Talk:Nathan Salmon

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Salmon's Take
As the subject of this article I appreciate Levalley's attempts at improvement. However, some of the editing and revision is excessively heavy-handed and weaken the article unnecessarily. (I have not undone those edits.) In particular, the demand for citations to substantiate what are uncontroversial and widely known facts (e.g., about the writings of Kant or Quine, etc.) is excessive. The demand for citations should be made by an expert in philosophy, rather than by an expert in biographical writing.

Unfortunately the article has also been the target of repeated vandalism from at least two IP addresses. Some of the anonymous vandal's (or vandals') insertions also betray a lack of genuine expertise in philosophy. The vandalism to date has been undone by wikipedia and/or by other anonymous contributors. Wikipedia needs to review its policies in this regard. Suspension of revision priveleges for an extremely brief period (e.g., 24 hours) is surely an inadequate response to repeated vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsalmon (talk • contribs) 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has strong vandalism policies, but remember, everyone here (everyone) is a volunteer. You did the right thing, I think, in reverting the vandalism.  That's how to use the policy - just do it.  As to citations, well, that's why I (as a copyeditor) put the tags on the article.  Let me also mention that it's never a good idea to edit your own biography, as it runs against the COI policies on Wikipedia.  As to citations for generally held views on philosophers, I believe that when someone states they are arguing against someone else, they must state where that someone else says the thing they are arguing with.  So, for example, if the view of Kant that is generally held is being argued against, then any major introductory textbook that states the view of Kant whic his argued against would be a suitable citation - which is precisely what this (and many other articles on Wikipedia) lack.  In-line citations are definitely need in these instances (in other words, a specific page number).  As you are an academic, I am sure you know how to find the needed references, I think two textbooks would be a good number for leading the reader to know what the "general view of Kant is."  If you visit the Kant page, you'll see that there have been problems on getting Kant so concisely summarized that someone can (within Wikipedia) just assume "everyone knows what is generally held about Kant."  I realize it's challenging.  I may be misunderstanding something, but the vandalism was not reverted by a "bot," but seems to have been reverted by you.  As I said, this is sort of frowned upon, but I think in this case, it's appropriate - I had made a note of the recent changes in my note "whew" because I didn't know what exactly to do with that kind of thing.  I don't see my edits as heavy-handed, I believe this article needs to be pulled into line with other similar articles on philosophical topics, which use facts and citations.


 * BTW, I don't think all of the changes to your page that you reverted were clear examples of vandalism. It's just my opinion - but at least I'm not the subject of the article.  For example, since the article mentions the Department of Philosophy at UCSB as a source of notability, the ranking of UCSB in recognized reports (there was a citation, I read it) is part of the article.  Wikipedia articles must establish the notability of the person in question, as I understand it.  There are some 500 articles on philosophers that are orphaned or very lonely, some of them quite detailed (as yours is) but I've been working on trying to either improve them or merge them.  So, some of what you call "vandalism" is rather ordinary Wikipedia editing.  I agree, however, that when it's done anonymously, there's less reason to keep it.  But that doesn't mean the effort wasn't sincere and doesn't merely represent someone else's point of view.  Levalley (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to disagree about whether some of your edits are (as I believe) excessively heavy-handed. However, your defense of the most recent vandalism is extremely lame, and betrays a serious lack of understanding of both the nature of the source and the vandal's implicit fallacious argument that my department's decline in a popular, unauthoritative ranking is attributable to my continued membership in that department. As I said, I appreciate your efforts at improvement. I believe those efforts are sincere. But if you really believe that this sort of anonymous potshot might be a sincere effort rather than clear vandalism, and that it is therefore appropriate in a biographical sketch, I would strongly urge you to leave the editing of articles concerning philosophy and/or philosophers to genuine experts. You simply lack the understanding and expertise required to assess whether an edit is a genuine improvement or an obvious and cowardly sniper attack (as with the insertion in question).


 * I would, if such could be found. We have a real dirth of "real philosophers."  May I suggest you attempt an edit of, say, the articles on Reference or Essence that your article previously linked to?  It would make my job (as a mere Wikipedian) much easier if there were bona fide links/references on your page.  By the way, one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which I take quite seriously, is:  Assume Good Faith.  Now, I do understand that it is hurtful to have an article about oneself repeatedly taken in directions that one dislikes (and I agree with you that it has repeatedly happened to your article).  But this, again, is part of the problem of editing one's own article - there's no one neutral to defend your stances.  I certainly did not agree with what the alleged "vandal" put into your article, but, otoh, there are controversies that keep appearing here, and so far, no reputable philosopher without a personal stake in this has happened along, at least recently, to help on the neutrality issues.  I've asked for help in a couple of places - hopefully, it will be forthcoming.  Aside from learning about neutrality and copyediting by looking at this article (and many others like it), and occasionally adding a tag, I have no intention of further helping by attempting to copyedit or ascertain citations or neutrality for this article.  Your attitude, however, doesn't make me want to rush about trying to get someone else to do it - surely you can see that?  Again, I am a copyeditor - can you not see the request for expert tag on the article?  We're still waiting.  Might you not know some?  --Levalley (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * one helpful suggestion: If very general references (like the link to "reference" are going to be used, at least direct the reader to the section involved (by using a # and the section name).  As it stands, the link goes to an article that starts talking about reference in general, which is itself poorly cited.  A specific citation is needed - not just another Wiki, if it is to be a reference.  Otherwise, just use brackets to point to other wiki articles - do not make it look as if the subject of the article has written Reference or that Essence (etc.) are explanatory in regard to the subject here.--Levalley (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The history of this article could serve as a case study showing how perfectly well-intentioned but overly zealous copyediting by a non-expert can, through verschlimmbesserung, weaken an article every bit as much, and even in some of the very same ways, as cowardly vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsalmon (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a citation on the claim about Kant. Nathan, this is perfectly well-known among philosophers but Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and a reference would be helpful.  References to the other claims would be useful if you have them.  I have a copy of Propositions and attitudes but not Frege's Puzzle (at least I think not - my specialism is medieval philosophy of language and it is many years since I have read any modern p.o.l). Peter Damian (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Attempts are being made to bring this article into conformance with Wikipedia guidelines and help was sought in several places. Editing one's own biography is frowned upon at Wikipedia - and the secondary and tertiary sources are still badly needed.  This article is overlong and nearly orphaned.  Since the subject of the article is himself claiming notability for himself, there should be some attempt by someone - somewhere - to bring this article into line with Wiki guidelines.````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueenofRods (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting
This was removed because it is not the title of his book:

His first book, Reference and Essence

but rather two Wikilinks with an "and" in the middle. If the title of the book is Reference and Essence, which I assume it is, it should be reinserted properly, as a book title (with a citation). I'll check the references in the page when I get a chance and try to fix. It is also not clear from the text that it is a book (I don't have time right now to go check the reference - but that's why there's a general notice on the article itself; needs fact-checking).Levalley (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC

There are also several typos in the articles/book section, but it is very lengthy and tedious to correct. That's why I hesitate to put the GOCE in progress label on this page, because if someone else comes along and starts watching, perhaps they'll find time to fix the bibliography. I'm learning to leave such editing issues to others, after notability issues and COI are solved (etc).Levalley (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to try to make the article more readable by removing many of the fact tags and instead putting in a tag for the entire section "Overview." There is a problem with headers:  there's a header "Work" which then has only one subsection, which isn't proper.  The problem with the dissertation title (the title is likely Reference and Essence, as ststed) is that it was linked to two different wiki articles (Reference and Essence) instead of to the official title and repository of said dissertation - which was referred to as a book, so I assume it was published.  If it was published, it needs a reference with the year, the publisher and the publisher's location.  If that dissertation is going to be cited later, inline citations are needed.  I believe this article is an orphan, would appreciate some help in knowing how to find it if it's not - I'll try to get that from the GOCE.  I'm going to fix the readability (fact tag) issue as soon as I can, then ask for further help from the Philosophy Project, as I see my use of so many fact tags is improper.  When done, I'll comment on a couple of other issues and ask for help on those also.--Levalley (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've done what I can via copyediting, and ran into lots of issues that go beyond copyediting, which I will summarize in a different section. Since there are a series of articles like this one, with similar issues, I will seek advice from the GOCE, the Religion/Philosophy RfC process, and continue to try to inspire some folks from the Philosophy Project to address the other issues, summarized below. I am going to remove the copyediting tag for the time being, if anyone wants more attention from the GOCE (there's a huge backlog), feel free to contact me on my talk page or reinsert the tag and someone else will come by eventually. I'm going to ask some questions about the article on the GOCE page, in any case, as there were issues I was unable to fix or resolve--Levalley (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation issues/Notability issues
Inline citations are needed, merely stating that the sum of Salmon's work shows his point of view is improper. No one should have to read the entire list of works in order to verify the claims made about Salmon's point of view.

Article appears to be an orphan or at least very lonely - I'm trying to find out how to figure out whether it is.

Secondary sources are needed. To make claims that Salmon has successfully argued X or Y, someone's view (other than his own) is needed. This is also a notability issue. In order to claim notability, the person must be "widely cited" in the field, so if that is true, finding and placing those citations should be no problem.--Levalley (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Article is also in violation of Wikipedia's position on biographies of living persons (particularly the need for secondary sources, in regard to both notability and to content). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.  QueenofRods (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This article seems to be of someone who is not well-known. A quick Google search pulls up nothing besides his faculty page and the Wikipedia page. It seems like it should just be deleted. I'm new, so I don't know how to go about that. I remain quite confident the article is of no value however. 53backes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality/POV and related issues
Since the only person cited is the subject of the article, it is hard to know if the views of all the other persons mentioned are represented properly.

Since the subject of the article is also involved in editing the article, is hard to know how neutral it is.

There appear to be weasel words (Salmon is known for...)

Most importantly, the article gives undue weight to the views of one person. While it is important to describe Salmon's views in an article about Salmon, it is also important to show that other people have cited him and whether they have different views than his (especially on his work). In short, do a majority of philosophers accept Salmon's views as they are stated here? See WP:Weight.

I have been called "heavy-handed" in my editing by the subject of the article (see above), so I am reluctant to go further in my edits without outside points of view.Levalley (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Article too technical?
Is this article too technical for the general reader? It seems to me that if parts of it were merged into a larger article about reference, naming, etc., that it would work better - but then, there would have to be some balance in those articles, and they have been without significant attention or editing for some time. So, as it turns out, this is perhaps the most detailed page, anywhere on Wikipedia, on these particular philosophical issues. They're interesting issues, but might they not be placed somewhere in a large context where the general reader could be lead into the topics in a systematic fashion. I could be completely off on this, I just don't see other biographies of philosophers being this technical, so comment is welcome. Also, note above that the subject of the article believes that I lack competence in philosophy sufficient to be able to further edit the article (which is true), but since I am a competent "general reader," I thought I'd bring that issue up as well. --Levalley (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article isn't so much too technical as too detailed. The level of technicality for articles on those topics would probably be ok, but as you say, it seems unnecessary to go into such detail in a bio.  I've removed the technical tag for that reason, and added a clean up tag. (questions/comments to me should go on my talkpage as I will not watchlist this article) --C S (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing that jumps out is organization; perhaps the various positions (Millianism, Existence, etc.) could be aligned (ordered by) the areas Salmon works in mentioned in the lede (Metaphysics, Phil. of Language) to help guide the reader? BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. If these are common topics in philosophy (and I assume they are), there should also be wikification and links provided.  Then, there would not need to be so much detail and the article could focus on Salmon's own take on these views, rather than doing so much explication.  This article needs to be forwarded, again, to the philosophy volunteers.  Unfortunately, it seems to have gone through a round of examination and no one stepped forward to take a neutral view on the article.  It's very poorly done, overly long and there's the "length" vs. "notability" issue.  I'm not sure that making claims about the class position of the subject's parents, for example (without footnotes or references to how a musician gets classified as "working class" as opposed to "intelligentsia" or "artisan" are useful).  General streamlining of the article is clearly in order, but it looks like the two earlier individuals who tried to help are gone.QueenofRods (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as a further example of the problem here (in case anyone wants to take on the editing of this C-class rated biography), Millianism and Existence are credited in this article as being "notable ideas of Salmon" which of course, they are not. He did not invent those concepts.  He has a stance on these viewpoints, but they are bolded and listed as his own "notable ideas."  It's little things like that (plus the lack of review of the technical aspects of the presentation and no secondary sources that are making this less than we expect from a Wikipedia article.  The constant editing by the subject himself is also a problem.QueenofRods (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned article
The article is an orphan mainly because coverage of philosophy in Wikipedia is completely crap. This in turn is because anyone having expertise in the subject is driven off pretty quickly by the usual suspects. Salmon is pretty well known for his defence of Millianism, and Millianism is also a well-known and notable position in philosophical logic. I will see if I can help. Peter Damian (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Peter - your talk page is protected, so it's difficult to contact or collaborate with you, but it would be great if you'd do some editing on this - and other philosophy - articles.LéVeillé 18:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathan Salmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707011421/http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/ to http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)