User talk:Nathaniel Jarrod

Recent edits to Principle of bivalence
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Principle of bivalence, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Would you need a citation for someone who corrected 2+2=5? Is, is saying equal to. It says the apple is red. Well, the apple is not red, the apple is the apple, and its color is red. That's the whole problem with those entire 2 paragraphs. It violates the law of identity. This citation request is akin to asking for a citation for a spelling mistake!!!! Think about it! Nathaniel Jarrod (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you are taking an interest in the article because the bivalence article is on a crucial topic in the philosophy of logic but is rather weak. The paragraphs you are responding to are problematic because they just assert that vague predicates cause a problem for bivalence, where Wikipedia's verifiability requirement means that we have to find sources for all such claims. Your edits are drawing attention to the problem in the section, but because you are not providing sources, so your edits are not improving the section and could be reverted. You might like to take a look at WP:V to see what standard we are aiming for; don't worry about not getting things exactly right, the thing is that we work towards the goal.
 * If you have the appetite to engage with the sources, I would like to encourage you: I can recommend the first two pages of Diana Raffman's article 'Borderline cases and bivalence' as something you could start with.
 * We should conduct further discussion of contents at Talk:Principle of bivalence. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, however, you are concerned more about citations, than if what has been written is true. The law of identity is not opinion, rather it is intrinsic and foundational to understanding reality. Nathaniel Jarrod (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)