Talk:Canadian Philosophical Association

NPOV

The page meets neutrality and verification guidelines. There is therefore no conflict of interest. The material has been rewritten to avoid copyright infringement BSpenceH (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The page hasn't been rewritten since it was tagged by an automated copyvio bot, although close inspection of the original text shows a lot of paraphrasing and word juggling that keeps the entry on shaky ground in terms of copyright. As for conflict, no philosopher worth their salt would offer the argument that neutrality and verification are met, therefore there's no conflict of interest.... Hairhorn (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It was late. Should have said there is no Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI). I was basing my argument on this: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Incompatibility I took to mean those aims would not, or could not, be met by the individual editor (i.e. me.) I was asserting that the page was both neutral and verified, therefore that the aims could be met (since they were), therefore no Wikipedia COI. Maybe the incompatibility arises at my assertion? I.e., maybe the proposition "the content isn't neutral or reliably sourced" can't be neutral or reliably sourced? I guess I could be blind to some lack of neutrality...I don't see that this is a case of self promotion, for instance, but perhaps I'm wrong? These are sincere questions. As to copyright: Yes, perhaps on shaky ground (though how many ways can you say the ACPA was founded in 1958?). I'll try again. I've added the, admittedly lazy, reference at the bottom for now. P.S. I consider "philosophers worth their salt" to be those who read arguments charitably, recognize an enthymematic argument when they see one, and use context in attempt to evaluate the soundess of same...regardless of what we ask for in Logic 100. Just saying... :) BSpenceH (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the previous "admittedly lazy" reference from the bottom of the article, adding quotations and citations to text lifted directly from the description of the association on their (our) homepage. There [i]shouldn't[/i] be any more copyright issues. Still not sure about COI. The Canadian Philosophical Association is mentioned in the Philosophy in Canada article, therefore seems a legitimate entry. I had nothing to do with that (other than I corrected the year of the founding of the association from 1957 to 1958.) BSpenceH (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.acpcpa.ca/en/aboutus.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --MLauba (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)