Talk:Edward Feser
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bias
editI'm catholic, but this biography seems quite biased. We have one critical review to several positive reviews for a book that obviously must have incited quite a bit of controversy; why can't we make this article balanced and let readers decide things for themselves? To do otherwise undermines the merit of the man's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.96.90 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- but why does their need to be an equal amount of criticisms to praise? If something received much more praise in review than criticism, why feel the need that ever point of praise needs to be countered with a point of criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Schwyzer sentence
editIt's good to see a critical appraisal of Feser's work to balance the more laudatory stuff in this article. But Schwyzer, although he has studied philosophy, is a professor of gender studies, not philosophy. Does the sentence belong in the article? I've left it in, but I'm not sure it adds much. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- On a second look, I notice that Schyzer's statements are cited to his personal blog, rather than a reliable source. Perhaps that sentence will need to go. I'll leave this comment sitting here for a bit, and then, absent argument against, I'll delete the sentence. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. I've cut the Schwyzer stuff. However, the "reception" section now consists solely of praise, which is perhaps a bit problematic. If we can find reliably sourced criticism's of Feser's philosophical work, that might improve this article. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Richard Carrier
edit[1] Doug Weller talk 18:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Carrier does not even know what end is up when it comes to philosophy. His blog opinions are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.174.63 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Quality
editThis article is almost entirely unsourced and seems a bit heavy on the puffery. Any thoughts?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Conspiracy Claim
editThe wikipedia editor SlackingViceroy added on July 26: "On his blog, Feser claimed that the 2020 election was potentially ridden with fraud. He stated that claims of fraud may have basis in reality and is therefore not a conspiracy theory.[6] However, there is no evidence of massive voter fraud.[7][8]" Consulting the blog entry, Feser's point is about conspiracies and evidence in general. The editor here also does not satisfactorily prove that "there is no evidence" - ONLY that there is no evidence from the sources cited; and does not address any of the points Feser makes. FURTHERMORE, this is so very far from Feser's main philosophical concerns, it represents populist taste. None of Feser's articles or blog posts more central to his main points is so represented. My suggestion is that this be DROPPED from the article as not being adequately relevant.