User talk:Informedcomment

 <div style="background-color: Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~) ; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started.  Happy editing! Local Variable (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)   Hello, Informedcomment, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Getting started
 * Introduction
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Finding your way around
 * Table of contents
 * Directories and indexes
 * Department directory
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Editing articles
 * How to develop an article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Getting help
 * Frequently asked questions
 * Cheatsheet
 * Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
 * The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
 * Help pages
 * Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How you can help
 * Community Portal
 * Join a WikiProject
 * Follow Wikipedia etiquette
 * Practice civility
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your recent contributions
Hello. Thank you for your recent contributions.

I noticed you've created an article called General Ethics. I'm a bit concerned that the article may not meet Wikipedia's page inclusion criteria, since this theory does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Wikipedia has certain policies on what content can be included. The worst case scenario is that somebody will one day propose that the article be deleted. Don't worry - that's not happening at present, and you'll be notified if it is going to happen.

I also noticed that you've also made some edits to the article of the theory's proponent Warwick Fox. I have edited the article to change some of the formatting.

Could I propose perhaps the theory simply be mentioned in the Warrick Fox article under the 'Philosophical Work' section, rather than having its own article? I think it may be better placed there than in a standalone article. That way, the content can remain all within the one article, rather than being split out. What do you think?

If you'd like me to help you do this, let me know. You can reply to this message by editing this page, and adding a message below this one. See this page if you need help replying to the message here.

Thank you again for your contributions.

Local Variable (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * thanks for your comments. I'm new to this and feeling my way as I go. I have modified my brief article on General Ethics in the last two paragraphs to read as follows (with appropriate notes as shown on the Wiki page):


 * Fox refers to his own approach to General Ethics as the "theory of responsive cohesion” and developing this approach constitutes the main focus of A Theory of General Ethics. But Fox also noted that other approaches might be developed to General Ethics and offered suggestions as to the general structural features that they, too, would likely need to possess.[3] Thus, the idea of a General Ethics is a separate one to Fox's own approach to such an ethics; the relation is one of set to subset. Whether other approaches to General Ethics will emerge so far remains an open question; however, other researchers have employed Fox's own theory of responsive cohesion approach to General Ethics across a range of problem areas.[4]
 * Fox refers to his own approach to General Ethics as the "theory of responsive cohesion” and developing this approach constitutes the main focus of A Theory of General Ethics. But Fox also noted that other approaches might be developed to General Ethics and offered suggestions as to the general structural features that they, too, would likely need to possess.[3] Thus, the idea of a General Ethics is a separate one to Fox's own approach to such an ethics; the relation is one of set to subset. Whether other approaches to General Ethics will emerge so far remains an open question; however, other researchers have employed Fox's own theory of responsive cohesion approach to General Ethics across a range of problem areas.[4]


 * David R. Keller included “General Ethics” as the most inclusive sphere in his diagram of “Spheres of Moral Responsibility” in his wide-ranging teaching anthology Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions.[5] He also made “General Ethics” the third and final section – after the sections on “Individualism (Polycentrism)” and “Holism (Ecocentrism)” – of the central "What is the Scope of Moral Responsibility” section that collection.


 * The above makes it clear, I hope, that the idea of General Ethics is "out there" in a significant teaching anthology, but that others have not developed alternative approaches to GE themselves (which is a big ask)although they have utilized Fox's own theory of responsive cohesion approach TO GE. Does this - especially the Keller anthology reference - overcome the concern about seconday sources OK. If so could you kindly remove the notice about this on the article.
 * The above makes it clear, I hope, that the idea of General Ethics is "out there" in a significant teaching anthology, but that others have not developed alternative approaches to GE themselves (which is a big ask)although they have utilized Fox's own theory of responsive cohesion approach TO GE. Does this - especially the Keller anthology reference - overcome the concern about seconday sources OK. If so could you kindly remove the notice about this on the article.


 * many thanks


 * Informedcomment (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ,


 * First - you may have noticed that another user (CommanderWaterford) has since moved the article into draftspace because they have concerns about its suitability for Wikipedia. The content of the article is still saved, it's just not in the main article area. The editor expresses a similar concern to what I outlined earlier.


 * I have had a quick read of what you've written above. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on the subject area, so some of it isn't entirely clear to me. I note you say  that the idea of General Ethics is "out there" in a significant teaching anthology. I wasn't able to find any mention of the concept through a quick Google search. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should predominantly be based on secondary sources, not primary sources. This is because the overuse of primary source material gives rise to the tendency to engage in original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Primary material is problematic because it requires Wikipedia editors to analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material themselves, but, we are not experts, or at least it's not possible to verify that we are. Therefore, Wikipedia articles rely on reliable secondary materials to do this, and cite them as authority for propositions. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that users are able to go and check sources and make sure that the propositions in the article are supported by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.


 * Now, placing the original research issue aside, we are still faced with the issue that this theory does not seem to meet the test of notability. Basically, the theory needs to have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject. Simply referring to the primary source material will fail the test of notability. It just doesn't seem to be published widely enough, from my own search. You are welcome to disagree with this, it's just my own view.


 * There are two main options going forward. First, you can edit the draft article and attempt to submit it through the articles for creation process. Somebody will review the article and determine if it meets the inclusion criteria. Secondly, the theory can simply be left in the article of its proponent. Although, even then, will still need to be careful about over-reliance on primary source material.
 * Thank you
 * Local Variable (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Local Variable,

Many thanks for this, which is all very useful advice for me - as I said, I am new in Wikipedia-land. I take your point and am happy for the General Ethics article to be removed and mention of this topic to be confined to a small part of the entry under "Warwick Fox". That said, I'm not sure how to do this. Do I just delete everything in the draft space version of it? What about the topic heading General Ethics, how do I remove that? Am happy for someone else to remove it.

Thanks again Informedcomment (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

General Ethics moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, General Ethics, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Commander Waterford,

Many thanks for this, which is all very useful advice for me - as I said, I am new in Wikipedia-land. I take your point and am happy for the General Ethics article to be removed and mention of this topic to be confined to a small part of the entry under "Warwick Fox". That said, I'm not sure how to do this. Do I just delete everything in the draft space version of it? What about the topic heading General Ethics, how do I remove that? Am happy for someone else to remove it.

Thanks again

Informedcomment (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:General Ethics
Hello, Informedcomment. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:General Ethics, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)