Talk:Steven Lehar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] POV-check
Noting that this article has been created by its subject (slehar (talk • contribs)), I have added the {{POV-check}} template. I am not really in the position to judge if this article does or doesn't assume a neutral point of view, but I do think it is a good idea to bring it under the attention of other Wikipedia editors; it would also be advisable to have more contributors to this article. — mark ✎ 09:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that this article should have been written by a third party, but there is plenty of evidence for the author being notable. He is scheduled as a plenary speaker at the upcoming 2006 Towards a Science of Consciousness conference at University of Arizona, Tucson, and also presented at earlier conferences there. --Blainster 20:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Steve Lehar is well known in the field of consciousness studies. The article seems fair and possibly less biassed than might have been the case had it been written by a "fan". Obviously biographical articles are not going to be unbiassed when describing the views of the subject, however, I did change "proven" to "argued for" in the text. The article should definitely be kept. Geometer 09:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have read the above comments and I would like to add my cents worth. However, I have not only read the Wikipedia page devoted to Steven Lehar, but also his book and all his articles published during the last few years in reputable scientific journals. The Wikipedi page gives a fair account of his contribution to the study of coonsciousness. It could well be that he has written the page himself, but that, of course, is in itself no argument whatsoever that the page is biased. Everyone can be biased; you can be biased about yourself, your children, your spouse, and also about your intellectual heros or intellectual villains. Indeed, someone like me or another third party could well be too positive or, for that matter, too negative to Lehar.
The logic of the opponent to Lehar's page is: Lehar could have written the page himself and therefore it is biased. No other argument is given. Clearly, this logic is very wrong. Being biased has to be proven by a reference to the works and thoughts in general, not by whom the page is written.
If you ask me: Is this page biased? I can only answer NO.
GB
