Jump to content

Talk:Mental property

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 08:31, 1 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I've reverted the page. It is unclear as to what exactly "psychobabbble" means, and why what was posted on the page counts as "psychobabbble", and why "psychobabble" should not be on a page about mental properties. Care to clarify?

Weasel wording[edit]

I'm going to add the "weasel" banner on this page. Here are a few reasons why.

  • It is claimed that mental properties are studied by sciences and parasciences. Then it is claimed that "philosophy of mind", which is neither science nor parascience, also studies mental properties.
  • The article states that the third approach is the "most universal research." I believe this shows a clear bias.
  • Undue emphasis is placed on systemics. Mental properties have been the subject of study by many other disciplines for a lot longer than systemics has been around.

I can provide more reasons - feel free to ask me - but I believe these to be sufficient. I do intend to help improve this article, so please do not see this as a "hit and run." D15724C710N (talkcontribs) 07:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wording which will address the concerns above and also the authors original intention is: "The third is the most recent area of research". Then I propose that the weasel-wording dispute tag can be removed. Good luck to all those intending to improve the article - surely just one REF can be found?! Mediation4u (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC) editing is fun[reply]
Improved the article. Several days allowed for reply, so going ahead with proposal above, so Weasel words removed / reworded in article. and tag removed.
Good luck to all those intending to improve the article - surely just one REF can be found on google?! Mediation4u (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC) editing is fun[reply]