`: I have multiple issues with the Western Philosophy introduction (presumably the ``outline`` section which was being discussed on Talk);  : A) Failure to properly represent physical determinism, and an implicit unqualified assumption of physical determinism: :: 1. ``role of determinism in how the Universe works`` :: 2. ``For example, determinism has yet to resolve`` :: 3. ``At least at the moment, it is an exaggeration to think that determinism governs every aspect of reality`` : I have corrected this already.  : B) General assumption of incompatibility of choice with physical determinism (which is an incompatibilist position only): :: 1. ``If the world is deterministic, our feeling that we are free to choose an action is simply an illusion`` :: 2. ``...perhaps leaving some room for individual choice`` : This will have to be corrected very soon.  : C) The quotation by Roy F Baumeister has nothing to do with physical determinism. It relates to the particulars of a dynamic interacting physical system. All of the psychological concepts/relationships being discussed here are believed to have physical representation. As far as I am aware this is a compatibilist model (ie, compatible with physical determinism) proposed in the scientific (not philosophical) literature. If there is anything incompatibilist about it, then it should be stated; :: With this query in mind, a clear statement of the dilemma is as follows: ::  :: The above is a moral dilemma, and it stems from a more fundamental debate over the role of determinism in how the Universe works... : I have corrected this already (but its relevance in an outline remains questionable).  : D) In general, I am not happy with this section; the relevance of this content is questionable, it definitely requires further references, and inaccuracies remain. I recognise the benefit of some kind of synthesis - but this may not be possible given the stark divergence of opinions as outlined in the introduction (or will certainly be difficult to get across in a neutral fashion). This problem was anticipated in my comments above while attempting to ascertain what content people thought relevant for such an ``outline`` section (Talk section ``Why are we focusing on the lede?``). :     `