Talk:Elbow Room
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Just needs something on the books reception for B)
Contents |
[edit] Copyvio?
This text is substantially the same as that at http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8870/philosophicus/Elbows.html
Is the person who posted this here the person who wrote that webpage? Did the author give Wikipedia right of use of this? If not, this should either be deleted or substantially reworked to put it in your own word. -- Infrogmation
___
I am new to Wikipedia. www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8870 is my GeoCities website. I adapted the information which I had posted at http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8870/philosophicus/Elbows.html to produce the material that I posted at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room
I want this information about the book "Elbow Room to be freely available, edited mercilessly and redistributed at will.
I am not aware of the proper method to add material to Wikipedia that is derived from material I have previously posted on my website. JWSchmidt 20:27 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] POV/OR
This was pretty balanced for a book review, but review-ish nonetheless. I took out a bunch of references to "behavioral choice", because I think it's WP:OR and unfairly represents Dennett as denying choice outright as opposed to redefining it. I took out the whole POV/OR "conclusion" section and replaced some of the behavioral choice references with "libertarian free will" and similar language, which is the language Dennett uses. I provided a link to Libertarianism (metaphysics) in each section where I used the term, because obviously it is ambiguous (but important to the topic).
But I really like this book, so please make sure I'm not replacing one POV with another inadvertantly. Thanks. NickelShoe 19:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative understanding of "Elbow room"
A section called Alternative understanding of "Elbow room" contains some rather nonsensical material which embodies a naive materialist PoV and a number of classic fallacies. If someone wants to restore it they could argue for the points or souce them NBeale 16:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sections
I'm not sure if the sections are trying to summarize each of the seven chapters of the book or not; they look similar but not quite the same. I think this would be the best way to go about writing the article. Richard001 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)