Hi Carneadesofcyrene! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
I just wanted to say hi, as I noticed your great recent addition to Ethical subjectivism. I look forward to seeing your contributions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, as we are sorely lacking in well-educated philosophers to contribute to the philosophy articles. I'll probably check out your YouTube channel, too. (Edit to add: Apparently I already have! But now I've subscribed). If you have any wikipedia-related questions don't hesitate to ask me if you have trouble finding answers; I'm not an admin or anything but I've been poking around here for a decade or two and have learned a few things. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 23:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm excited to help out. I'll be sure to reach out with any questions. And thanks for subscribing! Carneadesofcyrene ( talk) 03:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
-- 20:16, Tuesday, March 9, 2021 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Hi Carneadesofcyrene! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hello Carneadesofcyrene,
Please be aware of Wikipedia:Edit warring and WP:3RR.
You seem to be confused in thinking that Razi's works on religion are extant, besides what's written by Abu Hatim. That is not the case; his works are lost.
Currently we have two paragraphs discussing Abu Hatim's work from both sides of the debate. I see no point in adding a third paragraph implicitly relying on Abu Hatim's material while omitting his name and the debate surrounding his work. That's unnecessary and a bit misleading. Wiqi (55) 10:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Wiqi55:,
Thanks for reaching out. A couple of thoughts: first, I agree that there is an edit war on the al-Razi page over his work on alchemy. I have been working solely in the sections on his views on philosophy and religion, and have therefore avoided it. I do not believe any of my edits have been reverted, nor have I reverted anyone else's.
I am not under the impression that al-Razi's works on religion are extant, and I have cleaned up the language to clarify this. I added the third paragraph to the section on Abu Hatim to frame the debate with the information on which various sources agree, before delving into the disagreement. The sources agree that Abu Hatim was an Isma'ili who wrote about a debate between him and al-Razi where Abu Hatim represented al-Razi as a heretic. They also agree that these is a dispute as to the accuracy of Abu Hatim's portray of Razi's views. Where they disagree is whether this is a faithful interpretation of al-Razi or a hostile and inaccurate one.
As it stood before, it was unclear that there was a disagreement on the interpretation of Abu Hatim until you got to the last paragraph. The current framing puts the bottom line up front that Abu Hatim portrayed al-Razi as a heretic, but there is a debate as to whether Abu Hatim is an accurate source for al-Razi, as opposed to leading with one side of the debate. By separating the agreed upon facts from the debate, the reader can more easily understand what is contested and what is not. Without it, it is unclear that Abu Hatim's work portrays al-Razi as a heretic. In other words the point is to have a paragraph for each of the following:
Without the first paragraph, it is unclear what Abu Hatim actually said, particularly since the second paragraph is critical of the accuracy of his account. The question is not around what Abu Hatim said, but rather whether his portrayal of al-Razi is accurate.
Feel free to tweak the first paragraph if you think there is a better or more neutral way of phrasing what Abu Hatim says about al-Razi, and the general debate, but I would push against dropping it entirely. Carneadesofcyrene ( talk) 12:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Carneadesofcyrene: Greetings! I see that you are very proficient in adding sources and you are definitely very helpful. Though please keep in mind; references should be placed after punctuation (full stop punctuation, commas, colons, etc.) and should also be placed inside parenthesis if it references what is inside them. So instead of "According to Bob, Lenin used to hate sandwiches[ref].", it should be "According to Bob, Lenin used to hate sandwiches.[ref]". This might seem rather picky but Wikipedia has high standards of WP:MOS, and knowing the ones about sources will be particularly helpful for you. Cheers. Wretchskull ( talk) 14:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Wretchskull: Thanks for the advice! I'm still getting used to the formatting and style. Carneadesofcyrene ( talk) 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Carneadesofcyrene! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
I just wanted to say hi, as I noticed your great recent addition to Ethical subjectivism. I look forward to seeing your contributions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, as we are sorely lacking in well-educated philosophers to contribute to the philosophy articles. I'll probably check out your YouTube channel, too. (Edit to add: Apparently I already have! But now I've subscribed). If you have any wikipedia-related questions don't hesitate to ask me if you have trouble finding answers; I'm not an admin or anything but I've been poking around here for a decade or two and have learned a few things. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 23:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm excited to help out. I'll be sure to reach out with any questions. And thanks for subscribing! Carneadesofcyrene ( talk) 03:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
-- 20:16, Tuesday, March 9, 2021 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Hi Carneadesofcyrene! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Hello Carneadesofcyrene,
Please be aware of Wikipedia:Edit warring and WP:3RR.
You seem to be confused in thinking that Razi's works on religion are extant, besides what's written by Abu Hatim. That is not the case; his works are lost.
Currently we have two paragraphs discussing Abu Hatim's work from both sides of the debate. I see no point in adding a third paragraph implicitly relying on Abu Hatim's material while omitting his name and the debate surrounding his work. That's unnecessary and a bit misleading. Wiqi (55) 10:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Wiqi55:,
Thanks for reaching out. A couple of thoughts: first, I agree that there is an edit war on the al-Razi page over his work on alchemy. I have been working solely in the sections on his views on philosophy and religion, and have therefore avoided it. I do not believe any of my edits have been reverted, nor have I reverted anyone else's.
I am not under the impression that al-Razi's works on religion are extant, and I have cleaned up the language to clarify this. I added the third paragraph to the section on Abu Hatim to frame the debate with the information on which various sources agree, before delving into the disagreement. The sources agree that Abu Hatim was an Isma'ili who wrote about a debate between him and al-Razi where Abu Hatim represented al-Razi as a heretic. They also agree that these is a dispute as to the accuracy of Abu Hatim's portray of Razi's views. Where they disagree is whether this is a faithful interpretation of al-Razi or a hostile and inaccurate one.
As it stood before, it was unclear that there was a disagreement on the interpretation of Abu Hatim until you got to the last paragraph. The current framing puts the bottom line up front that Abu Hatim portrayed al-Razi as a heretic, but there is a debate as to whether Abu Hatim is an accurate source for al-Razi, as opposed to leading with one side of the debate. By separating the agreed upon facts from the debate, the reader can more easily understand what is contested and what is not. Without it, it is unclear that Abu Hatim's work portrays al-Razi as a heretic. In other words the point is to have a paragraph for each of the following:
Without the first paragraph, it is unclear what Abu Hatim actually said, particularly since the second paragraph is critical of the accuracy of his account. The question is not around what Abu Hatim said, but rather whether his portrayal of al-Razi is accurate.
Feel free to tweak the first paragraph if you think there is a better or more neutral way of phrasing what Abu Hatim says about al-Razi, and the general debate, but I would push against dropping it entirely. Carneadesofcyrene ( talk) 12:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Carneadesofcyrene: Greetings! I see that you are very proficient in adding sources and you are definitely very helpful. Though please keep in mind; references should be placed after punctuation (full stop punctuation, commas, colons, etc.) and should also be placed inside parenthesis if it references what is inside them. So instead of "According to Bob, Lenin used to hate sandwiches[ref].", it should be "According to Bob, Lenin used to hate sandwiches.[ref]". This might seem rather picky but Wikipedia has high standards of WP:MOS, and knowing the ones about sources will be particularly helpful for you. Cheers. Wretchskull ( talk) 14:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Wretchskull: Thanks for the advice! I'm still getting used to the formatting and style. Carneadesofcyrene ( talk) 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)