Talk:Brian Leiter

Controversy

I have no idea why a more than year old discussion about meatpupppetry would be an appropriate place to add new comments. If you would like to discuss new points, please discuss them in new, relevant sections - they'll be at most not noticed here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is current somewhat of an edit war occuring on Brian Leiter as a result of some referenced, but not academic, material being added that criticises the subject of the article. I have done a little Googling and there seems to be a fair body of people critical of Brian Leiter. Can someone more familiar with philosophy review the available material and if appropriate post a suitably referenced and WP:NPOV criticism section? The following may help: (Redacted) Lineslarge (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC) The edit war appears to be created mostly from Chicago IPs, including one registered to the University of Chicago, and a single-purpose account that bears an extraordinary similarity in name to one of Leiter's colleagues. This pattern (as I learned following an IPs recommendation to look into the archives) has been going on for a while. It is my suspicion, as well as the suspicion of past editors, that the article's subject himself, and his colleagues, are participating in the maintenance of the content to suit a specific POV, which would be a clear conflict of interest as well as intellectual dishonesty. I'll post at some relevant WikiProjects to see if extra eyes can't be brought over. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Yeah, I saw that too and think it seems pretty plausible that edits are being reverted by someone with a WP:COI. Currently though the article says nothing negative about the subject. If there is something valid to say, I suggest we get consensus here before adding it, then we can collectively ensure the article stays WP:NPOV, Lineslarge (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC) I've been involved in a lot of philosophy related stuff lately. Someone I've been working with flagged this issue for me to take a look at earlier today. I'm currently talking with several people off-wiki, and am hopeful that issues on all sides here will be resolved in large part in the near future. Sorry for not giving more details here, but they would be oversighted as WP:OUTING. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC) At the present time I am not going to fully protect this page, but I would encourage all editors present to act with care, paying careful attention to our core content policies, and preferably reaching consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of content before editing the article itself. I would suggest that it may be a good idea for interested editors to work together on a new draft of the article (or portions of the article) in a sandbox if they feel it's necessary, although obviously that's up to you all. I would encourage you not to worry a significant amount about COI/sock/meat issues at the present time; I'm pursuing a chain of conversations that I believe will deal with a lot of the potential problems with that regard. I would also encourage editors to stick to using high quality reliable sources and to pay special care to WP:NPOV. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Hi Kevin Gorman I found this article while checking up on the list of Pending Changes in my capacity as a reviewer, so I don't have a perspective on this subject one way or another. What quickly became clear was that sourced information had been added, then removed by a Chicago IP with insufficient reason, then re-removed by another questionable IP, then a questionable SPA sprang up and removed the content, as did another infrequent (though autoconfirmed) eidtor. Then going back through the talk page history it appeared that this has been an ongoing practice by individuals close to the subject, and/or by the subject himself. I filed a Sockpuppet investigation as I would do in any similarly compelling case of suspected sock/meatpuppetry. I'm disclosing that to you in the interest of openness and to invite you to participate. The situation that you are describing is not one that I am aware of experiencing before in my general antivandal work. On the one hand, if there's clear evidence of sock/meatpuppetry (which I believe there is here per WP:DUCK), a record of that suspicion should exist so that if there are future violations, editors know what they're dealing with. I don't think that's unreasonable considering the previous accusations of socking in the top secret version of the talk page archives. On the other hand, since blocks aren't meant to be punitive, rather to dissuade improper use of Wikipedia, I have no inherent interest in blocking IPs or users if you feel that your personal influence can persuade them to contribute constructively to the project and perhaps to steer clear of COI issues. If you have the ears of the interested parties, you might mention that the preferred method for dealing with such changes is to disclose conflict of interest and to use the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page. If I can be of any other help, please let me know. I don't want you to think that I'm your antagonist (and so far I don't get the impression that you do.) I also don't like to think that I might be an unwitting accomplice in an attempt to denigrate another person. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC) I'll make some comments on the SPI in a moment. I certainly wouldn't suggest that there haven't been COI (and potentially sock) issues on this page in the past, but will state that I'm fairly confident that they won't be an issue in the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Linkslarge: those links absolutely do not help, and if you post anything like that sort of link on Wikipedia then you are likely to end up blocked under our policy on biographies of living people. We cannot use pejorative blog posts as sources, and we don't need them on talk pages or anywhere else either. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC) - completely unfamiliar with the guy and contemporary philosophers at large. however, stumbled across this link to a Statement of Concern from some NYU/MIT profs on Facebook: https://files.nyu.edu/dv26/public/Statement_of_Concern.html. came to check wth is going on to find the article completely blanking controversy. this seems quite odd. it must be possible to in some way document the fact there is a controversy about the guy whilst retaining a neutral (non-libellous) POV. 77.103.178.162 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Just be careful about recentism. It's often tempting with living persons to give disproportionate attention to disputes that they are currently involved in, or have recently been involved in, compared to what may be long and varied careers. Often, much of what is currently on the internet will relate to such topical disputes. But whatever Leiter is notable for, it's not the current controversy going on, with all sorts of accusations on both sides. If you do write about it, try to find neutral and reliable secondary sources, rather than trying to synthesise a story from primary sources. If the dispute ends up with cancellation of his Philosophical Gourmet or with him handing it over to someone else, that will be an important thing to record. But meanwhile, try not to get caught up in the rights and wrongs, or in the details, of a dispute that is still unfolding for a living person. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC) - I'm late to the party here, but I think that some of the language currently used in the controversy section should be toned down per WP:BLP and that the section as a whole should probably be shorter. If there is consensus, I will go ahead and prune. Sneekypat (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I support the toning down and pruning. I also support the merger, FWIW. Since the controversy appears to only concern the Gourmet Report, a section on the Gourmet Report could incorporate a more balanced version of the controversy. Philosophy_Junkie — Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I agree with Sneekypat that "some of the language currently used in the controversy section should be toned down per WP:BLP and that the section as a whole should probably be shorter." It reads to me as if someone with some personal vendetta is editing into this page and it's lost its neutrality and objectivity. PhilosophyWiki (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)PhilosophyWiki I looked at it carefully, and it comports with our BLP section, and the tone matches that of the RSs. There isn't anything substantive that I can see deleting without deleting what the RSs report on and we properly in turn reflect. PhilisophyWiki is an SPA that has just been created, in an article plagued for a long time by sockpuppets (just read the talk page) and SPAs (just read Junkie's talk page), so its opinion should be discounted accordingly. Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I agree with Sneekypat, Philosophy Wiki, Philosophy Junkie, and Metamagician3000. The article as it currently stands gives disproportionate weight to recent controversies about tone rather than substance. A third of the article is basically devoted to saying that some people think Leiter is rude. Criticisms of tone are getting more space than any discussion about the substance of his scholarship. He's had a 30+ year career in academe. Academe is full of argumentative people who think they're the smartest folks on earth and everyone else is an idiot. Saying he's rude is like complaining that a rock concert is loud. At most his rudeness deserves a single sentence in a criticism section, and most of the criticism section should cite to academic sources that have critiqued the substance of his views. Academics love arguing with each other, so it should not be hard to find other philosophers who disagrees with Leiter on philosophical substance and fill most of the criticism section with substance, and with a minor mention of tone. The issues of tone do not belong in a paragraph in the headliner. Wikaeditor (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism, etc

I accepted the latest revision by an IP, which removed claims sourced to a blog. I'm surprised this has been allowed to remain in the article, and I'm not going to reference RS, etc. Blogs are overwhelmingly not reliable. Please find some other source for all that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of sources

This page suffers from a serious lack of WP:RS sources. Much of it is either unsourced or sourced to blogs/other primary references. I know the individual is quite notable, so instead of removing content, I have generally just added improvement notifications such that the article can be worked on over time. If it was left as is though, I'd be tempted to AFD it, but think this is a softer step at this time.Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 02:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

COI editor

Dealt with
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As there has already in the past been concern about COI editing on this page, it is worth noting that a complete newbie editor seems to be editing in accord with the past suspected COI editor, and also even though completely new has somehow come to track this page and the page that is being asked to be merged into it. They were also created the same day as another editor with similarly focused edits. This bears watching. See that newbie editor's comments here, as well as his chest-beating as to the subject of this article being a respected person in his blog-like very long postings here. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC) I found the user's posts, although not technical violations of outing since you've disclosed your identity here, vicious enough and evidence enough that he is not here to make productive contributions to wikipedia to indef him. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Trimming the Lede

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) Agreed, but maybe add current institutional affiliation, "at University of Chicago Law School."Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:19, 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?[1] 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.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 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. 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, 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. 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. He is the author of six books and over sixty journal articles. 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, and philosophers at University of British Columbia organized a boycott of the PGR. 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. —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] I will be off-line for awhile, but perhaps others will weigh in. Thank you for your efforts.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC) I'm ok with Philosophy Junkie's proposed version of the second paragraph, so long we can add a cite to the Chronicle article at the end of the first sentence. Sneekypat (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 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. "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, 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. 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. He is the author of six books and over sixty journal articles. 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. 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." 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. 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. He is the author of six books and over sixty journal articles. 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. References 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)

Leiter on Leiter

Some of this material -- notably that supported by current refs 19-22 -- is simply Brian Leiter reporting on Brian Leiter, supported by references to Brian Leiter's non-RS personal blog.

If this were covered by an RS that would be fine to include. But inasmuch as it is only his blog finding his blog to be of interest, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. I plan to delete it, on that basis. But wanted first to note as much here. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

We usually allow SPS's as long as we can confirm they are by the subject themselves. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the rule, in part, is that it should never be used as a third-party source about another living person. I think those refs all are his personal criticisms, on his personal blog, of other people. See for example this one, and charges of Campos's "obvious incompetence" and his being a "poster boy for contempt for the First Amendment rights" and that he "lies through his teeth." This is all fine to report on if an RS covers it. But here, it is just Leiter reporting in a personal blog on Leiter's view that the fellow is a liar, etc. Same with the others I flagged. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh my bad. Sorry, I didn't look at the actual content. Yeah, that's not okay, at all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so bothered by that, to be honest. Wikipedia isn't saying X eats kittens, we're not even saying Professor Leiter says X eats kittens. We're simply saying Professor Leiter has been critical of X. Specifically, we're saying "[Leiter] has also written critiques of journalists and philosophers, including Carlin Romano, Thomas Nagel, Leon Wieseltier, and Paul Campos." Which is true. In the current version, we are not repeating what Leiter's critiques of Romano, Nagel, Wieseltier or Campos are, simply that those critiques exist.

That said, there are some third party citations for Leiter's blog critiques. In the case of Wieseltier, the New York Times included mention of Leiter's critique of Wieseltier (or rather of Wieseltier's review of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett).

In the case of Carlin Romano, the blog post is mentioned in passing in this Boston Globe profile of Leiter by Mark Oppenheimer.

On Nagel, Leiter's criticisms of him are not solely on his personal blog but are also available in an article co-authored with Michael Weisburg published in The Nation.

The use of Above the Law has been questioned on WP:BLPN (and on this talk page), but they have a blog article on Leiter's critique of Paul Campos.

There may be some reasons to not include this stuff—one could make the argument that it's all a bit meta-blogging inside baseball rather than of lasting encyclopedic value, for instance—but I don't think the sourcing issue holds up given (a) we aren't repeating Leiter's critiques of the four figures mentioned, and (b) there are other, reliable sources that do discuss—or at least mention—Leiter's critiques of these four people. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We should and can properly mention his critiques of others that are RS-covered. But Wikipedia is not a vehicle for bloggers to turn their blogs into Wikipedia text -- example by saying "I wrote about x and y in my blog -- here is the link to it, where RSs have not covered the blogging. Especially BLP attacks. Which is what is going on here. The rule, in part, is that self-published material should never be used as a third-party source about another living person. We should be bothered by that.

Again -- if the source is an RS, that's fine ... but the RS ref must be supplied. If no RS source is supplied, as is the case now, then the entries are inappropriate, for the reasons indicated above. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Are all four of those critiques that Leiter wrote "BLP attacks"? The one on Campos might be a bit heated, but the critiques of Romano and Wieseltier seem like professional criticism: a philosophy professor who is criticising the quality of philosophical writing of others who have entered the philosophical realm (by, say, covering philosophy for the Chronicle of Higher Education or by writing reviews of books by prominent philosophers like Dennett). I'm not sure how "professional philosopher says X isn't very good at philosophy" counts as a "BLP attack". —Tom Morris (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom -- As I indicated above, self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person. You agree, do you not?

The rule isn't limited to personal attacks. Though on top of the breach of the rule, we do have that here, which exacerbates the violation. Clearly, the existing use violates the rule. As it consists of Leiter's personal self-published blog being used as a third party source about living people. The use of it not only "about" other living people, but to attack other living people, simply is exacerbating background. And it is irrelevant to the point that the use violates the rule, since the rule is clearly already violated whether the material is an attack or not. But if for some reason you want to focus on the attacks -- yes, saying someone is not good at their job is no doubt a personal attack, as I use the phrase -- it need not be limited to corporeal matters such as: "you have an ugly face".

Surely, you do agree that these are personal blogs used as third-party sources about other living persons, and hence violate the rule against such use. That's all that relevant. Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Epeefleche: I agree broadly with the principle that self-published information shouldn't be used for facts about another living person. I disagree that the principle is directly applicable here.

What your comment fails to acknowledge is that there is a difference between using a source to reference a fact, and using a source to reference an opinion. The article is not using Leiter's blog as a source for some set of objective facts about the targets of Leiter's critiques. The only thing the sourcing is doing is saying that Leiter criticised those people. The BLP policy and the RS policy is not a shortcut to using your brain. And Wikipedians who use their brain are able to distinguish between a source for a fact and a source for an opinion. The use of Leiter's blog is to source the fact that Leiter has criticised some people (Wieseltier, Campos, Nagel, Romano). Read the critiques. There's nothing in them that is claiming some fact about any of those four people, simply engaging in what English law would call "fair comment". Leiter thinks Campos holds some morally indefensible opinions, that Wieseltier is a crappy critic of philosophical books, that Nagel's understanding of Darwinism is lacking and Romano is a rubbish journalist. Those are all facts about Leiter's opinions, not objective facts about any of those four figures.

Consider a similar article—PZ Myers. Myers is a biology professor and blogger. His blog posts are, by Wikipedia's policy non-reliable. And yet, bang in the middle of the article we have a few sentences describing Myers' dispute with Stuart Pivar. The article on Myers sources the fact that Myers strongly criticises Pivar's theory, sourcing it only to Myers' blog. This has been discussed at RSN and found to not be a problem.

I think you are reading the BLP policy and seeing too much in it. The point of the policy is to tilt Wikipedia's editorial policies in favour of privacy for borderline notable individuals, to try and prevent Wikipedia from being a platform for outing, dirt digging and shit-stirring, not as a way to prevent inclusion of a reference to one academic criticising another for his or her ideas or writing, which is what we see here with Leiter's critiques of Wieseltier, Romano and Nagel. There might be a bit of space for argument when it comes to the critique of Campos, but the other three seem to be critiques of the subject's authored works (Wieseltier's review of Dennett, Romano's journalism generally, Nagel's Mind and Cosmos).

Leiter's blog is a self published source, for Leiter's opinion. That's all we're talking about here. The dreadful BLP violation you seem to be alleging is "philosophy professor finds fellow writer's book/article to be not very good" rather than, say, revealing dubious criminal pasts, irrelevant personal issues and so on. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Tom -- The rule is simple. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person. You of course agree with that.

If the self-published information contains an opinion as that fact "x" is the true as to a living person, we should not use the self-published information. Wikipedia is not -- and I'm sure you wouldn't condone it as such -- a place for bloggers to republish the fact that they have written on persons x, y, and z. Where no RS has covered it.

Where an RS has covered it, it's of course fine to reflect it ... with a proper, non-self-published, RS source. Otherwise, one can simply link generally to his blog in the EL section, and that's quite enough advertising for Mr. Leiter's blog. Nothing more is called for.

Frankly -- if no RS is covering it, it is not noteworthy enough to cover in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedians who, as you put it, "use their brain" -- as well as those who follow our guidelines, which were crafted by the consensus of Wikipedians using their brains, and should therefore not be easily dismissed as you seem keen to do -- can without effort see the wisdom of that. Why in the world you, of all people, seek to turn this Wikipedia article -- in this small part only, of course -- into an advertisement for Leiter's blog ... where no RS covers it ... escapes me. Surely you understand that we aren't here to promote as" notable enough to cover", material that no RS ever saw as sufficiently notable to even mention. (Conversely, if an RS covers it, it is appropriate to cover in turn).

This is very simple stuff. Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Laudatory language added to first sentence

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&oldid=662603591

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)

Merging controversy section with Philosophical Gourmet Report entry?

I am boldly hatting this conversation for the time being. Until the larger issues are dealt with, this is pretty much a side issue that will just generate additional drama
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There appears to be no support for merging the Gourmet Report entry with the entry on the subject. I think the Gourmet Report deserves its own entry, given its prominent place in academic philosophy for 25 years, as evidenced by the many refs that Epeefleche and others have added. I suggest that the current controversy section be merged into the Gourmet Report entry, since it centers around the subject's role (or former role) in that Report. Opinions of other editors? Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC) It may be that that will be the ultimate result. But on what basis do you assert that "there appears to be no support for merging"? And, in any event, the controversy that you continue to seek to whitewash -- you as an editor who emails the subject of this article, and whose initial substantive edits have been to his article -- the controversy of course of great moment both to him and to the report article. Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC) To the extent that it makes a difference, I've changed my mind on merger. To be clear, I am against merger of the two articles generally, and also against merging the controversy section of this article with the PGR article. I think they probably do belong separately at this point as Leiter is being replaced as editor of PGR and the ranking seems to still have cache with academic philosophers. The controversy about Leiter should probably be mentioned in both entries, but I'd like to leave exactly how long and how phrased such mentions ought to be to discussions specific to each article/section. Sneekypat (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC) @Sneeky -- I understand your view on merging the two articles, and can see the points on both sides on that issue. As Leiter's role has been reduced, and apparently is to be further reduced, the argument strengthens to keep them as two articles. I also agree with you that should the articles remain separate, it would not be appropriate to merge the controversy section of this article with the PGR article. The controversy is highly relevant to both him (it related to his behavior, and removed him from a highlighted position in his career), and to the report (it resulted in a change in leadership of the report, which formerly was called the Leiter Report, reflecting his imprint on it and connection with it). Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) I agree that the case for merging is not very strong, so I think we should focus on revising the recent controversy, so it does not dominate the article.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC) As an editor with an email correspondence with the subject of this article, and one whose edits have been highly of the "whitewash" variety, I fear your comments and edits are often not appropriate. You keep -- both in edits and comments -- on trying to whitewash the RS-supported information in this article that Leiter himself may prefer not be here. He may be your email buddy, but you have a conflict of interest here. Please stop trying to whitewash this article. Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Trimming recent controversy section to avoid recentism and disproportionate emphasis

I think we may have arrived at consensus on the lede, above, thanks to Sneekypat. But right now the controversy section is too long, not faithful to the RSs, and too long relative to the subject's other work and career. Prior to the current edit wars, here is what the entry looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&oldid=662603591

Why should controversy section be longer than what it was on May 16? Since the article as a whole is now longer, it could be expanded somewhat.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait a couple of days before rushing to make this change. And if a change is made -- let's have someone other than an editor (Philosophy Junkie) who emails Leiter about Wikipedia articles be the one to make the change. As to the controversy section -- it is true to the RSs. We follow the RSs. Philosophy Junkie -- as an editor who emails Leiter about the content of Wikipedia articles, I would suggest that you have a COI. Really ... you shouldn't be making controversial edits. Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with waiting. I do think that some level of trimming in the controversy section is appropriate and will be happy to take a stab at it myself later this week. I would like to first resolve the issue with the lede and go from there, if possible. Sneekypat (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I usually think it better to polish text, before polishing lede, but I imagine there's no magic. I think giving a few days for comment (to some extent I've held off on mine, to let it breathe and give others room to comment) may hopefully entice some seasoned wp editors to opine (though of course it may also attract some less-seasoned editors who are special purpose accounts focused on whitewashing this article ... we will see). And I really think we can't have a COI editor making (and rushing to make) the changes -- if need be, we can have an appropriate noticeboard or sysop examine that issue. Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• The simple fact that a controversy section is longer than it was until the recent past doesn't involve WP:RECENTISM -- that is an unrelated policy. I don't have a worthwhile opinion on what the size of the controversy section should be except to say that controversy should be integrated in the rest of the body of the article where possible rather than having a separate section, and that little is often hurt by waiting a bit to make an edit. I do agree that Philosophy Junkie may also have a significant enough COI that it would be best if other editors reach consensus about what the section should look like, and make changes as appropriate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for not being clear. The point made earlier on the talk page by another user was that a fall 2014 controversy should not dominate an entry on a subject with 20 or 25 years of academic writing and teaching. I think I agree that integrating the controversy, probably in the Gourmet Report section, makes most sense. I object to the groundless claim that I have a COI. The fact that you had e-mail exchanges with Noelle McAfee, someone involved in the 2014 controversy, does not mean you have a COI. The fact that in the past I have e-mailed the subject news items for his blog does not mean I have a COI. I will be glad to let others deal with the controversy section for now. I will try to improve other sections of the article.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Which editor are you referring to? I'm not very partial to giving much weight to the many sockpuppets and conflict-of-interest editors who have plagued this article. Was it one of those? Plus -- we follow the RSs. Here, this controversy was covered world-wide. By, as the ref you added reflects (whether or not you added it for a different purpose -- just to present a pro-Leiter view, in keeping with your other edits and comments; but that's fine (although perhaps the block quote is a bit long)) as far away as Australia. Plus, the controversy reflects 600 philosophers saying -- we refuse to continue to work with the publication, if Leiter is in charge. That's astounding. Highly important, and highly relevant, and perhaps the most-covered single event of the man's long career. 600 philosophers! If 600 editors at WP said "we no longer think editor x should participate in this endeavor", that would certainly be the most significant event of that editor's career. And since there are (conservatively speaking) at least ten times more wp editors, it would be like 6,000 editors saying "we no longer think editor x should participate here." That would obviously be the most significant factoid of that editor's career here. You attempting yet again to whitewash this article is, frankly, astounding -- especially given that it is an article of a man with whom you have carried on a personal correspondence. Including a correspondence about the content of Wikipedia articles. You calling the fact that you have a COI "groundless" is astonishing, given both those facts, coupled with your transparent efforts here to whitewash the article. The controversy section is already at the bottom of the page, and the mention of it in the lede at the bottom of the lede. Perhaps consideration should be given to doing the opposite of what you are doing -- including 2 individual laudatory comments in the first para, while pushing the 600+ philosphers' negative input down below. But your suggestion is unfounded. Also -- I asked you before ... you added individual positive comments about Leiter, but no negative comments. Was it that you only found positive comments? Or have you found negative comments, and not added them? Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment regarding “recentism” under “Controversy” above by Metamagician 3000. As I told you previously, there are 20,000 or 30,000 philosophers in the countries represented by that boycott petition, of which about 600 signed. It is not news to anyone in philosophy that the rankings are controversial. It is laughable to say that the fall 2014 controversy is the most "significant factoid" for a chaired professor at the University of Chicago who is author of dozens of books and articles, translated into a dozen languages, who has taught for 20 years at leading academic institutions worldwide, who has given prestigious named lectures at universities worldwide. This “tempest in a teapot” as Leiter or someone on the Advisory Board called it was covered in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, and got one paragraph in The Australian. The Australian has done several short items about Leiter and his blog over the years, I guess because Australian universities are covered by the Gourmet Report. I have not found any other news items about the controversy that you state, falsely, was covered "worldwide." An earlier version of the article had numerous external links to interviews on radio and print media with the subject, which you removed without explanation.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That was written before the more recent dramatic developments. And even then encouraged that "If you do write about it, try to find neutral and reliable secondary sources, rather than trying to synthesise a story from primary sources. If the dispute ends up with cancellation of his Philosophical Gourmet or with him handing it over to someone else, that will be an important thing to record." What we have is all backed by neutral and reliable secondary sources. And, as anticipated might happen, the dispute did lead him to handing over the PGR to someone else. It is thus as crystal-balled "an important thing to record." Not - as you repeatedly try to effect -- a less-than-important thing, to be buried as deep as possible in the lede, and as deep as possible in the article, and even then ... something an editor who carries on a correspondence with Leiter about wp articles should seek to whitewash.

As to your suggestion (really??) that having 600 of your fellow philosophers say that they won't contribute to the report you created if you remain in control -- that's astounding, and clearly highly notable. It's not the sort of thing we see. How many other instances of professors attracting that sort of reaction from their peers can you point to. If 600 editors at wikipedia said they would not work with editor X, for example, that would be similarly astounding. And we have 121,000 editors that continued in the last 30 days (and 25.6 million editors overall) at the English Wikipedia -- this is as astounding as having 2,400 Wikipedia editors say they won't work with editor x, because of his behavior. Mind-boggling. And your effort to whitewash this as something not important to record? Uber-mind-boggling. Until one examines your communications with Leiter, and your earliest substantive edits being to his article, and the nature of your edits and comments here.

I don't tend to remove RSs, and certainly not without an edit summary.

BTW -- you still have not responded -- you added individual positive comments about Leiter, but no negative comments. Was it that you only found positive comments? Or have you found negative comments, and not added them? Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No one suggested removing discussion of the controversy. It was covered quite fairly in the mid-May version before you began your rewrite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&oldid=662603591

I have not advocated removing discussion of the controversy, the exact opposite, I have added sources about it. The controversy is featured prominently in the entry, too prominently given its significance. I was responding to your laughable assertion that this controversy was the most “significant factoid” in his career. That is really what you wrote! It would seem you can not tell the difference between being a Wikipedia editor and being a successful academic. In any case, no RS supports the view that this is the most “significant factoid” in his career, and it is not NPOV to approach the article that way. (Your analogy is so obviously flawed I am not sure you mean it as a serious comparison. No single Wikipedia editor is known to and attracts the attention of all the others. But Leiter has been known to the entire profession for 25 years for running the rankings, which many people hate. There is no other profession I know about where a single academic has developed the authoritative rankings in the field. Can you name one?)

I have already added critical references to the subject. What positive ones have you added? You have removed positive ones, and added negative ones, that we know. Your purported summary of the controversy also does not accurately reflect the RS, as you have been told before. When editors have tried to fix that, you have reverted. When will you fix the errors? I wish you a happy July 4th.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment

It's pretty clear that this section will result in no improvement to the article. Taking the liberty to close to WP:NOTFORUM etc. Discuss content issues in other sections please.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
} How much of the controversy section should be reflected in the lede and are there issues with Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View throughout the article? Sneekypat (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC) This entry, which has been the subject of problems before, has had an ongoing edit war as to how much should be included about a 2014 controversy regarding the subject and as to what sources are appropriate to use for other sections. Several editors have been involved, there have been accusations of COI and failure to assume good faith and, despite my best efforts, it appears that the current crop of editors is unable to reach consensus on any of these issues. Sneekypat (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Fine as is. The section as it stands now is fine. If anything is pared, it should be the block quote. The controversy is a major event in the subject's career. It was covered by various RSs, as far away as Australia. Over 600 philosophers, including 30 members of his 54-member Advisory Board, signed a statement that demanded that Leiter relinquish control over the management of the Leiter Report. In response, Leiter will step down as editor of The Philosophical Gourmet Report. Obviously, all very significant as to his career -- even if it is buried at the bottom of the article. This article has for years - and for years before I ever edited it, which is only recently - as the talk page and the article history reflects been a subject of whitewash efforts by SPAs. And by people with a COI with the subject of this article, including one who has carried on an email correspondence with Leiter, about (of all things) WP article content. And in addition, at times by newly minted editors. That effort continues to this day, as reflected above. We would benefit from seasoned editors (e.g., with more than a couple of thousand edits) opining. And with input from editors whose initial and ongoing substantive focus has not been this article. And with input from editors who do not have an ongoing email correspondence with Leiter about WP articles. Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Thank you Sneekypat for opening this for comment from other editors. Here is what the entry looked like before user Epeefleche began a wholesale rewrite of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&oldid=662603591. Epeefleche only became interested in this article, when its subject was invoked as an authority on a law related entry, and Epeefleche became enraged and made clear he wanted to discredit the subject (all the documentation is above). Contrary to Epeefleche's continued false assertions I do not have an on-going e-mail correspondence with the subject about WP articles. This is clearly false and illustrates the unhappy state of the discussion, although I have repeatedly asked Epeefleche to assume good faith, rather than trying to bully me and other editors who disagree with him into silence. The subject, Leiter, runs the most widely read blog in philosophy. Thousands of philosophy faculty and students send him links to news stories of interest. I am one of those thousands. I sometimes get a short "thanks" from him, though not in a long time. I e-mailed him years ago about a promotional WP entry on Simon Critchley. Leiter never responded, finally writing about the entry three years later. The subject is, as best I can tell, a major figure in two fields, legal philosophy and Continental philosophy, as his appointment at the University of Chicago would suggest. No one has suggested removing the controversy section, I favor keeping it, but in proportion to the subject's career. Epeefleche asserts, without any RS or evidence, that this was a "major event" in the subject's career. How does he know? What is the evidence? It certainly deserves to be in the article, which is why I added RSs about the controversy. But it is not a major event compared to twenty or more years teaching and writing about philosophy and legal topics. The current lede misrepresents the RSs, as Epeefleche has been told repeatedly. I will be offline for as much as a week, but I hope other editors will carefully review the record of what has been going on here. I have edited philosophy entries for years, this one was locked because of repeated vandalism. Epeefleche ruined a perfectly fair version from mid-May for reasons that some other editors, above, think was retaliatory. The subject provokes strong reactions due to his rankings and his blogs, but we must preserve NPOV.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) This is not really an appropriately formatted RfC, and is unlikely to result in any result worth its salt. Sneek, I would suggest withdrawing the RfC and finding different ways of addressing each issue you brought up. At most one sentence of the controversy should go in the lede.Wikaeditor (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of what's going on

• Brian Leiter is a controversial but in fact quite influential philosopher. It is likely (by which I mean it was previously directly confirmed) that some of the pro-Leiter edits have come from academics affiliated with Leiter in one or another. It is also likely (by which I mean it was previously directly confirmed) that some of the anti-Leiter edits came from academics with negative views of Leiter. Neither liking nor hating Leiter invalidates your editing as long as long as you follow WP:NPOV etc.
• It is fairly obvious (I've found at least one such post) that some editors recently drawn to this article were done so by calls-to-action from outside groups. It's worth noting these calls-to-action rarely have lasting effect regardlesss the subject. This has included sock and meatpuppeting in the past.
• At least one serious instance of attempted WP:OUTING occurred here in the relatively distant past. If you even think you may be violating outing, email me asking about the material beforehand. If I find you to have maliciously attempted to violate WP:OUTING here I'm basically infinity banning you.
• This page will be edited according to standard Wikipedia policies. Sourcing discussion will follow WP:RS. WP:RSN is that way if you need it. Neutrality discussions will likewise be grounded in policy - WP:NPOV/N is thataway if you need it. And, again, it doesn't inherently matter if a source is pro- or anti- Leiter, we don't weight sources by how well they like (or hate) their subjects.
• Discussion on this page will remain relatively civil, you can disagree without resorting to personal attacks. Unless someone else brings it up somewhere, I will probably be the person enforcing it.
• I probably missed some significant points. That doesn't mean that policy I didn't explicitly mention doesn't apply here.
• I am an administrator. I have had some past involvement in this page, but not to a level that I feel violates WP:INVOLVED. This is going off memory, but I think I made a minor removal of what was basically vandalism at Leiter's request (I'm involved enough in academic philosophy and Wikipedia, that yes, he apparently had my email - though I may have emailed him previously since I use the Leiter Report as a limited source occasionally.) I've also semiprotected this page on at least one occasion after repeated vandalism. Despite these paste interactions, I don't think I fall as involved and intend to act as an uninvolved administrator and general neutral mediator on this page as I have the time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy between source and article

In the 3rd paragraph of the "controversies" section, it states " including 30 members of his 54-member Advisory Board, signed a statement in 2014 that demanded that Leiter relinquish control over the Report's management". Looking at the sources cited, it appears that both the numbers of members and the desired result differ from the sources given. I'm proposing this just in case I'm missing something here. [[User:|Mdann52]] (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Good spot! I knew that Epeefleche was misrepresenting the sources, but missed the fact that he misrepresented the numbers on the Advisory Board.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting convo here... I found the source that Epeefleche was referencing. Here's the primary source on Leiter's own blog from October 2014 ("Our original letter, which you have seen, was signed by 30 out of 54 members of the advisory board." "It is clear that the majority of the board thinks that the only solution is for you to step down." - https://web.archive.org/web/20141008031008/http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/10/pgr-update-2-1.html).

I had to link the archived version because Leiter apparently self-edited out the numbers in the Oct 2014 letters from PGR in the current version of his blog sometime after March 2015 but before September 2015 (interesting timing huh) (https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/10/pgr-update-2-1.html). Again, I think this demonstrates another reason that links to the blog: LeiterReports should not be used in this wikipedia article. Also, here's the secondary source that reported the numbers before Leiter self-edited the letter from PGR's board (http://dailynous.com/2014/10/03/leiter-responds/):

UPDATE: Leiter has updated his post with the text of the letters the PGR board sent him. Here is an excerpt from the second one:

In the interim we have had some discussion among board members of the various options. The consensus of the board members we have talked to is that we should request that you either step down from the leadership now and relinquish control of the PGR, or at least that you make a commitment to doing so by a specific date in the near future (with the consensus being that something like January 2015 would be the latest appropriate date, though the details could be discussed).

At this point, 30 board members have endorsed this request.

24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

There is another discrepancy in this article regarding the 2002 protest. The current wiki uses an outdated reference to 175 signatures (from Jan 2002) , whereas the total signatures was 287 (last updated Feb 2003) . I propose that we change the wording to "almost 300" or "close to 300". 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do I now have permission (especially from @Philosophy_Junkie WP:OWN) to edit the number from 24 to 30 /54 (aka a majority) and from 175 to "close to 300"? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mdann52: why the requested edit tag? The text you quote no longer appears in the article. Stickee (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stickee: it appeared to be there when I added it, I've removed the tag now. Mdann52 (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Criticisms and Controversies section

A new section entitled "Criticisms and Controversies" should be added. It existed at one time, but seems to now have been subsumed under the heading PGR. Under this new section RS from the NYT, Boston Globe, Chronicle of Higher Education, and Buzzfeed News may be included explaining what led to his resignation as editor from PGR (i.e., the protests in 2002 and 2014 mentioned in the introduction to the wiki) and the later controversy over feces being sent in the mail to his detractors. For example:

In 2002, the Harvard philosopher Richard Heck (now at Brown) started a petition against Leiter's rankings, accusing them of being methodologically flawed and harmful to the profession; he got close to 300 signatories. Afterward, Heck said that although the report improved, the ranking still relied on only one factor: the quality of the faculty's research.

In July 2014 Leiter sent an email to Carrie Jenkins, which was later posted online, calling her a "sanctimonious asshole" and threatening legal action regarding a statement she published pledging to behave with civility in her professional life. While Jenkins’s post made no reference to Leiter, Leiter read the statement as being about him, because at that time he was under fire on blogs in his field for his recent harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings. In September 2014, more than 600 philosophers signed a statement describing the email as "derogatory and intimidating" and declining to volunteer information for the Philosophical Gourmet Report while it was under the control of Leiter. In October 2014, Leiter agreed to step down as editor of PGR, after a majority of the advisory board asked for his resignation.

In 2016 Jenkins, along with three other vocal critics of Leiter’s (Sally Haslanger and David Velleman who publicized Leiter's emails to Jenkins, and Carolyn Jennings who critiqued Leiter's PGR's methodology) — each received an envelope full of human feces from someone named 'Peter Aduren.' Leiter denied sending the packages and has attributed them to someone who must be trying to embarrass him, noting that one of the envelopes used his law school as the return address.

24.217.247.41 (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[[User:24.217.247.41]] 9:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of this belongs in the article on the Philosophical Gourmet Report, not Leiter's entry. Blogs and personal pages of faculty involved in the dispute are also not proper sources for a living person bio. There are also some factual mistakes. This needs a lot of work.

Agree with some of the preceding unsigned comment. I noticed that the IP address that proposed these changes had an earlier malicious edit reverted by another editor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=905816863&oldid=905808532. We should find consensus here first. More suggestions later.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Brief follow up on yesterday. Most of this material is already in the article, this revision adds trivial details and unacceptable sources, as the unsigned comment observed (disagree however that this should be in PGR article, it's fine for it to be here). Only new material is of doubtful notability, and arguably creates BLP problems.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t sign original comment. Want to agree with Philosophy Junkie and withdraw suggestion this really belongs in the Gourmet Report entry. Remember Wikipedia BLP policy: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” Some of this proposed content concerns events three years ago that no one has ever thought notable since. I use Wikipedia for information about the work of philosophers, not tabloid sensationalism.71.105.133.121 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

1. That's not my IP address or my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=next&oldid=905808532) and how dare you refer to any of my edits as malicious, 71.105.133.121 (talk).

Apologized elsewhere at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JaventheAlderick. You had other edits reverted on July 10, but not that one.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

2. The fact that it happened 3 years ago doesn't impact an event's notability.

3. Also, it's not tabloid news, the various disputes between Leiter and other philosophy professors was considered notable enough to appear in the New York Times:https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/books/someone-mailed-feces-to-four-philosophers-a-disquisition.html So it makes me wonder whether you even read the sources, if you think they're "unacceptable sources" Philosophy Junkie (talk). I will concede that the NYU.edu and brown.edu sources may not be acceptable to you, since you consider them to be the 'personal pages of faculty.'

Buzzfeed is "tabloid sensationalism," as another user said above. I think the real issue however is how can this be included in the article without possible harm to a living subject.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Leiter#Criticism,_etc If we present it as the sources suggest--the subject was framed--then it is consistent with BLP but not really notable. If we present it any other way, it does not seem consistent with BLP as it would be possibly defamatory, and we have to make sure not to get close to that line.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed NEWS is not tabloid sensationalism. I don't know many tabloids with pulitzer prizes. Maybe you should try reading the WP article on it.--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News. I think it's notability comes from showing how BL (and his supporters) react to people he gets into public disputes with online. It someone's fans specifically targeted that person's detractors by sending them hazardous things in the mail, I think it would be included on their wikipedia 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

4. What are the factual mistakes? What blogs did I cite? If anything I'm for removing blog posts from this wiki, as I tried to do in the lede. Please be explicit when making claims about mistakes and so-called "unacceptable sources" that I used. If any of my sources were unacceptable they can be omitted, but the majority I have cited are reputable and reliable per WP:RS. Furthermore, it seems the article as it stands is what is counterfactual. Pt1: the current wiki states that "In 2002, 175 philosophers signed an open letter calling on Leiter to stop producing the PGR.[32]" whereas the actual number was closer to 300 as reported in 2008 Boston Globe: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=2. Furthermore, the wiki currently states that "who Leiter claimed had threatened him [referring to Jenkins]"[33] but the linked source doesn't support that claim at all. Leiter only says that he was "provoked" and had no doubt that Jenkins' civility pledge was about him. https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Man-Who-Ranks-Philosophy/149007

If you're right about 300, then that can be changed, I have not yet look at that source.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Chronicle of Higher Education is the source for 175. Not sure why Boston Globe profile has a different number. Maybe someone can find an archived version somewhere.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I included the archived version right there for you. If you're asking for the CHE archive, it's still behind a paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20141008044919/https://www.chronicle.com/article/175-Philosophy-Professors/34484/. Also, the discrepancy is likely because the CHE article was published during the protest and relied on an early number of signatures, whereas the 2008 article relied on the total at the end of the protest.

This was difficult to find, but here is the archive of the actual signatures from R Heck's 2002 petition, listing 287 (last updated Feb 2003), so "almost 300" as the BG reported. http://web.archive.org/web/20030416145141/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu:80/~heck/aboutpgr/html/letter.html. Also, I was able to manually search CHE website and found a non-premium version of their article (what luck!) with a lower # (170), but was published in Jan 2002, before the petition was apparently over: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Academics-Letter-Blasts/116097. I recommend that we change it to "almost 300" and we can add links to both the Boston Globe and the non-premium version of the Chronicle of Higher Ed as sources, since the current source is not accurate. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, why didn't you respond to the second error I mentioned where the wiki claims (unsupported) that Jenkins threatened Leiter? I'm new to this, but maybe someone else knows how to search for who made that edit, so we don't change it without them knowing. Also, please note how Philosophy Junkie didn't respond when I challenged his claims that I cited blogs and made factual mistakes (hint: that's because I didn't). 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

5. The wholesale reversion of all of my edits including replacing an unacceptable source in the lede [9]. Leiter's blog post about Carrie Jenkins violates rule 2 of WP:BLPSELFPUB: it does not involve claims about third parties and possibly rule 1: it is not unduly self-serving) and replacing it with an acceptable WP:RS: CHE, strikes me as strange... It's almost as if you didn't evaluate the individual changes and just reverted them. Even the NYT article I linked above is a better source for the protests than Leiter's personal blog. Furthermore, you deleted a revision in which I noted the status (non-existent) of one of the many libel lawsuits Leiter has threatened, which was also supported by a WP:RS.

I did not revert your edits, User JaventheAlderick did.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

We need a source for Pynes and Brogaard being the new editors. I agree the subject's blog post is not an ideal, but he would be authoritative on that. The source you proposed didn't mention Pynes at all. Glad to see an alternative source there if one can be found.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's your source: https://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/about-the-editors/ or http://dailynous.com/2017/10/11/questions-suggestions-new-pgr-editors/ or https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/controversial-philosopher-will-step-down-as-editor-of-influential-rankings/87797 or some combination of these and NYT/CHE for the protests, but again Leiter's claims on his blog re Jenkins are unacceptable for being a) blog posts, b) claims about a 3rd party and c) self-serving, so it needs to be removed. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

6. What you use Wikipedia for is not relevant. Brian Leiter's online behaviors have hits multiple news stories, other than the NYT: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katiejmbaker/professors-receive-packets-of-poop, https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/4-professors-involved-in-philosophy-brawl-find-feces-in-their-mail/114963, http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=3 (even from years ago 2002/2008/2016, various news articles discuss his propensity for ad hominem attacks in his blog, while this wikipedia article omits any mention of the various insults, threats of lawsuits, and other combative tactics he tends to use on people he disagrees with, so why is that?)24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC) (re-added 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC))

You are now repeating social media rumors, and these do not belong on the talk page either. I am deleting those consistent with BLP.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy Junkie you have real issues. It seems you were so enraged by my sources, you deleted my entire point 6--even my signature! So I have re-added it. Nothing about what I wrote there were social media rumors. I listed the articles supporting everything I wrote. Please refrain from deleting anything I write without first gaining consensus and when you do challenge what I've written, be specific in your claims because you seem to love making bold claims without any support for them. The articles I listed specifically mentioned his "derogatory" insults, threat of libel lawsuits, and "combative tactics". Why don't you read my sources before claiming "social media rumors"? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your sources do not support the claims, which I will not repeat because they violate the BLP policy. Please do not reinsert the same allegations again. I agree there is room for these sources, but not as you characterzie them. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Responding to notability issue. These events occurred three years ago, and no one has ever suggested they be added or added them until now by an editor who seems hostile to the subject. That suggests they are not notable. That is separate from the BLP problems which is the bigger issue IMHO.71.105.133.121 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

[removed conversations now included in the 2016 mail incident section]

I agree it is fine to add material to the section on his blogging about his combative rhetorical style. I will do so myself on the weekend. But I also agree with user 204.2.36.20 that the other material can not be included without violating BLP. Please 24, wait for this discussion to play out. The consensus is against you on some points, but I support you on some others, and perhaps other users will too. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

That you feel the need to "do so [your]self" indicates a great deal of WP:Ownership over this page, Philosophy Junkie. Furthermore, the current objections noted in the talk page center around the notability of Leiter's dissenters receiving hazardous waste in the mail (which I was not going to change or add, until consensus was reached here). However, is there some reason I am not allowed to update the article for factual occurrences (as I did re 175 to 300)? It seems like you feel like you are the only one qualified to make changes to this page... 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You did more than correct the factual error and have misconstrued unfairly my offer to fix the error without "pending approval" as asserting "owernship." Please see my comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JaventheAlderick#a_recent_pending_change_that_was_approved You did not simply fix the factual error, you added additional material. The details of Professor Heck's objection to the rankings might go into the entry on the rankings (please add them if you want). I do not think Heck's views about the rankings are relevant to an entry on the subject. The source contains them for any reader who is interested.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. As someone unfamiliar to the subject, I had no clue what the 2002 protest was about, why it was relevant, or who or why it started. I also didn't know if or how it was related to the 2014 protest. I had to then go and google even more sources to find out information. All of this because this page is suspiciously missing any negative criticisms of either 1) the PGR report the subject compiled for many years and 2) his online behaviors that were previously present in past versions of the wiki. If there's a section about the PGR on the subject's page and a protest is listed, but no other information is provided, the utility of the wiki as a summary of relevant and notable information is severely handicapped. Furthermore, the 2002 and 2014 protests are over different things, which is not clear in the wiki as it is currently. The 2002 protest was over the substance/methodology of the PGR whereas the 2014 protest was over the poor online conduct of the editor managing the PGR rankings. This information should be included.24.217.247.41 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The standards for inclusion in a BLP on wikipedia are different from the criteria used by google to rank page hits. Someone's "combative" style might be worth mentioning, but mentions of style need to be proportional judged by the standards of an encyclopedia, not clickbait.204.2.36.120 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, you need to stop deleting portions of my comments on this talk page, without reason, as they are properly sourced and are not violations of BLP. I request that you restore the affected portions immediately, or I may have to start a complaint against you. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources do not support the spin you put on them. I can not explain that in detail without violating again the BLP policy. Please may we keep our focus on the main substantive issues about the entry. I have fixed the numerical error about the petitoin and changed the source as you suggested.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. {Quote|Per WP:TALKO, you should not have deleted User 2[4]'s comments. The primary purpose of a talk page is meant for feedback and discussions on how to further improve an article. As such, other users should have the freedom to express their own viewpoints, including User 2[4]. Deleting his/her comments is (probabaly) comparable to '''censorship''', which is also not allowed on Wikipedia- JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2019 }

I have now corrected the factula error user 24.217.247.41 identifed and edited the section on blogging with quotes and sources suggested by that same user. I hope those changes are acceptable to others participating in this discussion.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Inclusion/Exclusion of 2016 Mail Incident

The suggested text user 204 is responding to: "In 2016 Jenkins, along with three other vocal critics of Leiter’s (Sally Haslanger and David Velleman who publicized Leiter's emails to Jenkins, and Carolyn Jennings who critiqued Leiter's PGR's methodology) — each received an envelope full of human feces from someone named 'Peter Aduren.' Leiter denied sending the packages and has attributed them to someone who must be trying to embarrass him, noting that one of the envelopes used his law school as the return address." (preceding unsigned material added by user 24.217.247.41).

Responding to the issue about the PGR controversy. It seems to me that the relevant parts of the controversy that are verifiable and on topic are already in the wikipedia article, specifically that there was criticism of Brian Leiter because of controversial views and harsh comments that he made, and that he stepped down as editor.

I do not think that the incident involving inappropriate mailings from an unknown source is on point or relevant because there is very little to tie it to Professor Leiter. It can only appeal to the prurient interest, not enhance an overall biography. A biography is supposed to only include the most important and well-established public facts. See [| Presumption in favor of privacy].

I looked at the New York Times blog linked above and it describes the source of the mailings as "unknown," and only briefly notes generic "speculation". Speculation is not a reliable source under Wikipedia policy, which requires that " exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

Including this incident in the biography would also violate the [prohibition on Gossip and Feedback Loops] in Biographies of Living Persons, since it mainly comes from a tabloid (Buzzfeed), even if it was later mentioned in passing by other sources.

Including this incident in a biography would suggest that Wikipedia editors have concluded that Professor Leiter was likely responsible for the incident. That's the only way the incident would be relevant enough to include in a Biography. And absent strong evidence that Leiter was somehow responsible--like a criminal conviction--the connection between this incident and Leiter is too tenuous to include in a biography page.) (note--reposting from below for greater organizational clarity and to avoid clutter.)204.2.36.120 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for creating a separate section for this discussion. I continue to agree with your analysis of the situation. Will try to write more in the next few days.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

204, I disagree with your contention that including this event would indicate that he was likely responsible, given the wording suggested. What it does state is that in the past, people who Leiter criticized on his blog have been targeted by unknown and malicious third parties (possibly by someone who supports Leiter; in this case the international mailing had a tracking number that traced back to the USPS in Chicago see 6th para:, although he contends that it is by people looking to embarrass him). Also, the NYT article did their own research, as you can see with additional interviews from related parties. Furthermore, the original was from Buzzfeed News, which is not a tabloid; I don't know many tabloids with pulitzer prizes--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News. Lastly, the NYT or CHE articles I've linked are a much better source than leiterreports for the carrie jenkins protest in the lede. The fact that no one is responding to pt 4b where I note the current wiki Leiter claims Jenkins threatened him is also telling. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Rank speculation that supporters of the subject sent the packages, completely unsupported by the sources. The subject is a proper source for his "claim" that Jenkins threatened him.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, no, a subject's blog post is not a reliable source WP: Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, not the least of which is because it involves a claim about a third party (Jenkins)! The link to Leiter's blog (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/12/what-really-happened-three-years-ago-fall-2014-a-recap.html) needs to be removed immediately and the wording needs to be changed to reflect what has been reported in RS. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The source for saying that Leiter claimed Jenkins threatened him is the Chronicle of Higher Education article: that is a fair summary of Leiter's position as described in the article. (The subject's blog can be a source for what the subject's motives or beliefs, but we do not have to debate that issue.)Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

24, Mentioning the mail incident in a biography suggests that there is a strong connection between the incident and the subject, even if the language doesn't explicitly conclude that Leiter is the responsible party. That's because most things about the subject of a biography--let alone people who are tangentially connected to a subject--are omitted from biographies. Only the most relevant material is included, and a connection makes it more relevant. In a biography of George W. Bush, we would not see an entry about John Kerry falling off a bicycle after the election even though John Kerry and George W. Bush were rivals because Kerry's misfortune is not relevant enough to Bush's life to merit inclusion. Mail to someone tangentially connected to Leiter does not belong in a biography about Leiter.204.2.36.120 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Finally, if it is decided that the mail incident is not relevant, I still think a different section (different from PGR) needs to be created, since the Jenkins protests were over his "derogatory" online behavior and not directly tied to his work at PGR, perhaps titled "Resignation from PGR". It would be like if the protests and firing of James Gunn were listed under GOTG (the job he lost) instead of in a separate section James_Gunn#Firing_from_Disney_and_reinstatement24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that I'd compare the notoriety of the PGR (a blog that is obscure outside of philosophy departments) to the Walt Disney Company (multinational entertainment conglomerate worth hundreds of billions of dollars) or Leiter (philosopher known by thousands people in his field) to Movie Director James Gunn (director known by tens of millions of people around the world) or an unceremonious firing from someone's primary source of income and prestige to a voluntary resignation from a blog that more or less amounts to a hobby. Leiter stepping down from PGR is perhaps akin to Fred W. Scott Jr. stepping down from being on the Board of a center at UVA over an insensitive email--a minor incident worth briefly mentioning, but not deserving a full section.204.2.36.120 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with user 204.2.36.20 couldn't have said it better myself. Anyone with doubts about the bias of user 24.217.247.41 should look at some of his recent comments, which go well beyond the sources, and clearly assume the worst about the subject without support. See BLP notice at top of this page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."71.105.133.121 (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

User 71.105.133.121, please be mindful of the way you talk about me and follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. In fact, repeatedly accusing me of bad faith motives could be seen as a personal attack which is a violation of wikipedia rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith). Furthermore, when you accuse someone, please be specific in your claims. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I know about this person, Brian Leiter, is from what I've read in the aforementioned sources, which I summarized, and when I googled him I was surprised to learn that there were no references in his wiki to the fact that he "is known for his combative style and caustic judgments of colleagues and programs," (1st paragraph: ), especially "combative tactics on his blogs and social media" (). In fact, in almost every article I've read, they mention that Leiter is known as a controversial figure ( "his pugilistic style has drawn cries of foul from a growing number of philosophers" -; "not a guy known for holding back on his opinions of other philosophers." -; Those whom Leiter finds wanting are deemed "morons" or "zombies" or "demonstrably incompetent." - 3rd para ; "a famously hard-charging voice in the field" -; "a prolific and often pugilistic blogger, has many critics" -9th para ) , Yet his wikipedia article does not mention anything about him being especially "caustic" or "combative" in his online behavior, so I set out to add 1-2 sentences detailing it under the "blogging and other activities", then I got feedback that I needed reliable sources for his behavior, so I googled him and found the aforementioned articles.

In response to your BLP accusation, what I have written is not unsourced or poorly sourced (do I need to list all of the sources again?), it is not libelous (as it is true)-- Brian Leiter readily admits to his various behaviors (insulting Jenkins by calling her a "sanctimonious arse", telling another professor she works in a "shit department"), but describes them as "intemperate, but provoked" in the case of the email and tweets (see intro and last paragraph of ), and it is not under dispute (contentious) because in the 2016 mail incident Leiter conceded that "what those three professors had in common “was their role in launching an attack on me around the time the last edition of my philosophy rankings were supposed to come out in fall 2014,” however he contends it was sent by someone trying to embarrass him, which I included the evidence that it was not likely sent by Leiter, but someone else, as a NPOV of the incident (direct quote from email sent by Leiter to buzzfeedNEWS: middle of the page ). That his online disagreements with 4 different professors resulted in someone sending them hazardous waste in the mail is notable in academia, as professors typically stay above the fray and critique each other's theories/research (not the individual's character) in peer-reviewed journals (not blogs), and such academic disagreements do not typically result in real-world harm. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

24, thank you for moving these prior comments forward, it is good to have them in one place. I have added comments about the subject's combative rhetoric to the section on blogging in line with your suggestions. I agree that faculty being sent poop in the mail is, in some sense, notable, but the only question is whether it is notable here, and for the reasons stated well by user 204.2.36.120 it pretty clearly is not. I would also ask user 71.105.133.121 to be more restrained in disagreements with other users. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I continue to agree with the consensus against including the 2016 incident and that has been stated really well by user 204.2.36.20. I appreciate Philosophy_Junky’s desire for a constructive conversation, but the fact is user 24.217.247.41 has been making accusations of bad faith and responding to disagreements in a hostile, personal manner (after all, he said you, PJ, had “issues” just because you didn’t agree with him). Everyone should look at this user’s first edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=905668579&oldid=899353933, reverted by another editor because it was some nasty twitter rumors about the subject! This is pretty strong evidence about why 24.217.247.41 is here, and it not because of his love for or knowledge of philosophy.173.2.250.192 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Your support for exclusion is noted, but the rest of your comment is unnecessary and unhelpful.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your even-keeled response to him, PJ. I appreciate it. However, in response to @173.2.250.192:, I must say that you misinterpret the situation, and that was in response to PJ's continued deletion of my comments re Leiter's history of insults on this page because he thought they violated BLP guidelines, not because he "didn't agree with me". They did not as they were supported by WP:RS and have been restored. In fact, while you and @71.105.133.121: and @204.2.36.120: have repeatedly questioned my motives, an astute observer might notice that you all are commenting on this seemingly random talk page after year(s) of inactivity. From what I understand IP addresses cannot "watch" pages, so did someone direct you here or were you watching this from another account? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with those who argued above against inclusion of this material, whose connection to the subject is tenuous, requiring speculation and innuendo improper for an encyclopedia. (Disclosure: I am a graduate of the Law School, but long before Professor Leiter's time and have never met him.)HydeParkerforLife (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Summary of Issues with this page

1. Apparent whitewashing of the controversial behaviors and critical depictions of Brian Leiter from this wikipedia page.

Examples include unexplained deletion of Controversy section and unexplained deletion of "Leiter is among the more controversial voices in the philosophical blogosphere, and he has come in for criticism for both his communication style and for comments he has made to other philosophers." , unexplained deletion of "and Controversy" from section header , deletion of "..."Those whom Leiter finds wanting are deemed "morons" or "zombies" or "demonstrably incompetent."..." , deletion of "controversial" , deletion of "... Hunter Baker... alleging Leiter was "attacking" both a student writer and "academic freedom." , among others.

The subject called someone a "moron" on his blog, and you think that is notable? A 2004 opinion piece in NRO? This bio already gives too much attention to the trival 2014 controversy about the PGR and spins it in a way too critical of the subject. Read some other entries on philosophers for perspective about what matters and what does not.71.105.133.121 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

User 71, what these edits show is a pattern of deleting information critical of the subject, with little to no explanation, that I find concerning. Thank you for your suggestion re perspective. Here's one philosopher I found with a substantial "controversy" section for 1 incident from 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_J._Beckwith#Controversy. (In fact, I wonder if this page should have similar notices to that of Beckwith's talk page.) Here's a BLP that includes a criticism section for the subject's comments in an op-ed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Criticism. Here's another scientist with an extensive section for his potentially 'racist' comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race. It seems sections on controversial actions for BLPs are not out of the ordinary. So, again, I propose that this philosopher should also have a "Reception/Criticisms/Controversy" section in line with what other BLPs have, since the 2014 protest is only tangentially related to PGR in that his resignation happened as a result of a protest to his online behavior toward another professor. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion of edits to this page, some now archived. Much material, both positive and negative, has been deleted over the years, and much critical material has been added, including by me in response to 24's earlier suggestions. It's not in my opinion a good use of time to rehash old debates from the Talk pages. Also, 2014 protest was directly related to PGR, it called for the subject to step down as editor and threatened not to participate in the PGR otherwise. We should discuss whether to add a subheading about criticisms/controversy to the section of the entry on rankings. I think that is appropriate, but would like to hear from others before doing so. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

These criticisms are trivial, they do not deserve their own section. A brief word about the PGR controversies is justifiable, but there is already too much about them as is.71.105.133.121 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

2. Use of links to Leiter's own blog when making claims about third parties WP:SELFPUB

3. Noteworthiness of links to Leiter's blog for critiques when they have not been covered by secondary RS.

4. Editors with potential undeclared COIs deleting talk page comments and information from the wiki 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Talk page comment refactoring and all of the recent tidying up

•  Administrator note I'm a bit concerned with all of the talk page comment refactoring that's been going on and by all of the attempts to reorganise everything. Most discussions don't need this type of card shuffling, so I hope you've all finally gotten the talk page to a place where you feel discussion can resume again. Please remember that it's generally considered unfavorable to refactor other editors' comments, and with the exception of a few indentations here and there, we probably shouldn't be so fastidious with the organisation. Confusion sometimes happens, and sometimes it's better just to slap an {{outdent}} template down and start from the far left. When in doubt, see WP:TPG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoid, I was only following the lead of the other users. The only reason I moved the responses was because Philosophy Junkie praised User:204.2.36.120 for copying and pasting his reply from the original section to a new section (which already had a dozen responses to it). I was just going to copy & paste my reply to him, but it seemed more fair to just copy and paste the replies all the users had already made to him/her. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Claim re Carrie Jenkins

{{BLP noticeboard}} 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

From WP:BLPN

User:Philosophy Junkie continues to insist that the following phrase "who Leiter claimed had threatened him" in reference to Carrie Jenkins should remain in the article,[10][11][12] despite the fact that it is NOT supported by the referenced Chronicle of Higher Ed article[13] or any other WP:RS.

Philosophy Junkie claims a 1st person, self-published blog post by Brian Leiter, not included as a reference in the article, is an acceptable source for the claim.[14][15] However, I think the unsourced and unsubstantiated claim should be removed. Leiter's blog post is not an acceptable source for this claim about Carrie Jenkins because it violates the first two rules of WP:BLPSELFPUB: it involves claims about third parties and it is unduly self-serving, as I noted months ago on the talk page.

Is this a BLP violation against Carrie Jenkins and should Brian Leiter's blog post be an acceptable source for claims about 3rd parties "threatening" him? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In my view, the applicable policy (WP:BLP) is quite clear about this. It says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." This claim has been challenged (it's been removed more than once) and therefore it must be supported by a reliable citation. It currently isn't cited in this way. Unless a source can be found (which is reliable, not the subject's own blog), the claim has no place in the article. It's not a matter of whether any of us thinks the claim is correct or not, it's a matter of Wikipedia policy which says a reliable source is required. Neiltonks (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User 24.217.247.41 misstates both the source and what the entry asserts. Please see the discussion under 'Edit Warring' at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.217.247.41.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be better if such discussions are held on article talk pages in the future, so they are more easily accessible by other editors. Regardless I see no justification for the statement from that discussion. Someone "asked if she planned to spit at him or chase him with a baseball bat" cannot be interpreted to mean that this person is accusing the other person of threatening them without further context or information. It could be that this person was being sarcastic or simply trying to make a point (e.g. you sound so angry, should I be worried about violence next?). Alleged defamation (that already happened) is not a threat, well unless the defamation includes a threat. (To give a random example "if you don't do X, I'm going to write a blog post saying you're a murderer" could be called a threat. Although "threaten" often means threaten with violence so any such reference would need to be clear what form the threat took. Writing a blog posting accusing someone of being a murderer cannot be called a threat. At best, it's following through on a threat. A threat could be in that blog post e.g. If it ends with "Turn yourself in to the police by the weeks end or this will be your last week on earth". ) Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the article differently and think the context supports the summary. But as I suggested to user 24.217.247.41, perhaps a different word would be better than "threatened," such as "criticized" or "attacked." Thanks. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Attacked is not necessarily wrong, but without clarification it's unclear what sort of 'attack' is meant e.g. physical. Criticised is better. But IMO if we do want to mention something it will be better to just briefly summarise what was said. Jenkins wrote a blog post vowing to treat other philosophers with respect and to speak up about perceived mistreatment and mentioned unprofessional behaviour. Leiter considered the blog post a thin veiled attack on himself. (This is an example of 'attack' where it's clear from the context what is meant.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, context is crucial. Others did take it as an attack on Leiter, as he did himself, rightly or wrongly An example:

In mid-2014, Professor Leiter was involved in some spats online about statistics concerning job hiring and placement in the philosophy profession, based on statistics collected by a philosophy/psychology academic, Professor Carolyn Dicey Jennings. A few months earlier, in February 2014, Leiter had spoken out in fairly moderate but critical terms about the “vigilante justice” in operation against Ludlow at Northwestern. He had also published a short statement I wrote in March 2014, about my situation—more on that later. In response to these largely inconsequential spats about placement and prestige of academic programs, Professor Carrie Jenkins, a philosophy academic at the University of British Columbia in Canada, made a public announcement that she wouldn’t treat certain people as “normal members of the profession.” This was a passive-aggressive reference to Leiter, who in good Nietzschean humor emailed her a sarcastic reply, suggesting she might chase him around philosophy conferences with a “baseball bat.” He also called her a “sanctimonious arsehole.” http://www.theagonist.org/essays/2019/01/26/essays-ketland-feminist-witch-hunts-in-academic-philosophy.html.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I agree with you re the use of "attack" or any other verbs that fail to provide the context of the blog post-- which was a pledge to behave civilly. Here's the wording that I proposed back in July for describing the 2014 incident that led to Leiter's resignation from PGR, but Philosophy Junkie blanket reverted any changes I made to the article. What do you think? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

In July 2014 Leiter sent an email to Carrie Jenkins, which was later posted online, calling Jenkins a "sanctimonious asshole" and threatening legal action regarding a statement she published online pledging to behave with civility in her professional life. While Jenkins’s post made no reference to Leiter, Leiter read the statement as being about him, because at that time he was under fire on blogs in his field for his recent harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings. In September 2014, more than 600 philosophers signed a statement describing the email as "derogatory and intimidating" and declining to volunteer information for the Philosophical Gourmet Report while it was under the control of Leiter. In October 2014, Leiter agreed to step down as editor of PGR, after a majority of the advisory board asked for his resignation.

References