Talk:Rosalind Hursthouse

Strange edits by User:KillerChihuahua

KillerChihuahua, I have Graham Oppy and N. N. Trakakis' A Companion to Philosophy in Australia & New Zealand open in front of me as I type these words. I am looking at page 575 of that book. It specifically states, "Hursthouse is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today." Would you PLEASE stop removing this valid and properly sourced information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservative Philosopher (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It does say on page 214 that Hursthouse is "best-known as a virtue ethicist", but it doesn't say anything of the sort on page 575 - and since the article is sourced to page 575, not to page 214 (as you should have seen by looking at the references section), you have distorted the source by replacing the words "world's best-known virtue ethicist working today" with "best known as a virtue ethicist". Please stop this. I find it extremely strange that a senior editor would behave in such a way.

I still cannot locate that content. The online version does not have page numbers; the Hursthouse entry merely states she is best known as a virtue ethicist. Under what heading is the statement made, please?

Note that this is an extraordinary claim; it is clearly a statement of value and as such must be both clearly sourced and attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Adding to the issue is that only the source you mention, and Wikipedia and clones/copies of Wikipedia, seem to be making any sort of claim of this stature. For example, the Standford entry on Virtue Ethics does not even mention Hursthouse; about a half dozen others are named, but not Hursthouse.[1] If she is truly the "best known" surely she would merit a mention. She is mentioned by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but only as one of a number of other philosophers, and is not given prominence. ("Rosalind Hursthouse developed one detailed account of eudaimonist virtue ethics." etc.) So for policy reasons, she cannot be described as "the world's best known" without clear attribution, ie "Bob states she is..." and IMO it is not desirable to put such hagiographic phrasing in a Wikipedia article anyway; there is doubt as to the universal acceptance of the claim, making it unnecessarily controversial; It is not an encyclopedic approach to rate people with superlatives. We do not say "X is the best baseball player today" or "Y is the best saxaphone player" regardless of whether a source stated this; superlatives by their nature are inherently opinions. We must omit the phrasing, or find out who said it and cite them, and IMO the first is far prefereable to the second. I can source that "Elvis Presley is the undisputed King of Rock and Roll." to the Rock and Roll hall of fame, for example, but the Wikipedia article states merely that "one of the most popular American singers of the 20th century. A cultural icon, he is widely known by the single name Elvis. He is often referred to as the "King of Rock and Roll" or simply "the King". Do you see the difference? And this is a bad example, because Elvis is extremely well known as "the king of rock and roll". You must source the statement specifically, or it must go. It violates NPOV as it is currently written. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot look up the source properly, that is your shortcoming and your deficiency. If you are unfamiliar with the relevant sources, you should not be editing this page. Not being able to find the content (it's in Daniel Russell's entry on Virtue Ethics, BTW - does that help?) doesn't give you an excuse for removing it or claiming that it has no source. If you feel that you absolutely must reword it somehow to make it clear that it is only someone's opinion, then reword it, but don't remove something just because you can't do proper research. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And just to make it clear again, as you ignored me when I explained it before, the version of the article that you reverted back to distorts the sources. You sourced content to page 575 (in the essay by Daniel Russell) that is actually from pages 213-214 (in the essay by Michael Slote). This misrepresentation of sources is a serious matter. It is highly disruptive, and obstructs improvement of this page. I suggest that instead of continuing a you-against-me dispute here, you should ask for a third opinion or outside help or comment, because I don't think that your interaction with me is going to solve anything here. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

as the online text has no page numbers, then it is impossible for anyone, regardless of their skills or lack thereof, to locate content in the online version based on page numbers. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Russell, from the University of Wichita[2], does not seem to be notable; he fails WP:PROF, although he has written a couple of books. He also seems to be a mediocre teacher[3] although that should probably not concern us much here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In questioning your ability to do research, I had in mind your failure to refer to the published book. Whilst the internet can be a useful resource, it can also sometimes help to refer to actual books. Your comment about Daniel Russell appears to violate BLP, and I suggest that you remove it from the talk page. If Mr. Russell's alleged mediocrity "should probably not concern us much here", then why indeed do you mention it at all? Out of sheer malice? Conservative Philosopher (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You will note that as you again reverted to a version of the article that distorts the source used (it sources content to page 575 of the book that is actually to be found on an entirely different page), I have again reverted you right back. Please stop this unfortunate behavior. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Since the entire content of "the actual book" is available in html format online, there is no point in getting a paper copy. I did not distort the sources; there was no change regarding page 575. You are grossly in error about both my edit[4] and what your revert accomplished[5], which is merely to restore the same claim you have been pushing since we started this. This rendered your edit summary nonsensical. Please look before you simply hit the "revert" button, please. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the notability and/or mediocrity of Daniel C. Russell: this matters, because as I have explained to you, the only way to place the extreme, subjective opinion you desire into the article without violating POV is to quote it and directly attribute the source. My example above was "Bob states she is..." now I know that the bit is from an associate professor of philosophy at Wichita State University. We cannot follow the normal format here and say Daniel Russell states that she is the best-known... because that link goes to a dab page; the Wichita teacher is not even on it because he fails PROF. That being the case, his opinion is not generally notable enough to include in an article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The point of looking at the actual book is that you would be able to find out which page supports which statement. The problem with your preferred version of the article remains what it has always been, and your absolute refusal to admit that you have made a mistake doesn't change that. You sourced content to page 575 of the book (that Hursthouse is best-known as a virtue ethicist) that simply is not there. As I said above, "And just to make it clear again, as you ignored me when I explained it before, the version of the article that you reverted back to distorts the sources. You sourced content to page 575 (in the essay by Daniel Russell) that is actually from pages 213-214 (in the essay by Michael Slote)." Your comments ("there was no change regarding page 575") don't address this problem at all; they simply dodge the issue. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to rephrase the world's best-known virtue ethicist today part as Russell's opinion, that would be fine as a compromise. But you absolutely cannot keep on reverting back to a version of the article that distorts the source and attributes content to the wrong page of a book. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The article as it stands has a high level of POV exactly as KillerChihuahua states. It needs a lot of work to get to a neutral state. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. "is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today" is an extraordinary claim. The cite you give doesn't come close to being an extraordinary source. Also, I'm seeing a tendency towards "proof by verbosity" from both of you. Keep it concise. - Richfife (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re to CP: I didn't add the page numbers, so arguing that I am sourcing to the wrong page number is tendentious at best. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Richfife: I tried concise. I have now also tried verbose, with lots of links to policy. I deeply resent that you accuse me of attempting "proof by verbosity" which implies much text, little or no substance. If such meaning was not your intent, I suggest you choose your phrasing with more care in the future. I concur I have added much text; I utterly reject your implied accusation that my posts were without substance. You may certainly hold to the opinion that I over-explained; you may prefer a different approach, and you hopefully will achieve better results than I. My approach has worked in helping new editors understand policy before this, and doubtless will help users in the future. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw and apologize for my comment. I was under time pressure IRL and mistook some of CP's text for your own. - Richfife (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all; we've all made similar errors, I am sure. We value your input here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently eveything is sourced from Slote or Russell via "A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand."... more sources would be good. Any pointers CP? KC? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

She is mentioned as a "leading exponent of virtue ethics" in Peace education: exploring ethical and philosophical foundations by James Page, found online here. I'm trying to find sources at my local library, but have not managed to get very far yet. If you don't mind the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, she is given a passing mention there, in three places as seen if you go to http://www.iep.utm.edu/ and search for Rosalind Hursthouse (linking the search triggers the blacklist filter for some reason.) IMO the Internet Encyclopedia is not quite up to RS standards. Were I to see it on the WP:RSN, for example, I would advise not using it as a source. I keep finding essays by her in compilation type books, as opposed to anyone writing about her. Her views on abortion are presented in Ethical Theory: A Concise Anthology, (edited by Heimir Geirsson and Margaret R. Holmgren). This same essay, or varients thereof, is available elsewhere. I'm still looking, of course, but I don't expect quickl results. Perhaps someone with access to a university library would have better success. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm noticing a couple of things. A statement that Hursthouse is the world's best known virtue ethicist here should be mirrored in the Virtue ethics article in order to hold it up to the scrutiny of a wider population of editors. I don't see any such attempt. Also, Talk:Abortion#Needs_a_picture this section by Conservative Philosopher mixed with Hursthouse's matching views raise the bar required for attempts by CP to claim that Hursthouse is an authority significantly. - Richfife (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua is distorting things, as usual. It doesn't matter who originally added what - anyone who looks at the version of the article she reverted to will see that it has statements sourced to the wrong page. But I see ArtifexMayhem has solved that problem now. I'm pleased that there's at least one editor here who seems to know what he is doing. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're celebrating that an editor who's willing to correct your mistakes properly (as opposed to one that ISN'T correcting them properly) has finally arrived? That doesn't strike you as odd? - Richfife (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that I had made any kind of mistake. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

To reply to Richfife: what the hell are you talking about? My comment on the talk page of Abortion had nothing to do with Hursthouse, or any issue at this page. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A writer's personal stance on a subject is valid point to bring up when analyzing the things that they write or choose to reference about it. It's not a fatal flaw; people can write objectively about things they feel strongly about. But it does raise red flags and it is worth bringing up on discussion pages such as this. Here's a paragraph that takes a somewhat stronger stance if you're curious: [6]. - Richfife (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to that on your talk page. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

Does anyone know her date of birth?82.34.238.251 (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)