Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This is an archive of past discussions about Brian Leiter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion
This section has become very unreadable, and in my experience, little good comes out of sections this unreadable. I would invite anyone concerned about any of the issues discussed in this section to start new sections about them, preferably with a short description of the exact issue/problem you are concerned with. I know this is an unusual action, but suspect it will lead to greater productivity with less drama than any other action.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This seems like a short enough entry to me that the lede can be made minimal and entirely uncontroversial with the rest of the, apparently controversial, details left to the body of the entry. I'm seeking consensus on reducing the text of the lede to simply: "Brian Leiter (born 1963) is an American philosopher and legal scholar." Lots of other living philosophers and legal academics have similarly short ledes.Sneekypat (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
No, the lede is supposed to summarize the text, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is of course not a reason per wp policy to change this to not comport with our guidelines, and the controversial material is a material part of his bio. We are not to whitewash bios. And the material is all RS-sourced, and per our standards for ledes should be reflected in the lede. "Lots of living philosophers have short ledes" is a reason to bring those ledes up to standards, not to whitewash this one. That would directly fly in the face of wp standards. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The lede as written by Epeefleche is clearly not NPOV. This is not even a close case. The only question is whether to shorten the lede further, which is fine with me. Epeefleche, please also do not remove relevant content elsewhere in the article. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course the lede is NPOV. Whitewashing it by deleting significant RS-supported material that Leiter views as IDONTLIKEIT is what would be NPOV. As to Junie's effort to bolster Leiter by including the National Jurist info which is not significant enough to be covered by an RS, and where even the NJ (used as support for itself) is NN, there's no indication that that is notable enough for inclusion. If an RS covers it, there would be an argument at least for inclusion. We certainly don't cover non-RSs awards, covered only by the NN itself. And the lede edits Junkie keeps on deleting follow wikipedia guidelines -- which is what matters. No cogent wp-based reason has been given for their deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
"Caustic rhetoric and combative tactics" was the phrase you used, and it is not supported by a RS; the RS indicates that the subject responded to two critics with harshly critical e-mails, that's it. I now see you have written on other TALK pages that you want to discredit the subject as a "disgrace," and that, as the original retaliation charge suggested, this was all prompted by some debate about a law school website which I do not even understand. What you call "whitewash" is an attempt to maintain NPOV about a living person. I continue to support Sneekypat's proposal. Enough doubts have now been raised about the editing by Epeefleche to warrant reporting to a Noticeboard. I do not have much experience with this, because most philosophy entries do not provoke editing by people unfamiliar with philosophy. I hope disinterested editors like Sneekpat can find a resolution.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the "caustic rhetoric and combative tactics" language, and remit. I don't want to "discredit" the subject -- rather, I want to reflect what the RSs reflect, and not whitewash the article. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you missed this. The RS ref -- the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education -- reported: "Brian Leiter ... who has come under intense criticism in recent weeks for his caustic rhetoric ... Leiter’s combative tactics on his blog and social media—he called one philosopher “a disgrace” and said she works in “a shit department”—fueled a protest that prompted the change. Hundreds of philosophers signed a statement saying they would not complete the surveys that inform the publication’s rankings as long as Mr. Leiter was its editor." Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not realize you were purporting to quote from the Chronicle of Higher Education blog, rather than the Chronicle article. If it is a quote, it should be in quotes, but it does not belong in the lede, and there is no consensus for it to be in the lede, so you must stop reverting. In addition, the Above the Law blog is not a RS.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
How did you not realize that the ref supporting the statement -- which followed the statement -- was the Chronicle of Higher Education article? When a sentence is followed by a ref, if you click through to the ref and read it, you can see what it states. And here, the ref followed the sentence in question. So I can't understand your initial assertion above that: ""Caustic rhetoric and combative tactics" was the phrase you used, and it is not supported by a RS; the RS indicates that the subject responded to two critics with harshly critical e-mails, that's it." Your assertion was flatly incorrect, and you've not explained or apologized how you made such an incorrect accusation.
Furthermore, it's not a quote in the article. In addition, it does belong in the lede -- which by consensus Wikipedia says is to summarize the article. Finally, Above the Law is certainly an RS, with all the indicia of an RS -- you can't (yet again) just throw out false accusations. Thanks.
Finally, an admin has just reverted your last deletion of material from the lede, deletion of Above the Law material, etc. Please respect what he also wrote in his edit summary. Please don't edit war. Please take this as a warning -- and I say that not to be confrontational, but to meet our criteria which requires that I warn you before asking that further action be taken if edit warring continues. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The Admin who reverted has his own COI, apparently having a connection with Noelle McAfee, who was involved in the Gourmet Report controversy. "Above the Law" is not a RS, and it is not a RS for the subject being a Nietzsche expert (you inserted a link to the post that accuses the subject, falsely, of defending racists!). I agreed with Speedypat that the lede should be trimmed. You have ignored our opinions, even though it is presently 2-1 in favor of trimming. You have also destroyed this article, and have repeatedly added contentious material that, at best, is poorly sourced, and thus in clear violations of the rules about bios of living persons. This is one of the worst violations of Wikipedia rules I have ever seen in nearly ten years.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Just inserting a response here to say: yes, I know Noelle, no, that does not give me a COI w/r/t Leiter, and no, I do not believe that makes me WP:INVOLVED w/r/t this page Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
In response to your other point, there are two Chronicle sources, an article and a blog posting. I thought you were referring to the former not the latter. As I said, if it's a quote it should be put in quotes. But it belongs in the controversy section, not the lede.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the Wikipedia definition of "questionable source": "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." This is obviously the case with "Above the Law," a blog that the subject has criticized extensively on his law blog: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22above+the+law%22&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fleiterlawschool.typepad.com%2Fleiter%2F&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fleiterlawschool.typepad.com%2Fleiter%2F&gws_rd=sslPhilosophy Junkie (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Philosophy Junkie, you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of almost all Wikipedia policies you have mentioned that unless you remedy it, you're unlikely to make any progress here, and likely to get banned. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree w/Admin Gorman, immediately above.
"Above the Law" is an RS, as I said, with all the indicia of an RS, including an editorial staff. You've not supported your contrary notion. And there is no reason to think that it is not an RS for the subject being a Nietzsche expert.
I trimmed the lede, while keeping all substance. You, in contrast, are seeking to delete from the lede material that summarizes what is in the text, and is of moment, that you don't like. That is whitewashing. And is not acceptable. Admin Gorman as well, most recently, restored to the lede what you sought to delete.
The sourcing of what I have added is appropriate -- all RS. There is material in the article that is not properly sourced, and the article (as well as some specific unsourced sentences) is tagged for this malady. The unsourced sentences are subject to deletion if RS inline sourcing is not supplied. I've added RS refs to some previously tagged uncited sentences, but a number more remain.
I know that Brian Leiter is the # 1 article you have edited at Wikipedia. And that your very first significant substantive edits were to Brian Leiter. But you do not own the article, and it is not appropriate for you to seek to whitewash it.
As to your inexplicable baseless accusation - your "explanation" is nothing of the sort. You had a sentence followed by a ref -- that directly supported the sentence. You made a false accusation that I had failed to support the sentence. What in the world is that all about? (And I answered your comment on quotes; and no ... yet again ... the lede reflects in summary form what is in the text, so it belongs both in the lede and in the text).
Last point -- Leiter's law blog, as much as you slavishly point to it (and to him), is not an RS. It is his personal blog; simply his personal musings, and certainly not an RS. Plus, though it is either here nor there, it's not as though he has a pristine reputation. Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid this has passed the point of being productive, I hope other editors will intervene and rectify what you have done. "Above the Law" does not have an editorial staff: the editors are the authors. I did not cite Leiter's blog as a RS, but to indicate that you are using a gossip blog that Leiter has severely criticized for years as a source. That you continue to think a gossip blog about law is a RS for Leiter being a Nietzsche expert shows you are beyond reason. (Leiter is a Nietzsche expert, there is lots of actual evidence for that, but you would have to do more than search blogs to find out.) As I told you before, I have edited hundreds of philosophy entries over the last nine years, and haven't edited this one since 2012--before the current edit war. If I have made more edits here, I guess it is because it attracts vandalism and retaliatory editing, unlike most other philosopher entries. As to your continued tantrum about my confusion between the Chronicle article and the Chronicle blog, I didn't look at the reference, I was responding simply to your saying the Chronicle was the source, which I took to mean the article, not the blog. Take a deep breath please and have a nice weekend.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Junkie -- Have you ever noticed that Leiter, when discussing a strongly worded view that he faced, resorted to calling it a tantrum? Also, Above the Law certainly does have an editorial staff, including a Managing Editor and a number of other editors. And yes -- you were using Leiter's personal musing blog ... which is not support for anything of moment on wp. And the Leiter article is not only the article you've edited most, it's the first one you made substantive edits to, when you started editing. Your accusing me of not having an RS source for a sentence when I clearly did have one is incomprehensible, still. Seriously -- "I didn't look at the reference"!!! Sheeeesh. (And still, no apology for making an unfounded accusation against me). Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I did not realize Leiter had trademarked the word "tantrum," my bad! I withdraw the characterization in the hope that we might make constructive progress and that you might show more willingness to listen to other editors. Tom Morriss has shown here very clearly that because you are unfamiliar with philosophy, you do not know how to find reliable sources, the way he has. Whether the Above hte Law gossip blog is a RS, it is not a high quality source of the sort rerquired by the rules on BLP. Having now read the Chronicle article, I think your summary of it in the lede is not very accurate, please take a look. The boycott was initiated in response to a single e-mail sent to the UBC professor, not to his generally combative blogging. Like Sneekpat, I still favor a short lede, similar to the one on the article about Eugene Volokh, which you have edited. Finally, please assume good faith, as I will do with you going forward. I have a single interest: philosophy, especially contemporary philosophers in the analytic tradition. Leiter is a marginal case for me, but unlike the hundreds of other philosophy entries I have worked on, it attracts the most controversy.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll take a further look. But a few comments. First -- I already told you why your continued "I know more about philosophy than you do" attack on me is not just inappropriate, but irrelevant. I don't care if you know as much about philosophy as Leiter himself, or have a PhD in it from a school Leiter likes, or teach it at a school that Leiter approves of -- it holds no water in this forum. I can be a 15-year-old pimply 80 IQ dwarf from a non-English speaking country who has trouble passing my spelling re-test in school -- if I follow wp guidelines, and you do not, that is what matters. I've also responded about the lede. I don't see a negative result as to ATL as an appropriate RS source for the purpose used. Finally -- as to your editing of Leiter, as you know it goes far beyond him being a "marginal case" for you. As pointed out his is the first article you edited substantively, the one you have edited the most, and you have been in email correspondence with him vis-a-vis the editing of Wikipedia articles, and he has followed that by devoting an entire blog to attacking a Wikipedia article that you were the one editor who edit-warred with regard to. Please stop trying to downplay that connection that you have with him. Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You continue to misrepresent my editing work at Wikipedia. Please just stop. As I have pointed out elsewhere, you should stop downplaying your hostility to the subject and your desire to discredit him with this entry. Prove by your actions that these doubts about your own motives are not warranted. I know you are proud of your ignorance of philosophy, but the problem is it prevents you from identify RSs, which Tom Morriss showed. Above the Law is not a RS about Leiter being a Nietzsche expert. Tom Morriss quickly identifies multiple reliable sources for that. You should exercise more restraint and show greater respect for the opinions of other editors. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I continue to correct your efforts to downplay the fact that your very first significant substantive edits, on the second day you edited WP, were to Brian Leiter. That you have communicated with him by email, by your count 15-20 times. That you complained to him about a WP article on which you had edit-warred, deleting swaths of material. That Leiter followed receipt of your email by posting a blog post on his blog, mirroring your complaint. Entitled: "Simon Critchley's bizarre Wikipedia page". That you have edited Leiter's article more than any other. All of this is true -- and not a misrepresentation.
On my part, I just a few days ago for the first time edited his article, and his blog's article. I've never had any communication with him. And I edited well over 35,000 articles before I edited his -- in contrast to you, he's not a primary focus of mine. On my part, that's not what this is about. There's no substance to your unfounded accusations about my "motives", while there is circumstantial support that evidence exists in contrast with regard to your COI.
As to me knowing what an RS is -- that stems from my experience editing wp, and I stand by it, and the BLPN has not, despite your baseless assertions, concluded that the editorial staffed ATL is not an RS. And as I said, the depth of my knowledge about the subject of philosophy is irrelevant in this discussion, despite your continued effort to make it a discussion point. I know Leiter likes to seek to discredit opponents based on where they went to school versus where he went to school (despite his not having attended an Ivy League graduate school); that's a fine game for him to play there, but it is not a meaningful discussion point here, so I will not tell you what schools I attended or the level of my degrees, or who I studied under ... it is all irrelevant here. Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I started editing WP entries in August 2006. I first edited Leiter's entry eight months later. As I have said to you, repeatedly now, his entry has proved much more controversial than THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER PHILOSOPHY ENTRIES I have worked on. You began editing this article after becoming enfuriated that someone described the subject as "respected" and you made clear your goal was to discredit the subject, which all your editing so far suggests is your goal. You surely know how to identify an RS for professional athletes and shopping malls, but, as Tom Morriss showed, you don't know how to do it for philosophy or law professors. I do not know why you have asserted that "Leiter likes to seek to discredit opponents based on where they went to school versus where he went to school (despite his not having attended an Ivy League graduate school)." On the Noticeboard page, you were the one who invoked David Lat's credentials (Yale Law graduate) as evidence that his law gossip blog is reliable. As I mentioned before, your reputation as an abusive administrator precedes you on Wikipediareview. I do not want to waste more time on this. I plan to continue editing philosophy entries, using RSs.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
What did I say that you disagree with? As to your first edits -- you edited the Leiter article on the second day you ever edited WP. With the first substantive edits you ever made. An edit ten-times that of any of your first 8 inconsequential non-substantive edits, that consisted solely of formatting or adding non-sourced personal opinion. And the effect of that Leiter article edit ... the same as your edits till today ... was to whitewash it.
My editing of his article was in contrast me editing article number 36,836 or so of all WP articles I ever edited.
I dislike anti-wp-guideline editing, and whitewashing, and COI editing. Other than that, this is just another article on a person I never met, never communicated with, and didn't even know the full name of until a week ago. In contrast with your personal connection to him.
And no -- Tom didn't "show" that I don't "know how to identify an RS ... for philosophy or law professors." I get that you are trying to pit Tom against me, but he said and "demonstrated" nothing of the sort, and I (and I expect he) won't go for your effort to cast him as having said that. I said that Leiter likes to seek to discredit opponents based on where they went to school (and/or where they teach) because this week as I've been reading up on him I noticed him do it more than once.
And, no -- I think that you are flatly incorrect when you attack me personally and untruthfully, stating "your reputation as an abusive administrator precedes you on Wikipediareview". That's clearly not the case. Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I just want to note my agreement with Sneekypat at the top. The lede should be short and the controversy section should not take up so much space, to an outsider it seems rather minor.HydeParkerforLife (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Except -- you're not an "outsider". You're an insider. Your edits show you to be an SPA. And you are, to be more precise, "a proud graduate of the College and the Law School at the University of Chicago ... interested in all things related to U of C." To true outsiders -- and that would be me, who only edited this article after tens of thousands of other edits, and who follows our lede guideline, and who is aware that this article has been plagued by SPAs such as you claiming to be NPOV while seeking to whitewash the article (including the editor who carries on an email correspondence about Wikipedia articles with Leiter), this informs the weight to be given your comment. Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Epeefleche, I had suggested the trim because I hoped that a severe haircut might provide for some consensus, allowing us all to move on with our lives. You are, of course, right that the lede is supposed to summarize what is in the article, but it should be a brief summary and, frankly, I'm not sure that there's enough meat here to merit this long a lede. The style guide for writing a lede suggests two to three paragraphs for an article of this length. Two short ones seems appropriate to me, given the degree of notability of the subject and depth of the article. Right now we are dealing with a lede that is roughly as long as the ledes for Bertrand Russell and Ayn Rand, articles twice as long (and of significantly more prominent recent philosophers). I put the following, trimmed, two paragraph version forward for consensus—
proposed lede
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In 2014, Leiter stepped down as sole editor of the PGR in response to intense criticism of combative rhetoric on his blog and for language contained in an email sent to a junior philosopher. Over 600 philosophers, including 30 members of the PGR's 54-member Advisory Board, requested that Leiter relinquish control over the PGR's management,[4][5] and philosophers at University of British Columbia organized a boycott of the PGR.[6] Although dismissive of the criticism—which he attributed to feminist philosophers angry about his advocacy for due process rights and to philosophers upset with their own department's PGR ranking—Leiter appointed a co-editor of the PGR who will fully succeed him in 2015.[4]
—I would appreciate substantive thoughts on why this is not a sufficient summary of the article or insufficiently neutral. Sneekypat (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this constructive suggestion and the helpful comparisons. The first paragraph seems fine. The second paragraph is too long, given that a recent controversy should not dominate either the article or the lede. It also isn't accurate. I suggest a single sentence added to the paragraph, above: "In 2014, Leiter stepped down as sole editor of the PGR after philosophers at University of British Columbia organized a boycott of the PGR to protest an e-mail Leiter had sent to one of their colleagues, whom Leiter claimed had criticized him." All the other details can go in the controversy section, which should itself be shorter and more NPOV. I would also suggest moving the laudatory material currently in the lede into the section on "Philosophy."Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Restricting ourselves to the content in the lede for the moment, Philosophy Junkie, would you find the proposed version or something very similar acceptable despite what you consider to be the overemphasis on the PGR issue? I'm trying to work toward getting something everyone in this discussion can live with. The back and forth on these issues has been going on for almost a month now. Sneekypat (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph you drafted is certainly acceptable. The second paragraph is not accurate as written (putting aside the question of length). Leiter stepped down not in response to "intense criticsm of combative rhetoric," but in response to the petition organized by the UBC philosopher regarding an e-mail sent to their colleague, who is not a junior philosopher, but a full professor. So if we can fix that, I am willing to go with your version. So how about:
In 2014, Leiter stepped down as sole editor of the PGR in response to a boycott petition organized by philosophers at University of British Columbia to protest an intimidating e-mail Leiter sent to one of their colleagues, whom Leiter claimed had attacked him. Over 600 philosophers, including 30 members of the PGR's 54-member Advisory Board, requested that Leiter relinquish control over the PGR's management.[4][5] Although dismissive of the criticism—which he attributed to feminist philosophers angry about his advocacy for due process rights and to philosophers upset with their own department's PGR ranking—Leiter appointed a co-editor of the PGR who will fully succeed him in 2015.[4]
Hi Sneekypat, thanks for your reply. On reflection, this doesn't seem to be much of a shortening of the lede, though I am fine with your revised first paragraph. But if Epeefleche is right that the lede must summarize the whole article, then we probably do need three paragraphs. I will add the revised second paragraph though to the lede now, since the current paragraph is inaccurate and violates BLP as a result. Maybe what we should mostly discuss is how to handle the controversy section?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Philosophy Junkie, I think we should all hold off on making any additional changes until we have some consensus or at least a reasonable time has passed. We have been at this for more than a month, so we can wait a few days before going ahead with anything at this point. I will be happy to make the changes myself on Friday or Saturday if we can all live with the proposed version. However, I'd like to hear from Epeefleche and any other editors who have been involved so far about my proposed changes to the lede (which shortens the lede by more than a paragraph) before doing anything. Sneekypat (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, understood, thank you. I was worried that we are presently in violation of BLP as the paragraph in the lede doesn't accurately describe the controversy. The paragraph we worked on, above, is more accurate I believe. Please take a look when you have a chance.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Right, just to be as clear as possible. The revision I'm currently proposing, which incorporates Philosophy Junkie's suggestion up thread, would change the lede to read:
More recent proposed lede
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In 2014, Leiter stepped down as sole editor of the PGR in response to a boycott petition organized by philosophers at University of British Columbia to protest an intimidating e-mail Leiter sent to one of their colleagues, whom Leiter claimed had attacked him.[4] Over 600 philosophers, including 30 members of the PGR's 54-member Advisory Board, requested that Leiter relinquish control over the PGR's management.[5][6] Although dismissive of the criticism—which he attributed to feminist philosophers angry about his advocacy for due process rights and to philosophers upset with their own department's PGR ranking—Leiter appointed a co-editor of the PGR who will fully succeed him in 2015.[5]"
I think this adequately and neutrally summarizes the article, without being overlong in relation to the overall size of the article. Sneekypat (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph seems fine, though I'm not sure about the book and article count. I think he has three authored books, and then many other edited books. I don't see why half the lede though should be devoted to just one section of the article, namely, the recent controversy. Why do all those details belong in the lede, rather than in the controversy section? We could shorten the lede to a single paragraph as follows:
single paragraph proposed lede
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Brian Leiter (born 1963) is an American philosopher and legal scholar. He is Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, founder and Director of Chicago's Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values, and founder and long-time editor of the Philosophical Gourmet Report (the "PGR"), and a prolific blogger. Leiter's notable scholarly writings have been primarily in the areas of legal philosophy and Continental philosophy, with a focus on the works of Friedrich Nietzsche.[7] Leiter has taught at several universities and law schools, including the University of San Diego School of Law, the University of Texas School of Law, Yale University, and Oxford University.[8] He is the author of six books and over sixty journal articles.[9] In 2014, Leiter stepped down as sole editor of the PGR in response to a boycott petition organized by philosophers at University of British Columbia.[4]
I think this proposal is consistent with your aspiration for a neutral summary of the main sections of the article. The further details of the controversy can go into the controversy section, just as the further details of his philosophical work and his blogging can go into the other sections of the article. Also, just as an aside, there was another PGR controversy around 2001, I will find some details and sources about that, I do not recall very well the particulars.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Philosophy Junkie, I'm confused. I'm not looking for the ideal outcome here, I'm looking for consensus. It is quite clear that unless the controversy is mentioned non-trivially in the lede, there will not be consensus. The second paragraph in my proposal was, accordingly, included and then edited to conform to what you said you could agree to up thread. Can you no longer agree to my proposed revision of the lede? If not, I think I'm going to refer this entry over to get more third-party input because I don't think the dispute will be resolvable without more serious outsider participation. Sneekypat (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for creating confusion. I don't see how we can justify devoting half the lede to a recent controversy. Only one user seems to be advocating that. What is your opinion on that? I am fine with giving the controversy more than one sentence in the lede, but if the lede is to be a summary, everything has to be in proportion, do you agree? More input from editors less biased than Epeefleche, and less inclined to attack other editors, would be helpful. I will be away from the computer for awhile, but will check back in a few days or a week.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. In the lede, a recent controversy, especially one over as trivial an issue as a rude email, does not deserve a full paragraph. At most it deserves a sentence, and it can probably just be moved entirely into the criticism section.Wikaeditor (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)— Wikaeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As an outsider to philosophy, I find the one paragraph lede proposed above adequate and fair. I also liked the suggestion by Mr. Gorman elsewhere on this page that the controversy be integrated with the article rather than constitute a separate section. I leave that to the more experienced editors however.HydeParkerforLife (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Laudatory language added to first sentence
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Laudatory language was added to the very first paragraph (comprising a full half of the very first paragraph), from two red-linked individuals. They do not even have Wikipedia pages. I'm in favor of us reflecting language from notable individuals. And it is possible that one of these is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia page, though no one has thought so and created it. But if he is not notable, his opinion does not belong in the lede. The same with the second fellow -- and there is no indication at all who that fellow is; it may be a student perhaps, which is nice, but certainly not the sort of think that we put into the first para of a subject, unless we have a COI perhaps and want to pump up the subject. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This is another example, like those referenced by Tom Morris above, that you do not understand the subject. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews and Journal of Nietzsche Studies are leading scholarly journals (maybe THE leading journals in their areas), recognition of the subject in those journals is notable, and helps establish notability per Wikipedia rules for the lede. Again, if you really have a NPOV, this should be uncontroversial.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
To insert my rare opinion here (which I still view as having me on the right side of WP:INVOLVED, because it's correcting a fairly inarguable fact) The Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews is not regarded as the leading journal in it's area by anyone. No one - on any side - thinks so - though many (including myself) consider it a valuable resource. Hell, Leiter once described one of their reviews as befitting a bad undergraduate's blog... Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Who is this Mark Jenkins? And why is his personal view notable? And so notable that is should appear in the first para of this subject's article? This is not a view of the publication - it is not an editorial. Is Jenkins notable? Why? And why are these views stuffed into the first para? And no personal views contra are reflected in the first para? Especially -- personal views of people who have Wikipedia pages, and are not redlinks? --Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
A bit of google searching reveals that Mark Jenkins teaches philosophy at the University of Washington, is author of a book on the English philosopher Bernard Williams, has written about the influence of Nietzsche on Williams, and has written several articles and reviews for Journal of Nietzsche Studies. His scholarly opinion, appearing in a leading scholarly journal, is appropriate for establishing notability of the subject. I think it would suffice to simply reference the journals, the cite will take readers to the source and the authors.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
What evidence is there that Mark Jenkins is notable by Wikipedia standards? Not all people who teach philosophy at a university are notable. Does his book have a wikipedia page, or other indicia of the book being notable?
And it is certainly not, if we keep the opinion in this article, "enough to reference the journals". Because, obviously, it is not the opinion of the journal but rather of someone who wrote a review, reflecting their opinion, that a journal printed. Once again, your approach is not only wrong-headed, but is the approach of a person connected to the subject of this article (by email correspondence with him, about Wikipedia articles) seeking to slant this article to hide the fact that this is merely the opinion of a possible non-notable; certainly a redlinked individual.
And why is the first para only encumbered by laudatory references to him? Have you found no non-laudatory references? By people as notable or more notable than Jenkins? This concerns me, given your personal connection with Leiter. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The lede should establish notability, but I am fine with Sneekypat's suggestion, above, to shorten the lede, and move any evaluations of his work to the section on 'Philosophy.' If you want to disabuse me and other editors of the impression that you are biased against the subject, you should stop repeatedly removing laudatory material from the article (such as The National Jurist recognition f his teaching) and arguing speciously against properly sourced laudatory material. The opinion of professional scholars in leading scholarly journals is clearly appropriate. I myself added evidence of the controversy surrounding his book Why Tolerate Religion? I also added the cite to The Australian, regarding the controversy. Before the current edit war you initiated began, here is how the entry read:
It included a short and accurate section on the controversy, and focused correctly on the subject's work and career. The current article gives excessive attention to a recent controversy, and in terms that are neither NPOV nor accurate: the subject sent a combative e-mail to the UBC philosophy professor, and her colleagues organized a boycott claiming the e-mail had harmed her health and work. The subject claimed she had attacked him first.
Finally, I request that you please assume good faith and stop misrepresenting our past discussions. Thousands of philosophy faculty and students have e-mail with the subject because of his widely read blog. Like me, they have sometimes e-mailed him links or news items. I have not done so in quite some time. I have edited hundreds of philosophy entries. Only this one attracts continued controversy. Before your current wholesale rewrite of the article, I had not edited it since 2012.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
