|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.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I move to bump this section up a bit on quality, since the addition of the section on Vagueness, Truth and Logic provides some detailed insight into Kit's work. - Rdanneskjold 00:00 (UTC), 6 Oct. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdanneskjold (talk • contribs)
please improve this page!
I'm just a casual Wikipedia reader (but a professional philosopher). I noticed that Kit Fine's page is marked for possible deletion on the grounds that he may not be noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia page. To me, it's mind-blowing that someone could think Kit Fine was not noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article. Although much of his philosophy is obscure, and perhaps not headed anywhere useful, he is probably the most thought-provoking living philosopher. Other philosophers have spawned more voluminous responses to their work, but that's not because they are better than Kit Fine; it is because they are easier to think of responses to. For instance, Timothy Williamson is a very good philosopher (maybe the equal of Kit Fine -- in my opinion, he is less deep but far more clear), and there is a whole industry of Williamson-inspired work. Fine has generated a much lesser literature, but it's certainly not because he's a worse thinker than Williamson. I really don't think that I'm the only person who has an extremely high opinion of Kit Fine. Why does the Philosophical Gourmet rate NYU as the number one university in the world for metaphysics? Hartry Field is a smart dude, and so is Ted Sider (but no one would say he's really "deep"). Crispin Wright has done some important work in metaphysics, but not in a while. If NYU is number one in metaphysics, the number one reason for that fact has to be Kit Fine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kit Fine. 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/20160203144558/http://www.britac.ac.uk/fellowship/elections/2005/index.cfm to http://www.britac.ac.uk/fellowship/elections/2005/index.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.