Talk:Julian Baggini

My revert

I reverted the recent additions because (a) the first source seems to be unavailable, and there's no complete citation, and (b) the edit seemed like editorializing. If you want to summarize his philosophy, the best thing would be to find a reliable secondary source that describes it, instead of randomly quoting or describing his work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there seems to be a problem with that server. This particular article has been very widely commented on - try googling it. I've tried to make a start I'm sure there is more to be said, but we need start somewhere. NBeale (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting again. This article must conform to our core content policies. These are WP:NOR (No original research); WP:BLP (biographies of living persons); WP:NPOV (neutral point of view); and WP:V (verifiability). Your proposed version violates NOR (specifically the WP:SYN section of it), and possibly BLP.

If you want to write about his philosophical views, you should find a secondary source who has discussed them, rather than compiling them for yourself. Or you would need to do your best to cover all his views, rather than picking and choosing a couple that you personally want to highlight. That's particularly important given that you're involved in real life in an aspect of the issue you chose to highlight.

There are also problems with the writing e.g. "By contrast Baggini is happy to engage with the views of Christian philosophers and scientists ..." which is editorializing. And the example you give of him addressing philosophical issues of economics, namely "No one has a right to have his or her money grow by simply putting it in a bank" has nothing to do with philosophy. And I don't believe his article said anywhere that people were assuming reason has a power that it doesn't have: that was your interpretation. That's why we prefer secondary sources to Wikipedians interpreting primary sources.

Perhaps you could work on this offline, so that whatever is added to this page (even if it's an early draft) is policy-compliant. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. We can't take the attitude that you must cover all a philosopher's views or none at all! The bit about reason was a direct quote. And whether or not someone has a "right" (in the non-legal sense in which he is writing) is everything to do with philosophy - unless of course you believe in God-given rights in which case it is a matter of theology :-)

I didn't mean you had to write about all of it or none of it. I meant you can't do original research, within the meaning of WP:NOR. Picking and choosing which bits of a primary source to use is OR, especially when you're involved in one aspect of it yourself in real life. It would be better to find a secondary source who has written about Baggini's ideas. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas, could you please stop adding that material? I've told you it's a violation of NOR and possibly BLP. We're being extra careful here because we've already had a complaint made to the Foundation about earlier edits to this article. I'm concerned that you seem to have a real-life interest in this issue, and that you're using this page to promote your ideas. Please produce a secondary source who agrees with you that these are aspects of Baggini's work that are particularly interesting and are worth mentioning. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can "picking and choosing which bits of a source" (whether primary or secondary) be OR?? Baggini himself has featured his criticism of Dawkins and his reactions in his blog. And the rest are published pieces in major national newspapers. We always pick and choose which sources we use. Are you sure that you are not objecting to these edits because he criticises Dawkins?? NBeale (talk)

You need to find reliable secondary sources who are saying what you are saying (or at least one). You're currently using primary sources only. Please read our content policies before editing any further, in particular WP:NOR: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims so long as they have been published by a reliable secondary source." This particularly applies to biographies of living persons. And why would you suppose I know or care that he criticizes Dawkins?

You might also want to read our conflict of interest policy. You seem to be editing Wikipedia to promote yourself and your real-life projects. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely, Slim, you're not trying to assert that we cannot summarize a writer's thought via summary of his works... Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NBeale is busy on WP promoting himself and his ideas about religion and science. He's therefore come to this page to highlight one aspect of Baggini's views, because he agrees with it. He's highlighted it in a way that may be unrepresentative of Baggini (of all the things we could mention about Baggini's philosophy, is that really the most important, the most interesting, the thing most often written about?) and his writing style amounted to editorializing. It's therefore better that he find a reliable, disinterested secondary source, per NOR. It's precisely because of editing like this that we have that provision in NOR. I know you don't like it, and I understand why it sometimes seems inappopriate, but this is one of those occasions where it's right to invoke it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Slim - come off it! You shouldn't need reminding of WP:AGF. The question "is that really the most important, the thing most often written about" is nothing at all to do with WikiPidea policy or NOR. (Also FWIW my last edits have been about Glial Cells, 2 Picasso paintings, and some eminent academics). If you can think of better things to say about Baggini's philosophy the improve what we say, don't just take it out becasue you don't like what he says or the person who says it. NBeale (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To deal with the COI point (which was actually intended to be favourable to Baggini) I have taken out the following text, though I would support another editor putting it in:

Baggini will engage with the views of Christian philosophers and scientists NBeale (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It has everything to do with NOR. Please read the content policies before editing any further. If you want to summarize Baggini's views, fine. But you are not summarizing them. You're picking out one thing that suits your purposes, and those purposes seem to be the only reason you're editing Wikipedia in the first place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Slim, WP:AGF please! I have drawn on 3 sources, how do you imagine that his views on Hume or the Economy "suit my purposes"? His views on atheism are a very important part of his work (and indeed I cited 2 other sources which you have queried as COI but any other editor would be quite free to add). His criticism of Dawkins has attracted a lot of comment and Baggini himself has drawn this to people's attention. Please be constructive and build on people's work. NBeale (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with SlimVirgin on this issue. There are two related occurrences of original research in the contested edit:

• There are quotations by the subject being used to advance a thesis.
• There is the selection of quotations, presented without reference to secondary commentaries. People say and write many things in a variety of contexts, it is our job to summarize secondary commentaries on such text, not to make our own decisions about what best represents the views of the subject.

Except when the quotations are well-known in their own right or when the quotations are being used to verify only the most basic facts (when no intrepretation is possible), the use of quotations is always dubious. It is especially dubious when the quotation is used to make an implicit point; we should never imply we should simply make statements. A corrollary to this that it is also unacceptable to present a selected quotation on the basis that we "leave the interpretation up to the reader". CIreland (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Is he a proponent of islamic finance?

Or, is the sentence "No one has a right to have his or her money grow by simply putting it in a bank" a somewhat extreme summary of the cited article? Vesal (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, why don't you have a read yourself and tell us? Skomorokh 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaargh, I prefer just being mean and sarcastic to actually doing some work, but since you asked I wrote my understanding of his opinion in the article. My point was that the single sentence without the context can be interpreted far more strongly than the impression you get from reading the whole thing. Vesal (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I empathise! Your version is an improvement, thanks. Skomorokh 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerns of subject

I have removed a section on my "philosophical outlook" because as it stands it is seriously deficient. These are my issues.

The overall problem is that it arbitrarily selects three newspaper articles I have written as somehow representing my views. Two of the subject matters chosen are not representative of my main interests (Economics and Climate change). It is therefore very misleading to single these out.

Also, specific summaries are false/misreading. In religion it said

he considers that "the New Atheist Movement is destructive"

In fact, that is not a direct quote from me, it is a headline given to an article I wrote by magazine editors which I did not approve. This already has caused me problems, so having it re-printed in wikipedia as a direct quote makes this worse.

The Economics piece is accurate, but it's absurd to single this one piece out from the rest of my work. It's something I have said only once on a subject that is not central to my writing.

In Climate Change, again it is a question of picking on one short article when it is not representative; and it is not the case that I ruled out climate change as a justifiable reason for any kind of civil disobedience in any circumstances, which is what the wording suggests.

It is just not good enough to select newspaper and magazine articles as representative of my views. If you want to include my views, they should be based on careful summaries of ideas explained in books, or over a number of articles. Otherwise, no such section should be in the entry.

It seems fair and reasonable to me that if anyone wants to add something to this entry they should have the courtesy to run it past me first. of course I should not have right of veto, but I can quickly and easy say if something is fair or accurate. I would prefer just a stub, as my experience of Wikipedia so far has been that its entry on me has always been at last a little wrong, sometimes very wrong, and once maliciously wrong. JulianBaggini (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianBaggini (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read a reasonable amount by Julian Baggini over the years, and I have to say I agree with the above comments. The examples taken out of context, reported inaccurately, and with incorrect emphasis on their relevance, in my opinion did misrepresent his "philosophical outlook". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A stub is indeed preferable to what was here before. Vesal (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• As the volunteer who responded to Dr. Baggini's WP:OTRS email, thanks to the above for their help and support. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

More detail

I want more detail. Why is Julian called Baggini? Where was he born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.145.28 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is he really an atheism activist?

I see that he has been included in the category "British atheism activists" but I would question this claim. I heard him on television once, saying that although he was an atheist, he was not anti-religious (as the term "atheism activist" seems to imply). Vorbee (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

It is some time since the BLP issues listed above. I have rewritten the page based on cited facts, concentrating on biographical and career details which are verifiable following the citations given. There contains no discussion of philosophical theory or position aside from references to humanism and a summary of the subject matter of his books. There are no quotations aside from two very brief reviews of his latest book. I know very little about philosophy. I invite the original OTRS editor @JzG: to give it a check. Mramoeba (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

A minor question, but is surname pronounced with a hard G or a soft G? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1936:4810:213:72FF:FE32:59B5 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)