|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 . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Involvement with "Group of 88"
"Philosophy Junkie" insists that any mention of Rosenberg's involvement with the Group of 88 must be censored from the article. The Duke lacrosse case was a very widely publicized series of events, one of the biggest news stories of those days, and there are detailed articles on it and the Group of 88 in Wikipedia. In terms of publicity, it was undoubtedly the most prominent moment of Rosenberg's career. On what basis should the lacrosse case not be discussed here while it is discussed in articles dedicated to many other members of the Group of 88?--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be discussed in those articles either. Certainly using it to insert the political views of conservatives into this article is inappropriate. And the notion that it was in any sense "the most prominent moment of Rosenberg's career" is absurd, ignorant, and anti-intellectual. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The Duke lacross case got a lot of attention, but not Rosenberg. You must have no idea at all about philosophy or academia if you think this was "the most prominent moment of Rosenberg's career." His recent book for example was reviewed in The New York Times and attacked in The New Republic. Must more significant than this trivia. Can you indicate what you actually know about Rosenberg and philosophy of science?--Philosophy Junkie —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I said the most prominent moment in terms of publicity. His books on the philosophy of science that may be read by a handful of readers will never have the publicity of the lacrosse case. For example, his involvement with the Group of 88 is recorded in two widely read books, Taylor and Johnson's Until Proven Innocent and Pressler's It's Not About the Truth. However one ranks the Group of 88 stuff among his achievements, what's clear is that discussing it in this article is warranted by WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:UNCENSORED.
- I don't know what it matters what I know or think about Rosenberg or philosophy of science, as this article is not only about his philosophical views but also about his person and his life. But for what it's worth, I'm with Steven Weinberg in that I think that from the perspective of scientific progress philosophers are irrelevant.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The Duke Lacross case was newsworthy, but Rosenberg's involvement was not. He was one fo nearly 90 faculty who signed a letter. Reviewing your contributions, it seems you are mainly concerned with conservative hobby horses. That is fine, but it does not change the fact that Rosenberg is mainly notable for his philosophical work, not for signing a letter about race relations. USER:Philosophy Junkie/Philosophy Junkie —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, my politics are best characterized as social democratic, not "conservative." But however fascinating you may find my person, I am not the subject of this article, so you should stop concentrating on me and base your arguments on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As I said, Rosenberg's involvement with the Group of 88 is discussed in many reliable sources, so mentioning it in this article is in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. Mentioning it in no way precludes discussion of his intellectual work.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- We disagree about what is newsworthy. The Duke Lacross case was newsworthy. That Rosenberg signed a letter early on is not. Let us see what others say.Philosophy Junkie —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- One of the reasons the Duke Rape Hoax was noteworthy was the actions of people like Rosenberg. Also, Rosenberg went beyond of some of those who signed the Social Disaster prejudgment ad, and did an interview in the NY Sun where he claimed he signed it based upon alcohol consumption (no mention of alcohol is present in the Group of 88 add, nor in the denial statment later published), but also that the payers had "[sic] broken the law" to engage the stippers. I would say it is pretty extraordinary and a pretty clear rush to judgment when a faculty member actually declares his students (Seagleman was in his class at the time) had broken the law without evidence. Also the label of "conservative hobby horse" apart from being dubiously acceptable under Wikipedias guidlines of civility, is rather curious, since several people (including then-Senator Obama) objected to the way Nifong and Duke had treated their students. Cheerio.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alexander Rosenberg. 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/20120226150034/http://onthehuman.org:80/2009/11/the-disenchanted-naturalists-guide-to-reality/ to http://onthehuman.org/2009/11/the-disenchanted-naturalists-guide-to-reality/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.