There was a section called "reception". Then User:Czar, noted we don't tend to have a "reception" of people, and changed it to "legacy". I felt that sounded like he was dead, so I changed it to "influence". Today, User:Asilvering changed it to "reception" taking us back to the starting point. I avoided calling it "critique" as that has a negative connotation and the contents are a mix of negative, neutral and positive. Maybe we should try to reach consensus here before any more edits? Obviously two of us felt like "reception" was fine, but Czar didn't.... CT55555 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- His career isn't a creative work so it's not being appraised by critics. The way most articles handle this is to incorporate any accolades/responses in context of covering the subject matter (i.e., whatever aspect of his career is under discussion). I'm not necessarily convinced that the quoted commentary warrants inclusion in this case either. czar 03:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Oh lol. I should have checked first. I changed it from "Influence" because I didn't think there was any reason to suggest he was "influencing" those people who were responding (they've all clearly been contacted by a reporter about it for response; seems overblown). Checking a couple of people I thought might have a "reception" or similar section just now, I came up with Reception (Judith Butler), Impact (Simone de Beauvoir), Legacy (dead people only), and about seven start-class-sized articles, which didn't use a separate heading. Most of those didn't have anything similar, but a few did, and incorporated comments into discussion of the individual book/work/etc.
- I can't say I care much in any particular direction, but I'm with @Czar on both counts. Everything but the last sentence is a re-cite; if it were me, I don't think it would have occurred to me to use any of those quotes in the first place. (While we're here, the line about 18 languages is both a weird thing to mention in the context of the rest of the article and not confirmed by an independent source.) -- asilvering (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Another option is to recast that section as a single paragraph on Ethics, whether it exists in a dedicated section or not czar 02:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- A bit like asilvering I don't have strong feelings. I looked at other articles and they don't have a comparable section. That said, the others aren't inserting mechanical devices into human bodies, so he's a bit of an outlier, to put it mildly. I like the ethics idea. Are you volunteering @Czar, or is this a suggestion for me? CT55555 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- It was a suggestion but I've taken a stab anyway. :) For comparison, I wrote the first version of Josiah Zayner a while back, which deals with similar themes without a dedicated section for ethics commentary. czar 02:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- You did a great job. This is a very elegant solution to the problem. Nice team work, thanks! CT55555 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
