Talk:Mental fact

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

Malformed cite[edit]

Restoring a malformed cite once might be a mistake, @Luizpuodzius: but 3 times looks like vandalism, or competence issues. Anmccaff (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's malformed about it? Power~enwiki (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first examples, @Power~enwiki:, it was essentially cobbled together from two web sites. The last version is workable, aside from upcoming copyright questions (large excerpts used for classes have a habit of disappearing between classes, IME), and would not have been nuked had @Luizpuodzius: noted his edits in the summary rather than use the standard revert message. (Yeah, I shoulda caught there was a difference in size, but LP has a long history of reverting to bad.) Anmccaff (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference does need to be expanded; if this article survives AfD I'll look at doing it then. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref inserted to show that the concept was created by G. E. Moore. It removes the notion that Searle is the only source, or the creator, of this philosophycal concept. Moreover, the statement that "his edits in the summary rather than use the standard revert message...LP has a long history of reverting to bad" is a bad argument to justify the user's failure to "caught there was a difference in size" does not work. It would be better to say: "Soory, my bad". A capable editor, when confronted with a "malformed cite", instead of deleting, he fix it. I agree that an user being correct 3 times looks like vandalism, or competence issues. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 16:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then the ref should be removed; it's trivial to find 19th century use of the term. A cite showing usage seldom demonstates that a person invented the term.Anmccaff (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this was not an attempt to emphasize a particular writer's use of the term, and is simply a dictionary definition, then it doesn't belong on Wiki at all. If it is an attempt to define it as a philisophical term of art, that is still questionable, since the same meaning is used in psychology. If it is an attempt to contrast it with other types of fact, then it should be rolled up into a single article with them. Anmccaff (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]