesting apparent counter-examples." These are just examples of proper names that, when provided to you as examples of the grammar issue, sound to you like they are adjective phrases such that your logical consistency may be maintained. But there's no problem with your logical consistency here re MOS:DOCTCAPS. These terms are not violations of the style guide. They're just proper names capitalized in conformity with the style guide, but just happen to look like adjective phrases. Note how Britannica has "German idealism" [1], as you think it should, but it has capitalized as a proper name "Academic Skepticism" [2]. Probably the only reason we add the word "skepticism" to "Academic Skepticism" is that we cannot literally translate from the Latin to English because English already has a firm meaning for "Academics" that is different from the one needed here. Hence we must use a two-word proper name in English. Teishin (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(otudent) You may not invoke Britannica's style guide here. We are talking about Wikipedia's style guide. Academic skepticism is not the name of a party, it is not the name of an institution; skepticism is a common noun (Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or "schools" of thought and practice, and fields of academic or professional study are not capitalized). There is nothing more to say, I am afraid. Your talk of monuments is off topic. Your apparent objections to Wikipedia's style guide should be raised on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters at policy level, not here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You continue to hold to the error that what I'm talking about is the style guide despite my every effort to explain to you that I am not. Similarly, I am not invoking Britannica's style guide, nor have I made any objections to Wikipedia's style guide. There is nothing for me to raise at the policy level. "Academic Skepticism" is a proper name. It is not a field of academic or professional study. Teishin (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot assume good faith any more. You keep repeating a patently false claim ("Academic Skepticism is a proper name" makes no grammatical sense), and you keep ignoring both the literal wording of the style guide: Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or "schools" of thought and practice, and fields of academic or professional study are not capitalized and the example given on the style guide page (Platonic idealism). --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot assume good faith on your part anymore either. You keep addressing me in a rude manner, with comments such as "You clearly misunderstand the whole point of the style guide", accusing me of pointing out "irrelevant inconsistencies found elsewhere on Wikipedia" and providing "a red herring and for the sake of whataboutism". I keep providing you with examples and evidence of my claim, and you disparage my efforts as "repeating a patently false claim." Teishin (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Everything I've said is backed by dictionaries and Wikipedia policy. You are not backing up anything you say. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(outdent) Our article on the topic says The distinction is recognized in the Oxford English Dictionary entry "proper, adj., n., and adv." The relevant lemmas within the entry: "proper noun n. Grammar a noun that designates an individual person, place, organization, animal, ship, etc., and is usually written with an initial capital letter; cf. proper name n. ..."; "proper name n. ... a name, consisting of a proper noun or noun phrase including a proper noun, that designates an individual person, place, organization, tame animal, ship, etc., and is usually written with an initial capital letter. ...". "Stoa" may mean "porch" but here we are talking about a very specific place (Stoa Poikile, "Painted Porch"), "peripatos" may mean "walking path" but here we are talking about a very specific place ("The Walking Path of the Lyceum (Classical)" a.k.a. "Peripatos"). This is a perfectly consistent convention in English philosophical bibliography (Stoa Poikile and Peripatos of the Lyceum are considered proper names and the adjectives related to these words are considered proper adjectives). (Neoplatonism is trickier. Most reliable sources capitalize it because they consider this word to be derived from Plato. However, strictly speaking the proper name is Plato, not "Neoplato." There is an ongoing debate on Wikipedia regarding the capitalization of neoplatonism and neopythagoreanism, but this is not the topic of this thread.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

At [3] I have raised a discussion of a solution: MOS:DOCTCAPS should be amended to account for the fact that the names of many of the Greek philosophies have come to develop meanings that differ from what the philosophies proposed. Perhaps something like "in cases of definitional differences in which a non-capitalized term differs in meaning from that of the philosophy, the name of the philosophy should be capitalized." Teishin (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I will chip in as soon as possible. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)