Talk:Henry Sidgwick

[Untitled]
Please fix the problem with the reference no. I. The source is: Rawls, J. 1980. 'Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory'. In: Journal of Philosophy 77 (1980). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.85.75 (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Links

Under Bibliography section, the links to Principles of Political Economy and The Elements of Politics do not work. --Gxlarson (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As Usual
"Bart Schultz's 2005 biography of Sidgwick sought to establish that Sidgwick was a lifelong homosexual, though it is unknown whether he ever expressed his inclinations in intercourse. According to Schultz, Sidgwick struggled internally throughout his life with issues of hypocrisy and openness in connection with his own forbidden desires." Since Sidgwick expressed no outward characteristics of inversion, either through speech, writing, or behavior, and there were no witnesses in Sidgwick's dormer, I assume that Bart Schultz possesses the enviable ability to read minds. He has succeeded in reading the innermost thoughts of a man who has been deceased for quite a while. That is truly a noteworthy accomplishment.Lestrade (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes AS USUAL homophoby from this user. His only aim is to post homophobic and irrelevant comments everywhere in wikipedia (inversion...) He's just not interesting. Bart Schultz's biography is really serious and HS had to do with homosexuality, as well as his great friend John Addington Symonds. 90.35.243.12 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Eusapia Palladino
Is that part really that relevant to deserve nearly half the article? --88.78.62.70 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this six year old comment even today. I would like to suggest a solution: Sidgwick's interest in parapsychology ought to be covered, because he saw it as deeply connected to his work in philosophy for which he is most notable. It should be possible to create a well-sourced section on his interest in parapsychology, and why it is relevant to the rest of his work, that incorporates the information from this section as it exists in abridged form - Keegan.Landrigan (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * hi, agree that, as it stands, the article does look unbalanced, noting that this section was added by in a number of edits in November 2013 (see here), unfortunately they appear to have retired from WP so cant be asked about this, also, that all the information is included in the Eusapia Palladino article. suggest being bold and go for it, reducing this information to a couple of sentences, with additional words on Sidgwick's overall interest in parapsychology. Cheers. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)