The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Keep: The copyvios that have been hidden are not a current issue. The Schazjmd talk page thread mentions a vague feeling of copyvio with precisely no evidence; that is no ground for GAR, especially if the matter has been addressed by removal/hiding since then. On tone, I've fixed a minor issue. I've also removed a small amount of uncited material. On the tag's vague charge of being essay-like (always a personal judgement, very hard to verify), I note that in a philosophy article, it is correct to explain the arguments in plain language, and these naturally appear as descriptions of thought, which will sound to the uninitiated like an editor "thinking aloud", but will not be original research as long as they are properly and genuinely cited to reliable sources. In short, I can find very little wrong with the article as it now stands: that does not mean it did not have problems earlier, but that does not concern us here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this. I agree that it's best to write out the arguments in plain language, but what about, for example, the section on Quining qualia? Dennett certainly meets the criteria for a valid WP:RSOPINION, but almost the entire section is based on his paper "quining qualia" with no other sources outside of the criticism section. Possibly I'm being too nitpicky here? - car chasm (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have Dennett stating a view, and a criticism section attempting a rebuttal of that view. I'd say, what's not to like, really. It's certainly fair. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
