Talk:Steven Lehar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Steven Lehar, has edited Wikipedia as Slehar (talk · contribs) |
[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
- GB, I don't see anyone opposing Lehar's page here. The POV-check tag has been removed some time ago and I concur that it looks good the way it is. Thanks all for tuning in! — mark ✎ 17:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WorldInHead.jpg
Image:WorldInHead.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
