Talk:Peter Kreeft

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I do not doubt Kreeft's notoriety but as previous posters have already noted, much of this article reads like self-promotion -- opinions are asserted as fact ("Kreeft handily won the debate") and the sources that do appear are from Kreeft's own website or university home page.  This article is also unorganized and could benefit from a substantial rewrite.Darthoutis (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some serious cleanup -- deleting long lists, deleting material that had been fact-tagged for long enough (and didn't really seem to be encyclopedic in any event), a lot of wp:peacockery. Removed ref & neutrality tags. DavidOaks (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View, Citation and Rewrite Tags 

message: An image used in this article, File:Peter-kreeft boston-college.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Peter-kreeft boston-college.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Is it really appropriate to have everything in his bibliography as well as the list of his audio recordings linked to an Amazon.com page where they can be purchased? I do not think this is characteristic of most Wikipedia pages, and it seems as though they were linked in an attempt to sell his products rather than because doing so has any encyclopedic worth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.218.222 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links to Amazon 

message: Don't get me wrong, there are many figures that I find eminently quotable, perhaps not Kreeft, but I understand the general instinct.
However that's what wikiquotes is for.  Not wikipedia.  Those additions give the article an amateurish tone, and add very little of substance to the conversation - I might suggest a section on his philosophical contributions, then those topics can be brought up there.  That said, it is a large part of the article, a large edit, and so I mention it here first so as not to be accused of vandalism.  I'll give it a few days and in the absence of any detractors I will make the edit.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it, if anybody has a problem with it, discuss it here before reverting it please.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Quotes"? 

message: Given that the man is self-identified as a philosopher, it would be worthwhile to include a section specifically on what he's presumably spent most of his life actually doing.  He is a moral absolutist, he wrote an article on it that might be worth mentioning, other than that he seems to mostly be a theologian.  Forgive the lapse in neutrality but he doesn't have much particularly new or interesting to say on the topic.  It could say something along the lines of how he attempted to approach philosophy from a Catholic basis, that he defended absolutism and in doing so was in opposition to a lot of late 20th century mainstream philosophy, and he tried to combine his apologism with philosophical rigour (I'm trying to consider how that might be worded to not sound either blatantly biased against him or to sound uncritically praiseful).  This time, because I will be changing the article in a meaningful way, in a way that isn't just fixing an irrelevant addition, I'm going to wait until someone stops by this page and comments, I will be watching. --Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Philosophical Contributions Section? 

message: 1,331 characters, on the subject's academic career.  2,166 characters regarding his religious conversion, almost all of which uses one (currently broken) source that is apparently devoted to stories of Protestant pastors and laymen discovering the Catholic Church.  The other source for this section is an interview with the subject on a Roman Catholic website.
Finally we get to the author's bibliography; 2,972 characters, in what feels like a never-ending list of repetition and boredom.
There is no biography of the subject; no discussion of his life, family, interests outside of his career, controversies, humanity.  The references are clearly not objective, and there is no discussion of any 'problems' encountered by the subject.  This is not a Wikipedia page, it is a bookseller's 'about the author'!  What, exactly, is its purpose here - and if this is the 'quality' of information that can be produced about the subject, does it merit a place in Wikipedia? Ambiguosity (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Wikipedia, conversionopedia, or bibliopedia? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peter Kreeft. 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://archive.is/20030217214605/http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/theistic_apologetics/kreeft-arguments.html to http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=%2Farticles%2Ftheistic_apologetics%2Fkreeft-arguments.html
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) 11:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography