Talk:Nathan Salmon

message: 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 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This was removed because it is not the title of his book:
His first book, Reference and Essence 
but rather two Wikilinks with an "and" in the middle.  If the title of the book is Reference and Essence, which I assume it is, it should be reinserted properly, as a book title (with a citation).  I'll check the references in the page when I get a chance and try to fix.  It is also not clear from the text that it is a book (I don't have time right now to go check the reference - but that's why there's a general notice on the article itself; needs fact-checking).Levalley (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC
There are also several typos in the articles/book section, but it is very lengthy and tedious to correct.  That's why I hesitate to put the GOCE in progress label on this page, because if someone else comes along and starts watching, perhaps they'll find time to fix the bibliography.  I'm learning to leave such editing issues to others, after notability issues and COI are solved (etc).Levalley (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to try to make the article more readable by removing many of the fact tags and instead putting in a tag for the entire section "Overview."  There is a problem with headers:  there's a header "Work" which then has only one subsection, which isn't proper.  The problem with the dissertation title (the title is likely Reference and Essence, as ststed) is that it was linked to two different wiki articles (Reference and Essence) instead of to the official title and repository of said dissertation - which was referred to as a book, so I assume it was published.  If it was published, it needs a reference with the year, the publisher and the publisher's location.  If that dissertation is going to be cited later, inline citations are needed.  I believe this article is an orphan, would appreciate some help in knowing how to find it if it's not - I'll try to get that from the GOCE.  I'm going to fix the readability (fact tag) issue as soon as I can, then ask for further help from the Philosophy Project, as I see my use of so many fact tags is improper.  When done, I'll comment on a couple of other issues and ask for help on those also.--Levalley (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: Inline citations are needed, merely stating that the sum of Salmon's work shows his point of view is improper.  No one should have to read the entire list of works in order to verify the claims made about Salmon's point of view. 
Article appears to be an orphan or at least very lonely - I'm trying to find out how to figure out whether it is. 
Secondary sources are needed.  To make claims that Salmon has successfully argued X or Y, someone's view (other than his own) is needed.  This is also a notability issue.  In order to claim notability, the person must be "widely cited" in the field, so if that is true, finding and placing those citations should be no problem.--Levalley (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is also in violation of Wikipedia's position on biographies of living persons (particularly the need for secondary sources, in regard to both notability and to content).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.  QueenofRods (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation issues/Notability issues 

message: Since the only person cited is the subject of the article, it is hard to know if the views of all the other persons mentioned are represented properly.
Since the subject of the article is also involved in editing the article, is hard to know how neutral it is.  
There appear to be weasel words (Salmon is known for...)
Most importantly, the article gives undue weight to the views of one person.  While it is important to describe Salmon's views in an article about Salmon, it is also important to show that other people have cited him and whether they have different views than his (especially on his work).  In short, do a majority of philosophers accept Salmon's views as they are stated here?  See WP:Weight.
I have been called "heavy-handed" in my editing by the subject of the article (see above), so I am reluctant to go further in my edits without outside points of view.Levalley (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality/POV and related issues 

message: Is this article too technical for the general reader?  It seems to me that if parts of it were merged into a larger article about reference, naming, etc., that it would work better - but then, there would have to be some balance in those articles, and they have been without significant attention or editing for some time.  So, as it turns out, this is perhaps the most detailed page, anywhere on Wikipedia, on these particular philosophical issues.  They're interesting issues, but might they not be placed somewhere in a large context where the general reader could be lead into the topics in a systematic fashion.  I could be completely off on this, I just don't see other biographies of philosophers being this technical, so comment is welcome.  Also, note above that the subject of the article believes that I lack competence in philosophy sufficient to be able to further edit the article (which is true), but since I am a competent "general reader," I thought I'd bring that issue up as well.
--Levalley (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't so much too technical as too detailed.  The level of technicality for articles on those topics would probably be ok, but as you say, it seems unnecessary to go into such detail in a bio.  I've removed the technical tag for that reason, and added a clean up tag. (questions/comments to me should go on my talkpage as I will not watchlist this article) --C S (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: One thing that jumps out is organization; perhaps the various positions (Millianism, Existence, etc.) could be aligned (ordered by) the areas Salmon works in mentioned in the lede (Metaphysics, Phil. of Language) to help guide the reader?  BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly.  If these are common topics in philosophy (and I assume they are), there should also be wikification and links provided.  Then, there would not need to be so much detail and the article could focus on Salmon's own take on these views, rather than doing so much explication.  This article needs to be forwarded, again, to the philosophy volunteers.  Unfortunately, it seems to have gone through a round of examination and no one stepped forward to take a neutral view on the article.  It's very poorly done, overly long and there's the "length" vs. "notability" issue.  I'm not sure that making claims about the class position of the subject's parents, for example (without footnotes or references to how a musician gets classified as "working class" as opposed to "intelligentsia" or "artisan" are useful).  General streamlining of the article is clearly in order, but it looks like the two earlier individuals who tried to help are gone.QueenofRods (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a further example of the problem here (in case anyone wants to take on the editing of this C-class rated biography), Millianism and Existence are credited in this article as being "notable ideas of Salmon" which of course, they are not.  He did not invent those concepts.  He has a stance on these viewpoints, but they are bolded and listed as his own "notable ideas."  It's little things like that (plus the lack of review of the technical aspects of the presentation and no secondary sources that are making this less than we expect from a Wikipedia article.  The constant editing by the subject himself is also a problem.QueenofRods (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article too technical?

message: The article is an orphan mainly because coverage of philosophy in Wikipedia is completely crap.  This in turn is because anyone having expertise in the subject is driven off pretty quickly by the usual suspects.  Salmon is pretty well known for his defence of Millianism, and Millianism is also a well-known and notable position in philosophical logic. I will see if I can help. Peter Damian (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Peter - your talk page is protected, so it's difficult to contact or collaborate with you, but it would be great if you'd do some editing on this - and other philosophy - articles.LéVeillé 18:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphaned article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nathan Salmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707011421/http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/ to http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified