This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
B. Alan Wallace article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Manul ~ talk 13:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported.
the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.
"the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources." Indeed. Novella's blog is not a notable independent source. In fact no critique of Wallace is, he's barely notable as an author himself, truth be told. Problem solved by not devoting ANY space to it. Cuvtixo ( talk) 22:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Recent changes have focused content on the Wallace and broaden the information regarding his scholarly and scientific contributions. Clarifications regarding the current understanding of consciousness have also been made. The page currently lacks other important details regarding Wallace. Furthermore, beyond the discussion of Novella's critique, it doesn't clearly assess his work within the broader scholarly, scientific, and religious communities. Neuroscientist 221 ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the combined changes from both editors:
So your hypothesis is just the reverse from what all the neuroscientists think.A:
Precisely.
Yet, the neuroscientific community has not come to a consensus...is a textbook case of WP:original research, as the source doesn't mention Wallace. Furthermore, it's not even a WP:reliable source.
Manul ~ talk 12:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it not relevant to include a small portion of his scientific work and to mention that he has published in this regard?
Neuroscientist 221 (
talk) 18:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Another title of his specifically references that he is taking a Buddhist view of science: "Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind." Cuvtixo ( talk) 16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Read through the titles here. The dualist philosophical views he presents has nothing to do with a false or misleading presentation of science as a scientist. Cuvtixo ( talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
In the box near the top of the page, under the photo of the subject, we find the spelling "Allan". I have seen this spelling of BAW's name nowhere else. Is it simply a typo needing correction? Jorjulio ( talk) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
B. Alan Wallace article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 28 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Manul ~ talk 13:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported.
the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.
"the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources." Indeed. Novella's blog is not a notable independent source. In fact no critique of Wallace is, he's barely notable as an author himself, truth be told. Problem solved by not devoting ANY space to it. Cuvtixo ( talk) 22:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Recent changes have focused content on the Wallace and broaden the information regarding his scholarly and scientific contributions. Clarifications regarding the current understanding of consciousness have also been made. The page currently lacks other important details regarding Wallace. Furthermore, beyond the discussion of Novella's critique, it doesn't clearly assess his work within the broader scholarly, scientific, and religious communities. Neuroscientist 221 ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the combined changes from both editors:
So your hypothesis is just the reverse from what all the neuroscientists think.A:
Precisely.
Yet, the neuroscientific community has not come to a consensus...is a textbook case of WP:original research, as the source doesn't mention Wallace. Furthermore, it's not even a WP:reliable source.
Manul ~ talk 12:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it not relevant to include a small portion of his scientific work and to mention that he has published in this regard?
Neuroscientist 221 (
talk) 18:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Another title of his specifically references that he is taking a Buddhist view of science: "Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind." Cuvtixo ( talk) 16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Read through the titles here. The dualist philosophical views he presents has nothing to do with a false or misleading presentation of science as a scientist. Cuvtixo ( talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
In the box near the top of the page, under the photo of the subject, we find the spelling "Allan". I have seen this spelling of BAW's name nowhere else. Is it simply a typo needing correction? Jorjulio ( talk) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)