Talk:Brian Leiter/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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