Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

Well, never noticed the page history for the indeffed user. Oh well, this is giving me problems...A very sneaky move... Severestorm28 01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Severestorm28: No problem—I wouldn't have checked their talk page history either. All's well. A creative bit of vandalism they decided to engage in, I'll give them that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve corrected your edit and replaced the reference you inserted, to the subscription–only Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, with something more accessible. If Baldwin’s entry in DNB supports your edit then I’m afraid he’s wrong. This article refers to the number of children of Daniel Moore and Henrietta Sturge. GE Moore was the fourth child of Daniel and Henrietta, although he was Daniel’s fifth child. Daniel had 8 children, first a daughter Annie Harriette (1856–1951) with Anna Miller, who died after childbirth; then 7 with Henrietta Sturge, being Thomas Sturge (1870–1944), Daniel Henry (1871–1948), Henrietta (1872–1962), George Edward (1873–1958), Helen (1874–1919), Joseph Herbert (1876–1955), and Sarah Hannah (1878–1931). regards John beta (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John beta: The DNB entry is available here, as I indicated by adding a link to the Internet Archive in my reference, and it says "the third son and the fifth child of the eight children of Daniel Moore ... and his second wife, Henrietta Sturge". I trust the DNB over an archive blurb. What high-quality source supports your view? Is it Levy's biography? That's also available on the Internet Archive, and p 29 also indicates that Daniel and Henrietta had eight children. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I explained above in detail the family structure for your information so that you can see why some authors might be confused about the difference between Daniel's children, and Daniel and Henrietta's children. I've also provided a citation for G.E. Moore's personal papers at the Cambridge University Library. I would trust the author of the "blurb" whose detail indicates an interest in getting it right, particularly since a knowledge of the family structure is important in reviewing Moore's correspondence. Another reliable reference is Gwynn's Sturge Moore and the Life of Art, page 9. There are others.

It's no use willfully repeating sweeping statements from third hand observers such as Baldwin, for whom getting Moore's genealogy correct was of no interest. The DNB is only as good as its contributors. There's no peer review of articles - errors are down to the respective authors, so this one is on Tom Baldwin.

I've picked up more serious and obvious errors in the Australian Dictionary of Biography and getting them to make corrections to the online version has proved impossible. If the number quoted in WP is meant to include the total of Daniel and Henrietta's children and step-children then the article should say so. regards John beta (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John beta, Thomas Baldwin is the foremost Moore scholar working today. What's the issue with the Levy biography, which also reports eight children? [Checked again-Levy does report seven.] The link to the kuscholarworks source does not work for me.

You have indeed listed some names above, but you have not shown to my satisfaction that this list is a correct representation of the facts. I'm not willfully repeating sweeping statements; I'm citing reliable sources—which, in any event, are not making "sweeping statements": they are making narrow assertions of fact. Further, with your permission, I would like to move this discussion to Talk:G. E. Moore, because it is pertinent to the content of the article and not just our personal disagreement. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin's expertise in Moore's works has nothing to do with any interest in Moore's childhood family life. He has attempted to simplify the slightly complicated family structure by a sweeping statement. I would have hoped two references with a more detailed description of the family structure are enough for this article.

I suggest you look again at the Gwynn reference, the link is https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/6344/upk.sturge_moore.pdf - Nelson would have been proud of you. regards John beta (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That link works; the previous one didn't, because it didn't have the underscore that you added in this new version. I am now convinced of your view. Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS on my motives and, in future, WP:INDENT replies correctly. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for Nelson comment forgot to include

John beta (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you converted the citation-style found in the article Principia Ethica to the sfn-format. This usually shouldn't be done without seeking a talk-page consensus first, see WP:CITEVAR. I don't feel very strongly about the change for this particular article, so this is intended more as a heads-up for future edits. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: The style was already all over the place: some CS1 (not done consistently), references named according to an editor's own preference, some using {{rp}}. CITEVAR is only relevant when there is already a consistent style and where refs already provide needed bibliographic data, neither of which was universally the case before my series of edits. I was going through and verifying the refs so I figured I would make it consistent using sfns, which are the easiest and best style for multi-page books.

Btw, the reason I removed Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie was because it is (1) inaccessible even to someone like me with university subscriptions; and (2) not in English. The combination makes it very difficult to verify whether the information is accurate. Any claim about Principia, including the method of isolation, should be readily verifiable in English-language scholarship, and I did not see the claim verified in my search of the sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that English sources are to be preferred. But that a reliable source is non-English is not a sufficient ground to remove it and the claim it justifies, see WP:NOENG. In this particular case, the claim in question is not controversial: it mainly clarifies and expands the previous claim, which is backed by English sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings I have access to (the current version of) this source if you want a third party to verify something from it, and we could supply the original German in the notes to help future readers. But at a quick skim through the article history I'm not sure this is necessary - reads fine to me as it stands now? -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: If you have access to the source and would like to add a quotation, feel free! At some point I will look for an English source that verifies the claim. @Phlsph7: I continue to look for an English source because I am not sure the claim is uncontroversial. The claim is The test is meant to remove any considerations of the thing being good as a means by isolating the intrinsic values. This may run into the concern that Christine Korsgaard identifies in doi:10.2307/2184924, namely that intrinsic/extrinsic value and instrumental/final goodness are two different sets of concepts. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, Moore uses the terms "good as an end" and "intrinsically good" as synonyms. This would suggest that he does not observe this distinction, which, I think, has only been used in the more contemporary discourse. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Mm, good point. If I get a chance I will read and integrate Duncan-Jones's piece into Principia Ethica. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could use it as a secondary source for this claim, but it may not be sufficient alone: I didn't check whether it also talks about the method of isolation. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for sounding/feeling so short at JKR. It's not JKR. I spent five hours yesterday cleaning up citations for Wikipedia:Featured article review/D. B. Cooper/archive1‎, only to discover most of the text either failed verification or was cited to unreliable sources. And resumed today with continued discussion of same. It reminds me of how I felt the day you discovered how much of JKR was cited to accio-quote, but at least in that case, I knew we had competent editors on board who would get the job done. So, all-in-all, not a good two days to be trying to wrap up the interim lead, which deserves full and good-humored focus :) I am wondering if we need to start over. Or maybe just put something in, knowing that we will fix it on the next round, when the TG section isn't hanging over our heads. I dunno, but too tired, and in too much of a D. B. Cooper-inspired bad mood, to think strategically. So, my reminder to self; tomorrow will be a better day! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: You took on a thankless task of incorporating criticisms from many editors, including me, into an interim draft. It's only natural that that, plus DB Cooper, would be taxing. I don't think it's necessary to start over with JKR. Maybe once we've all slept on it we can incorporate everything into a single, new, close-to-final version. I think I was the last holdout among the JKR regulars so it's quite close. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, I'm glad you feel we're close; perhaps I was just succumbing to the going backwards feel of the Cooper FAR. Thanks for the good cheer, hasta mañana then! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bruce Duffy, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]