Talk:Colin McGinn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Whoa. To me this seems pretty hard on McGinn, in a kind of snarky, passive-aggressive way. Does anybody else get that feeling? Hydriotaphia 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's accurate, and not in any way snarky or aggresive or anything. I think he'd even write it like that himself. Is there any bit in particular you're concerned about? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. At this point, I'm not sure what exactly I was concerned about, actually! Hydriotaphia 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The snarky stuff was eliminated and concerned his leaving RU for Miami.

McGinn left Rutgers for Miami because of the warmer weather. That's what he told us in his last class at RU. 70.111.69.214 (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Revamp coming

Important philosopher needs an article with more references which I am working on. Typically I keep the current material (although I may rearrange it or edit it somewhat) and add new information. I'll post a tentative version in a sandbox for perusal before making any changes so people can comment. If anybody reading this has particular thoughts on how to improve this article, please write something below, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revamp is here in my sandbox. I left the source material in each reference but I'll remove it later before the swap-in as per copyright rules. If there are any comments, please write something otherwise I'll swap in the extended version in a day or so. Plus the article needs photos or pictures; if anybody has ideas, please give them, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom, there are too many footnotes: over 40 in the lead alone. There's no need for a footnote after each point, or even after each sentence. One a paragraph is often enough.

Also, the description of his writing is inappropriate advocacy ("lucid",[11][27] "clear," "enjoyable,"[7] [16] "charming",[13] "readable",[28] "illuminating",[29][21] "studiously commonsensical"[30] "brilliant,"[29] with "looseness and dash"[6] and "multilayered intensity,"[6]).

There are issues elsewhere in the article too. The draft seems to be talking him up, it's somewhat repetitive, and there are too many quotes and one-paragraph sentences/lists, and even a one-sentence section. Also, to discuss his academic work, we should ideally use his own writing or other academic sources, not newspapers and similar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, through long experience, I've learned to footnote everything to keep my additions from being deleted. It works for this purpose, and is in keeping with Wikipedia's rules about [[WP:|verifying]]. While I agree the idea of keeping the footnotes to the end of each paragraph looks more appealing visually, then what happens if I only footnote at the end of paragraphs is that sentences within the paragraph are more easily challenged, and deleted, which means that much of my effort has been wasted. About the writing -- McGinn is an excellent writer and speaker; I listened to his excellent Modern Scholar lecture course (I've listened to many CD-audio courses and McGinn's is among the best in terms of clarity although I don't necessarily agree with his views about the mind-body problem and consciousness) and McGinn communicates tough ideas with a fluid sensibility, and when I researched him, the sources said this too. So I think this point needs to be made, although maybe the list of adjectives describing his writing could be trimmed a bit. About talking him up -- I included both positive comments and negative ones, reflecting the overall consensus view that he is generally thought of positively. I was loathe to quote too many of McGinn's own sources as per Wikipedia's rules against using primary sources. And as McGinn mostly writes for a popular audience, then I feel using newspaper sources to comment on this is entirely appropriate. I found sources such as Philosophy Now and others to bring in the more technical stuff. Please consider that the current draft has basically no references; mine has many and is a substantial improvement in my view; generally, and I think you'll agree, that Wikipedia articles improve with more references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Tom, there are too many problems with it, and so many footnotes [1] that it's hard in places to read the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this, SlimVirgin. You have a reputation as one of Wikipedia's top contributors. Still, I suppose you might agree that competition can help us improve our craft. So, in a positive spirit with an aim of improving the encyclopedia, in a spirit of friendly competition which improves both of us, I make this challenge to you: can you do a better revamp of this article than me? You work in your sandbox (not some secret one but with an identified location); me in mine; deadline, say, Saturday November 17th at noon Pacific time. Rules: we can peek and steal from each other's sandboxes at any time but no messing with the other's sandbox. :) We post a notice on the administrator's noticeboard to enlist, say, five impartial administrator judges (not your friends or mine) to determine whose revamp is the best of the Colin McGinn article to be swapped in. Winner gets a barnstar (from me to you, or you to me, depending on who wins) plus bragging rights. Are you up for the challenge?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A competition sounds fun, but I don't think I'd want to do it, Tom, only because I wouldn't want to commit myself to working on it continuously. But you're very welcome to ask other people to take a look at both versions, now or whenever you prefer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing your improvements, I'm liking your version better than my sandbox version. If you would like to use any of the references I found from my talk page, be my guest.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, and will do. And thank you for starting the improvement drive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Nbauman

What the article states is that (a) the allegations have been made, and (b) that McGinn has reacted to this by way of resignation from his Chair at the University of Miami. These are two undisputed facts. The evidence we would expect in Wikipedia are indeed references to sources with a reputation for high reliability such as the New York Times or the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Professor Martin Kusch, University of Vienna 131.130.87.62 (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

WP:BLP prohibits defamatory accusations, unless they're supported by WP:RS. Are articles in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/arts/colin-mcginn-philosopher-to-leave-his-post.html and Chronicle of Higher Education enough to support those accusations? --Nbauman (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The current version seems fair enough. There are definitely allegations but it states that he denies them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.228.110 (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Book reviews

FreeKnowledgeCreator, he is known for his sharp reviews, not his reviews in general. If you don't like "sharp", we could say "blunt", but "sharp" is more accurate. "Blunt" implies that what he's saying is correct. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Sharp", as I said when I removed it, is a totally subjective term that an encyclopedia should not be using. It would belong only in a direct quotation. The only thing it really conveys to the reader is, "I, the editor who added this information, like Colin McGinn and think his reviews in the New York Review of Books and other places are really good." Which is no better than adding superlative terms to an article about one's favorite grunge band. "Sharp" is no better or more appropriate than "blunt", as it also can be read as implying that McGinn's views are correct, which it is not our place as Wikipedia editors to judge. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not what's meant by "sharp". His reviews are (or were) famously nasty, as the source says. Example: "This book runs the full gamut from the mediocre to the ludicrous to the merely bad. It is painful to read, poorly thought out, and uninformed. It is also radically inconsistent." SarahSV ^(talk) 05:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no context that would help the reader to understand that the intended meaning of "sharp" is the one you offer above. I suspect most readers are likely to interpret it as I did - a vague, unhelpful term indicating some kind of enthusiasm for the article subject and his views. If McGinn is actually known for writing "nasty" reviews, then the article could simply say so, in as many words, rather than using a term that can be variously interpreted. That might well run afoul of WP:BLP, however. If the information cannot be included without running the risk of violating BLP, best to leave it out entirely, than to resort to some sort of euphemism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colin McGinn. 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/20130607080955/http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/prizes/full_list to http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/prizes/full_list

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)