Talk:Paul Edwards (philosopher)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography

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

Philosophy: Philosophers Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers

Possible copyvio

The last version of this page said that it was taken from an obit written by Peter Singer for an Australian newspaper. At one point, it was written in the first person. Can any of the editors who have worked on this page say whether our article is a copy of the Singer article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text was inserted by an anon, so I've added the copyvio tag. I'll delete or revert to a previous version in a few days unless someone can confirm that this isn't a copy of the Singer article. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin. I have access to some of Edwards' work so I'll check over any copyright problems. I also removed a WP:WTA (however). Its only a minor thing but as there may be a quotation solution to the copyright infringement problem (proper attribution) it seems relevant. AlanBarnet 06:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem SlimVirgin. I took a look through the literature I have and there seems to be no particular copy there. I don't have access to the Australian newspaper mentioned above though. I'll have another doublecheck at any argumentative phrasing or WP:WTA in any reversions to priors you may want to make. AlanBarnet 07:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slim Virgin, thanks for your edit of the Paul Edwards article. I have the complete Singer obituary, and can tell you that the text inserted by an IP at 14 Dec 2005 was an exact copy it. --Nescio* 14:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I'll revert to before that version, then we can use the Singer piece as a source if we want to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, can you give us some information about the Singer piece so we can cite it, please? We need headline, who published it, and date of publication. Thank you, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the German article on Edwards, note 3; see also the biblio for more info on his God and the philosophers.

BTW: If you read Edwards' article on Reich in the Enc.Philos., repr. in the new 2006 ed., you may see for yourself that Reich deserves to be treated seriously, and why – in contrast to what currently can be found in most websites on him.

--Nescio* 09:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards' Jewishness

[from our user talk pages]

Hello Newport,

you asked to avoid POV. That's fine.

Re the life of Paul Edwards I relied upon the obituary by Peter Singer, who was a personal friend of Paul Edwards and knows better about his family background than a NYT journalist. This is Singer's text:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Edwards_%28philosopher%29&oldid=31342763

There you can read:
"His family was of Jewish descent, and although neither they nor Paul himself were religious, when the Nazis annexed Austria in 1938, that made no difference."

Edwards was a humanist atheist all of his life. There may be still people who'd call him Jewish because some of his ancestors had been Jewish. But I think we shouldn't do this. OK?

--Nescio* 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I disagree with you. His parents were Jewish - that's the NPOV fact. Discussing how observant they are is NPOV, because it's subjective, even if it's sourced. Someone with two Jewish parents is Jewish; that's a matter of ethnicity, not just religion. Do you argue that Albert Einstein should not be described as Jewish? As to reliability, the New York Times is a very reputable publication; whatever sources lie behind the article, we cannot presume that they are other than reliable. And Singer has an axe to grind - you say that he came from that sort of background, and no doubt wishes to stress that Edwards had a similar one. The New York Times is unlikely to have any axe to grind other than the need to get its facts right and its presentation of them neutral. Please, in the interests of WP:NPOV, let's leave things as they are. - Newport 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of ethnicity or religion: I think it's worth mentioning whether the noted atheist Edwards was raised religiously or not. Fortunately we have the statement of Singer. I don't think that it's motivated by personal interest, as you suspect. Both men were friends, so that Singer should have known better about the nature of Edwards' Jewishness than a journalist who may have just looked up what is written in the Enc. Iudaica.

--Nescio* 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be ethnically vaguely Jewish. Ethnically he was 100% Jewish. As Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion, there is nothing inconsistent in being an atheist Jew, or for that matter a Jewish cardinal of the Roman Catholic church. (Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger has always been happy to say that he is Jewish.) Hundreds of people on Wikipedia are in Category:Atheists, Category:Humanists and their sub-categories. Is it your intention to edit all of them to discuss their religious upbringing? If not, why pick on this one person? Your statement about the journalist is surely original research; you have no way of knowing what her sources were and who she spoke to. Indeed, it might be defamatory of a living person to suggest that she did not do her job properly! However, if she did no more than check the Encyclopaedia Judaica, she would have found an article by Edwards' friend and collaborator Richard Popkin. Did he know Edwards less well than Singer?--Newport 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I've added a sentence that will I hope resolve the issue.--Newport 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved. --Nescio* 10:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception for "Reincarnation" book

Skeptic from Britain, Among other edits on March 16, you left out Stephen Braude's academic credentials. I'm sure you felt you had good reasons. Could you please say what they are? Or perhaps you left them out unintentionally. In any case, could you please explain?

Thank you. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made on 16 March concerning Stephen Braude both strip out his academic credentials and add an (unsourced) statement about criticism by parapsychologists. These edits seem meant to "poison the well"--that is, cut the value of Braude's views by diminishing his standing in the eyes of the reader. This is needless. In the interests of NPOV, I propose to revert the edit. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit, what you call "poisoning the well" is simply the encyclopedia's WP:FRINGE policy. We give primary weight to mainstream scholarship, and we avoid framing a topic in such a way as to give equal validity to fringe and non fringe views. Also, there is no reason to include credentials and awards when mentioning an individual in the text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, LuckyLouie.

I think we're close to agreement about this edit, even if not, perhaps, on the grounds you've cited. (Braude's quote puts forward no weird or marginal theories, which is what WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL are meant to guard against.)

Regarding academic credentials, MOS:CREDENTIAL is a style guideline about the use of titles such as “Dr.” And so it would guide us to avoid using, for example, “Dr. Braude.” About academic affiliations, though, the guideline is silent. On WP, I sometimes see such credentials mentioned, sometimes not. But I haven't seen a rule or guideline on this. You're more active on WP than I am. Could you point me to some guideline on the matter? (I ask not to challenge but for my own education.)

That aside, I do see that for the other academics mentioned in the article, no affiliations are given. So I accept your point that Braude's credentials don't need mentioning.

I think we can achieve greater neutrality, though, by identifying sources by profession rather than by ad hoc titles. Paul Edwards is "Philosopher Paul Edwards,“ not "arch-skeptic Paul Edwards.” Our article quotes "Philosopher Timothy Madigan," not "secular humanist Timothy Madigan." So, following the pattern, I'd go along with a clear and verifiable "Philosopher Stephen E. Braude." Any reason not to go with this?

Thank you for accepting my deletion of the unsourced statement about criticism of the book by parapsychologists. Appreciated.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Braude identifies (and is identified in a majority of sources) as a parapsychologist, and this position forms the context for his critique of Edwards, however I am happy to include his credential as a philosopher. Best regards. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you, LuckyLouie, for a fine, well-balanced solution.

Best wishes. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]