Talk:Edward Feser

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.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism Low‑importance

Edward Feser is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Philosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Religion / Mind / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Metaphysics
	Philosophy of religion
	Philosophy of mind
	Contemporary philosophy

Bias

I'm catholic, but this biography seems quite biased. We have one critical review to several positive reviews for a book that obviously must have incited quite a bit of controversy; why can't we make this article balanced and let readers decide things for themselves? To do otherwise undermines the merit of the man's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.96.90 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but why does their need to be an equal amount of criticisms to praise? If something received much more praise in review than criticism, why feel the need that ever point of praise needs to be countered with a point of criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schwyzer sentence

It's good to see a critical appraisal of Feser's work to balance the more laudatory stuff in this article. But Schwyzer, although he has studied philosophy, is a professor of gender studies, not philosophy. Does the sentence belong in the article? I've left it in, but I'm not sure it adds much. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look, I notice that Schyzer's statements are cited to his personal blog, rather than a reliable source. Perhaps that sentence will need to go. I'll leave this comment sitting here for a bit, and then, absent argument against, I'll delete the sentence. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've cut the Schwyzer stuff. However, the "reception" section now consists solely of praise, which is perhaps a bit problematic. If we can find reliably sourced criticism's of Feser's philosophical work, that might improve this article. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Richard Carrier

[1] Doug Weller talk 18:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier does not even know what end is up when it comes to philosophy. His blog opinions are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.174.63 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

This article is almost entirely unsourced and seems a bit heavy on the puffery. Any thoughts?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Claim

The wikipedia editor SlackingViceroy added on July 26: "On his blog, Feser claimed that the 2020 election was potentially ridden with fraud. He stated that claims of fraud may have basis in reality and is therefore not a conspiracy theory.[6] However, there is no evidence of massive voter fraud.[7][8]" Consulting the blog entry, Feser's point is about conspiracies and evidence in general. The editor here also does not satisfactorily prove that "there is no evidence" - ONLY that there is no evidence from the sources cited; and does not address any of the points Feser makes. FURTHERMORE, this is so very far from Feser's main philosophical concerns, it represents populist taste. None of Feser's articles or blog posts more central to his main points is so represented. My suggestion is that this be DROPPED from the article as not being adequately relevant.