![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 An article should be created on Matthew Fowler in philosophical anthropology.
2 Max Scheler's works should be seperated into those dealing with free-running sleep, and independantly refereced in "Further Reading" section.
More to come on both Scheler and Fowler, as well as additional authorities on free-running sleep.
06/20/07-
Relation to Chronotherapy coming too. (Also Fowler's primary area of study.)
06/20/07 - "Scheler taking what can be described as a realistic view against Fowler’s impractical but ‘Utopian’ mindset." -- Not an expert but this is definitely not NPOV
07/25/07 - "Scheler taking what can be described as a realistic view against Fowler’s impractical but ‘Utopian’ mindset." I agree not an expert, but Fowler's views are purely free-running sleep in theory, only not able to be implemented.
Scheler's views are hence more 'realistic'.
The term "Freerunning" is used in Chronobiology and the study of Circadian rhythm sleep disorders. There it is freerunning as opposed to entrained to nature's daily light/dark cycle. I don't really understand this article, but it seems to be about something else entirely. (?) Can both concepts be contained in the same article, or is disambiguation in order? Hordaland ( talk) 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The two that I'll change in a minute are technical, so I thought I'd explain:
Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, it doesn't matter: the source specifically named a proportion of people who have no light perception. The numbers might be quite different for the group you're describing.
Remember that Wikipedia isn't about what's True™; it's about what's verifiable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No deal. This bit:
may be true, but it needs a reference. Although this seems plausible, the sources I've seen make no such claims. It must have a source; Wikipedia is not a place for publishing our own pet theories.
The bit about not having eyes is not supported by the reference and can't be included in a way that makes the average reader believe that it is supported by the reference. (Non-human animals shouldn't be mentioned in a section that's specifically about humans anyway.)
And finally, the bit about the few who have been diagnosed was confusing. Do you mean to challenge the sex ratio, or simply to (perhaps unnecessarily) repeat the "small number of sighted individuals" information from the previous paragraph? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 An article should be created on Matthew Fowler in philosophical anthropology.
2 Max Scheler's works should be seperated into those dealing with free-running sleep, and independantly refereced in "Further Reading" section.
More to come on both Scheler and Fowler, as well as additional authorities on free-running sleep.
06/20/07-
Relation to Chronotherapy coming too. (Also Fowler's primary area of study.)
06/20/07 - "Scheler taking what can be described as a realistic view against Fowler’s impractical but ‘Utopian’ mindset." -- Not an expert but this is definitely not NPOV
07/25/07 - "Scheler taking what can be described as a realistic view against Fowler’s impractical but ‘Utopian’ mindset." I agree not an expert, but Fowler's views are purely free-running sleep in theory, only not able to be implemented.
Scheler's views are hence more 'realistic'.
The term "Freerunning" is used in Chronobiology and the study of Circadian rhythm sleep disorders. There it is freerunning as opposed to entrained to nature's daily light/dark cycle. I don't really understand this article, but it seems to be about something else entirely. (?) Can both concepts be contained in the same article, or is disambiguation in order? Hordaland ( talk) 21:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The two that I'll change in a minute are technical, so I thought I'd explain:
Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately, it doesn't matter: the source specifically named a proportion of people who have no light perception. The numbers might be quite different for the group you're describing.
Remember that Wikipedia isn't about what's True™; it's about what's verifiable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No deal. This bit:
may be true, but it needs a reference. Although this seems plausible, the sources I've seen make no such claims. It must have a source; Wikipedia is not a place for publishing our own pet theories.
The bit about not having eyes is not supported by the reference and can't be included in a way that makes the average reader believe that it is supported by the reference. (Non-human animals shouldn't be mentioned in a section that's specifically about humans anyway.)
And finally, the bit about the few who have been diagnosed was confusing. Do you mean to challenge the sex ratio, or simply to (perhaps unnecessarily) repeat the "small number of sighted individuals" information from the previous paragraph? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)