Talk:Jeff Sebo

Notability?
This article does not seem to meet any of the 1-8 criteria laid out at WP:NACADEMIC, nor WP:BASIC. Can I nominate it for deletion? Tagging Throughthemind as the article creator. I don't want to step on toes. Jmill1806 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It passes notability because there are academic book reviews of Sebo's Food, Animals, and the Environment: An Ethical Approach. For example a review in Philosophy in Review and  in Essays in Philosophy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. A journal seeming obscure to outsiders may be important to academics; evaluating serious academics by popularity and celebrity status ought to be questioned, but Sebo has been cited several times in NY Times and also in LA Times.

I think that Sebo's nuances, relying upon moral intuition (as reliable?) is curious in the constellation of ethical and moral discussions in both ethical theory and in animal advocacy, while he is also trying to discuss systemic global problems that are beyond individuals' control. MaynardClark (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sebo J. Should Chimpanzees Be Considered ‘Persons’? The New York Times. April 7, 2018
 * Lamey A. What if We Could Have Meat Without Murder? We can, if we can agree that it doesn’t need to come from the body of an animal. New York Times. July7 2, 2020.
 * Gruen L. The World’s Smartest Chimp Has Died: Her life helped us answer the question: What do animals think about? New York Times. August 9, 2019.
 * Jackson S. Professor Thinks Chimpanzees Should Be Legally Considered People. Washington Square News (NYU). April 16, 2018
 * Sebo S. Opinion: How we treat old chimpanzees — and what that says about us. Los Angeles Times. October 30, 2019, 3 AM
 * The Nonhuman Rights Project. Habeas corpus scholars, philosophers support New York elephant rights case: Following an amicus brief filed last week in support of the Nonhuman Rights Project by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, they are the latest experts to call for freedom and sanctuary for Happy the elephant. July 22, 2020 18:48 ET
 * Weinberg J. Is Scientific American a Trustworthy Periodical? Daily Nous. September 13, 2018 at 12:07 pm
 * Weinberg J. Mini-Heap. Daily Nous. January 16, 2020 at 9:47 am
 * Lam B. Uncivil Disobedience: We look at the disruptive tactics of the animal liberation movement in Australia. Slate. May 25, 2019, 6:00 AM.
 * Viegas J. Animal Advocates and Academics Seek Personhood Rights for Chimpanzees. Seeker. 4/20/2018 at 7:04 AM.
 * Elements in the 'conservative' religious world (including Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Convention) seems to have made of cause of taking on Sebo, calling him an animist and pagan with the argument that acknowledging nonhuman personhood means a slippery slope to the end of civilization as they say the Bible mandates or requires, although 'The wise person regards the life of the beast.' - Proverbs 12:10: "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.': Becket J. “They’re Confused” – Why Common Sense Is Often Wrong. Patheos: Pagan. May 1, 2018.
 * Hi Maynard, why do you say these are important journals? As far as I know, these are no-name journals in philosophy. Not predatory or anything, but not significant contributors to the discipline. Admittedly I am not a philosopher, but I've read quite a bit of it. Also, just so you know, I have now opened a formal AfD for this page. Thanks for your input as always. Jmill1806 (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * His writing was recognized by journals included in the electronic resources (for libraries) of the Philosophy Documentation Center. MaynardClark (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jeff Sebo


The article Jeff Sebo has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The subject of the page does not seem to meet the criteria laid out at WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BIO. I see brief mentions of Dr. Sebo in an NYT opinion article and Vox but no 'significant coverage,' no 'highly prestigious' awards, no 'named chair' or distinguished professor' position, and so on."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


 * The result of the AfD nomination discussion was keep. Several reliably sourced notability references were listed there that can be used to expand this article further. &mdash; Eric Herboso 09:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User talk:Russ Woodroofe
'The ethicist tag is not incompatible with other tags -- the tag means it is a main part of his work, not the only part.' If the 'tag' is 'not incompatible', why you are removing it? Ethics is the 'main part' of Sebo's work. As I understand 's edit, Sebo doesn't belong in BOTH the 'ethicist' category and the 'bioethicist' category. That's of course silly; Sebo might be a bioethicist, but he's not only a bioethicist. But I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand your edit. Could you please self-revert, or explain what I have missed? Josh Milburn (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Self-reverted.  I was editing perhaps a little too late at night, and thought you were removing the tag instead of adding. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem; thanks for the quick response! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * only, as I look more closely, the "American bioethicist" category is a subcategory of "American ethicist". Except for exceptions of nondiffusing categories (such as "American women xoccupation"), we're not supposed to have members of a subcategory that are also members of the parent category.  Do you think he belongs more correctly in the broader parent category then?  See WP:CAT for the rules, which are slightly arcane. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it must be just one, 'ethicist' would, I think, be neater. I suppose I'm not really sold on that kind of hierarchy; lots of ethicists will work across several areas (or, to go a step higher, lots of philosophers will work across several areas). But that's a broader conversation. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)