Talk:Personism
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other uses
[edit]I think that somebody who knows how should move the "other uses" section to a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.77.123 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since the other terms don't have articles yet, I'm not sure if it'd be kept. I'm not that familiar with disambiguation page protocol myself. If you'd like to create one and you're not sure how, you can always type in "Personism (disambiguation)", click on the redlink to create the page (or just use this). You can put something like this (without the nowiki tags around the disambig template):
- Personism refers to the ethical philosophy of personhood.
- Personism may also refer to:
- Personism, the actual philosophical topic of what constitutes a person.
- Personism, a form of poetry mentioned by Frank O'Hara in which the poem is written directly towards another person.
- {{disambiguation}}
- Then again, that comment was from 2011. I'm not sure if this is relevant. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Start
[edit]This is just a start, I welcome any constructive criticism. -Tesseract2 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't a start, it's mostly uninformed nonsense. There is no such a thing as a philosophy of personism typified by Peter Singer. What utter nonsense. This can't even be rescued, what do you do with a made-up subject? I'm fascinated to learn that it cannot even be deleted, as it should be. Hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udo schuklenk (talk • contribs) 23:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- So why not be constructive and suggest how the article can be improved? If it needs to be rewritten, why don't you create a draft in your userspace, at say User:Udo schuklenk/Personism, and then ask for it to be reviewed by other users? Don't forget that you will need to cite reliable sources per Wikipedia policy.--ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Udo, sure it can be deleted. But at this point we'd probably have to have a discussion about it; see Articles for Deletion. But before we go there, can you be more specific here about what exactly is wrong? Is the name wrong? Is it's association with Peter Singer wrong? If so what about the Singer quotes in the article? etc. thanks, 2620:0:1000:3003:B6B5:2FFF:FEB8:147E (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- So why not be constructive and suggest how the article can be improved? If it needs to be rewritten, why don't you create a draft in your userspace, at say User:Udo schuklenk/Personism, and then ask for it to be reviewed by other users? Don't forget that you will need to cite reliable sources per Wikipedia policy.--ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I also think this page needs to be shut down completely. Neither Singer nor Tooley have ever advocated a philosophical theory called 'personism'. They both use a definition of person derived from John Locke but using a specific definition of the word 'person' is not a theory or 'ethical philosophy' and does not warrant a separate page. The three sources for this so called philosophy come from critiques of Singer (obviously that's fine but it should be made clear that this is not something Singer himself would see as his own 'ethical philosophy' if these critiques even use this term). Its also simply incoherent and biased in places for example 'Singer's philosophy has natural conclusions that contradict his own account[6] as well as conflict with common philosophical intuition.' I'm not even sure what this means but it is certainly sounds negative and would need to be stated as a criticism not simply stated as it is. But really this page has nothing of any value in it. Criticism of Singer's use of a definition of 'person' would need to be re-written and be better on his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.146.118 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)