Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
I have restored KF's take on other philosopher's reaction to his work. I understand why that might seem biased at first blush. Or how it might seem like we are letting the patient diagnose themselves. However, this was KF's published summary of published articles submitted in response to his first target article all in the same issue of an academic journal dedicated to this particular topic. These are not blog posts, tweets, distracks, or youtube rants. These are comments in an academic journal to which all of the mentioned thinkers themselves contributed. In philosophy this is about as legit as it gets. This is a specialized field. The alternative would be for us wikipedia editors to read and interpret each of the named philosopher's response. Which you are welcome to do if you like. However, the odds we get that more correct than Frankish are small. And even if Frankish were wrong, presenting his take in his voice is, in fact, the proper "neutral point of view" WP:NPOV. For an example of how this is allowed, check out Hard problem of consciousness to see how much Chalmers gets to be a voice in the debate of his own idea. You are free to add further comments or responses from the listed and other experts (with proper reference), but simply deleting the paragraph (and the sources!) is to impoverish the article for no good reason. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
