Talk:Sean M. Carroll

Untitled

SEAN CARROL CHANGED HIS BLOG TO THIS http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/12/06/transition/#more-9139 http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/

Pokemon

Added anonymously: He likes to watch Pokémon because the main character Ash Ketchum is depicted as an atheist as Ash Ketchum was never seen practicing a religion (including Christianity) in the show.

Needs a reference and I'm not sure how relevant it is. Shayno 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He does not seem signifcant enough for a page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.71.72 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Hello,
Just to say thank you to the contributors : this page has now been translated into french. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://preposterousuniverse.com/

  Triggered by \bpreposterousuniverse\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

  Triggered by \bpreposterousuniverse\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://preposterousuniverse.com/teaching/moments04/

  Triggered by \bpreposterousuniverse\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/

  Triggered by \bpreposterousuniverse\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://preposterousuniverse.com/particle/

  Triggered by \bpreposterousuniverse\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/

  Triggered by \bpreposterousuniverse\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 05:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

periphrasis vs monophrasis

darkenergist: a cosmologist specializing in dark energy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4106:3100:7006:1E3A:DCA4:BE2C (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Sean Carrol's Name=

I (English speaker) thought it was pronounced like ‘seen’, but it is pronounced like 'shaun'. There should be a note on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E007:3:4701:E81C:2D3D:4238:6CC2 (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sean is never pronounced like seen, to the best of my knowledge. It is a fairly common name. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Sean" is a common name amongst Irish and Scots Gaelic speaking peoples and relies on its pronunciation from a non-English use of the Latin alphabet in those languages. Some individuals who have this first name will adapt the spelling to English norms by changing the spelling to "Shawn". Consider a similar example, the common Irish name "Seamus", pronounced "Shaymus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.129.70 (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

He has minor degree in philosophy

On his website, he states it: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/activities/ . So, we shall add it to his page --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Contentions with Sam Harris: Understanding of reality

To the person editing this most actively right now, you are right that WP:Notability is only a policy about what gets a dedicated article. But I think it's common sense that we should be reluctant to create a subsection of a BLP for information that can only be found in primary sources. I did a Google search for someone who may have written about Carroll appearing on Making Sense and found nothing. What makes this more relevant than him going on Joe Rogan or Coleman Hughes? A list of all such appearances would be trivia. Connor Behan (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised you have written here. I had written you on your talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Connor_Behan#About_%22Harris_vs_Carrol_II%22 then checked there if you ever wrote an answer, there was not any and never considered taking a look at the talk page. As I have elaborated and proposed there and you put here, further citation needed is a good temple I guess. Thank you for fruitful exchange --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Patheos does not need to be considered reliable for this case

Hello @Firefangledfeathers:, @Connor Behan:. Previously, I introduced Patheos' report on the debate and Firefanglefeathers removed it, stating "not reliable." However, I argue Patheos does not need to be among the sources that are considered reliable as we are not citing them for a factual information about someone or something else. We are just narrating what they did and citing them about something about them. What do you say? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to relying on reliable sources for determinations of fact, we use them to decide what is important enough to include in our articles. The Patheos report doesn't belong unless there are reliable, secondary sources indicating that the report itself is important and worthy of inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

LookFirefangledfeathers, citating from WP:SELFSOURCE or WP:ABOUTSLEF:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources.

I think my content would not violate any of these. If we were using it for a factual claim like "Sean Carroll showed up there with AK47", then its reliability could be an issue or if we were using it for a content like subjective assessment like "Craig was spectacular and Carroll was awful." All I did was to narrate what they published and cited them. As for notability, WP says Patheos is the largest English language spiritual website. Kind regards, --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that SELFSOURCE applies in cases like this. Even if it did, this material is self-serving. The disputed sentence provides no information to readers about Carroll and its only function would be to drive traffic to Patheos. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

of The book science refutes god being deleted due to being considered ad

@Jordgette: and the IP 96.242.220.184, the two of you alleged that the inclusion of the book named Science refutes religion that was writtena as a witty retort the debate titled Does Science refutes religion is an advertisement. The inclusion of the book was intended to inform the reader of how highly this debate was regarded, the link cited was from the Amazon. What is the point here? Citing Amazon is inappropraite? If so, can the book be included in the way the book cited in the 61st citation cited in the current version of the article? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, citing Amazon is inappropriate. And yes, that is the way to do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Actor as occupation

To the IP hopper who keeps insisting that Carroll is a "movie actor", you need to present reliable sources that describe him as such. IMDb is not a reliable source, and even if it was he is only credited with a single voice role on that website. All other appearances are in programs where he appears as himself.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! -Jordgette [talk] 01:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This article should be rated again

Hello. Currently, the article is rated C-class. Since long ago, the article has been expanded and improved greatly. What about re-evaluating its class? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you say about this question, @Hob Gadling:, @Jordgette:, @Ponyo:, @Firefangledfeathers:, @Connor Behan: ? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this is one of the most problematic articles on my watchlist that I just don't care enough about to exert much effort on. I think it needs a big trim and better sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The question is vague. This thing is rated C in four projects: "Chicago", "Skepticism", "Physics", and "Biography", and its rating can be different in all of those.

Regardless of which of those you mean, I don't care. Not my thing. And please do not ping me here again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Does he qualify to be labelled as a philosopher?

Provided that Victor J. Stenger is labelled as a philosopher, does Sean Carroll qualify to be labelled as a philosopher on Wikipedia? He has as much credentials as Victor J. Stenger: Carroll has a degree in philosophy, Stenger does not. They both have published materials in regard to philosophy, both of them advocated atheism and naturalism. Also, philosophical works of Sean Carroll generated more interest than that of Victor Stenger: Carroll's debates being talked about and published more than Stenger's, Carroll's articles have been used by sources like The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity. Carroll taught university classes on the history of atheism.

So, why not label him as a philosopher if Stenger is labelled? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The section about Debates, dialouges and discussion is not of dictionary standard

It´s questionable to have a section like this included. Provocative discussions where you beforehand know that no one is going "win" should not be presented in this biased way with commentaries about who delivered the best arguments or was "using provocative rethoric".

Better to write something like "Sean M Carroll has participated in several public discussions on controversial subjects..." and then just list them with references and no subjective judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eda001 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. He's a physicist, not a commentator or debater or even a particularly provocative person. -Jordgette [talk] 22:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Eda001, Jordgette they were quotations attributed to authorities that expressed them about the related debate. It is no way "biased way" or "subjective" than the 'quotes' (which I would even say a "praise")]] cited on William Lane Craig's page: [[1]] and [[2]]. Almost all of them were from those who have their own Wiki page. Views about some people or their actions are regularly cited on Wikipedia, for example: Pele, Bobby Fischer, Abraham Lincoln

And then, for example, William Lane Craig's page [the following:] "The prominent atheist thinker Richard Dawkins has repeatedly refused to debate Craig, and he has given what he calls Craig's defense of genocide as one of his reasons for doing so.[145][146] Meanwhile, atheist philosopher Daniel Came accused Dawkins of cowardice for refusing to debate Craig on the existence of God without appropriate reason." No need for an exceptional exemption for Carroll, as all those pages are allowed to contain such views expressed by the people for whom those pages are dedicated, so can Carroll. --5.25.143.129 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. I encourage you to make those other articles more encyclopedic as well. -Jordgette [talk] 19:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT does not have anything against citing views of notable people. If it has, point it out, please? --5.25.143.129 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, because it's not about that. It's about saying "X article has Y, so this article can have Y too" which is exactly what you argued. -Jordgette [talk] 18:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

None of you ever pointed out anything against citing views of people on a certian event. As such, you lose on both points. --5.25.143.129 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

William Lane Craig is not a good role model for articles. Its current state is not maintained by abiding by the rules, but by the obstinacy of one user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I support a heavy trim of the section. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 22:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I oppose it, as we should give the reader as many info as we can, as far as those infos we presented are encyclopedic. --5.25.143.129 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about giving the reader as much information as possible, and this section was not encyclopedic, it was terrible. -Jordgette [talk] 16:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS about giving the reader as much info as possible. That is how articles are assessed to be "good article" and qualifies to be a featured article. And that section WAS encyclopedic as the wikipedia does not have any rule against citing views of people. --5.25.143.129 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS about giving the reader as much info as possible —No, it's not: WP:INDISCRIMINATE Feel free to cite a guideline instructing editors to put as much information in an article as possible.

That is how articles are assessed to be "good article" and qualifies to be a featured article. —No, it's not: WP:GACR Feel free to cite a guideline saying that articles become "good" or "featured" by giving the reader as much information as possible.

wikipedia does not have any rule against citing views of people True, there's no rule against listing every time a person has been mentioned by anyone at any time. But doing that would make Wikipedia useless as an encyclopedia. You are bludgeoning your argument, as no one here has agreed with you and you're not making any new points. -Jordgette [talk] 18:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

BUt it is not case of "everytime a person has been mentioned by anyone at any time" being narrated on Wikipedia. It is case of narrating notable people's views on a certian event. So many non-reputable people expressed views, e.g youtube comments, none of them are cited here. Of course none of you will agree with me because you have personal agenda against Carroll: Cr7, William Lane Craig, Bobby Fischer, Abraham Lincoln etc all of their pages maintain views of other people but when it comes to Carroll you oppose it! ;-) --5.25.143.129 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)