Talk:Hilary Lawson

Untitled

I've declined a speedy deletion tag suggesting that this article was advertising; I'm sorry to say I just don't see it, and there is plenty of evidence (and well-cited evidence) to suggest that this individual is notable and that the article should be retained. If someone has a problem, I'm at their service. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The individual is notable (if not very notable - I had not heard of him before today), and some form of the article should surely be retained, however the current version reads like it was written by Hilary Lawson. In fact I'm guessing that it was - or by his PR company.

Dodgy article

Drawn here by a piece in a newspaper about an upcoming festival I looked up the organiser, Hilary Lawson. I think this article is possibly quite flawed, many claims uncited etc.

I have removed one sentence which strikes me as disingenuous at best:-

Media interest in the channel was such that his appointment as Deputy Chief Executive and his resignation from the channel was carried on the national news and in the national press

There is a reference given for this claim (The Observer, Jan29 1984) so I looked it up via the Guardian/Observer digital archive. The article - called TV-am: The inside story - turns out to have been written by, er, Hilary Lawson, the subject of this article. I am of course assuming good faith and not suggesting any conflict of interest, never mind that Mr Lawson added the peacock sentence himself.

I will now read the article line by line, and mark up uncited claims. More work needed. Testbed (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for Hilary Lawson

You might like to read WP:Autobiography

Testbed (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Has this philosopher had any review or commentary from his peers?

I do not doubt that Lawson has a DPhil and this article has so much focus on his ideas. But is there any actual review or assessment of his work that we can cite? I want to frame the issue about this article looking like a self-advertisement into something that can answer this question. It's one thing to reference and summarise all these ideas, but did any journals take it seriously or did any peers of Lawson praise it?

I don't doubt that he's written about closure and that his views differ from other people, but if he's not being studied at universities is this just a very rich man who can support a hobby? What makes this actual philosophy if its not reviewed by peers.

Honestly I don't think he's notable as a philosopher. You might have noted that, before I removed it as self-promotion, his bio said he started his DPhil, not that he achieved it. I suspect he never completed it. He's got review attention though in significant publications (Philosophy Now) although, considering the tenor of the review which says, "Closure becomes an ironic work, something clearly lost on the author but it is painful for the spectator to watch it develop from the outset, starting life as a philosophical idea full of promise and ending life as a quasi-rational concept with little value and no future. Most unfortunate of all is that it wishes to escape the strictures of a purely linguistic philosophy, only to discover it is actually trapped in a hall of mirrors of its own making and had never left at all," it's unsurprising that the previously self-promotional version of the article elided his reviews. That said, while he's not notable as a philosopher he seems quite verifiably notable as a producer and possibly as a visual artist. I hope my revisions today helped make that clearer. 24.224.182.26 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Major revisions

I've gone through and removed all the promo material and stuff that openly failed verification of citation. I removed the prod that was on the article and I think Lawson is a notable British media producer but his "I'm a philosopher" puff material isn't encyclopedic and has been removed. Please ensure if material is restored it is with citation to sources other than those written by Lawson or the organization he runs. 24.224.182.26 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly looking much better thanks to your edits but I'm not really confident it will be possible to get this article up to scratch any time soon. I've did a few more edits and tried not to remove too much (despite WP:BLP guidelines) yet there's still a lot of content that's poorly sourced, whether that's because of dead links, links to pages Lawson is affiliated with (i.e. Open Gallery), links to the home pages of art galleries etc. or links simply failing verification. Personally I would say Lawson doesn't even meet WP:GNG given there's a clear shortage of reliable, independent sources covering the subject. The issue was much the same over at the now deleted Institute of Art and Ideas. ToeSchmoker (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

I've tried hard to understand the changes made to this page. But I have to say I don't get it. The current description does not reflect the citations for Hilary Lawson or the obvious sources that a cursory Google search or Google scholar search throws up. I'm sure some of the previous text could be improved but the current copy is misleading. No reference is given for 'an English media producer' where there are a large number of references for Hilary Lawson as a philosopher. The text that has been retained seems to be old or rather tangential to the core of Lawson's work. No doubt the previous copy can be improved. There's a good bit or work to do here but I will do my best to make some progress to rectify the misleading impression currently. Cocitare (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Citations

Replaced copy where it was well cited, and added citations or updated where previous link dead. Previous edts had sometimes left copy misleading or unsupported as indicated in my previous comment. Cocitare (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Citations

Citations were added in response to previous comment that text should have more citations at the same time as the deletion of programmes that were not cited. I agree that it seems superfluous to cite each of these programmes, but the original citation from the British Film Institute listing all the programmes was not thought to be sufficient. Have tried to find a compromise here. Cocitare (talk) 11;10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems like most of what you've done is reinserted bad and self-referential citations can you please elucidate as to this decision? 24.224.182.26 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You also deleted a critical review of his work - why? 24.224.182.26 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Tags

Recently added tags have left an inaccurate description of the page, as there are not multiple issues with the page. Books are not self-published, but by leading academic publishing houses. Cocitare (talk) 11;23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to understand your changes but it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence of Hilary Lawson's philosophical impact. Reference to his primary works is therefore relevant. At the same time, references to Lawson's own work is supported by a wide range of secondary sources.

I can't see that the previous revisions 'largely rectified' the issues. Instead these revisions created a misleading impression of the individual failing to identify the primary things for which he is cited and offering an overall description of Lawson as 'media producer' for which I could find no support and which was without citation. In contrast there are hundreds of citations for him as philosopher.

As far as the IAI is concerned, it is a respected platform carrying content from leading thinkers and philosophers and it would seem a good number of Nobel prize-winners. It does not seem accurate to ignore Lawson's contribution to this platform when in debate with other philosophers or in an exchange of articles. For example, Timothy Williamson's article references Lawson and it would be confusing if Lawson's original article was not also referenced. Cocitare (talk) 11;26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Granted, Lawson's books may not be self-published but the IAI most certainly is. Doesn't necessarily mean we can no longer use it as a source but it's best to err on the side of caution, particularly in the case of a BLP. There's also the issue of the IAI (and other organisations Lawson is involved with such as Open Gallery) not being independent when it comes to sourcing info about Lawson. As an example, if we're to look at this article written by Lawson and posted on the IAI, Lawson describes himself as a "renowned" critic. As far as I'm aware there's none of his (obvious) self-praising present in the article & I personally can't comment on the state of his renown but there's clear issues with regards to COI when it comes to using organisations Lawson is director/CEO/chairman/whatever of as sources on Lawson himself.

There have been issues with this page, Institute of Art and Ideas and HowTheLightGetsIn Festival, particularly with regards to poorly sourced content, promotional/advertorial content, and users who are editing with an obvious - and sometimes confessed - conflict of interest. I am sure you can understand why other editors and I are being cautious when it comes to the content of these pages. ToeSchmoker (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that this article relies excessively on 'sources too closely associated with the subject'. 90% of the citations are from third party sources. The few citations for Lawson's own publications or articles on the IAI website, itself a highly respected platform, are in support of direct quotes or alongside third party sources. All of them are valuable to the overall article and in line with Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as they are 'not unduly self-serving' and 'the article is not based primarily on such sources'. Cocitare (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There are 82 references. 2 cite IAI News, and although a respected source in its own right, they can be argued to be self-published because Lawson founded the IAI. These two citations are not enough to tag the page as 'rely[ing] excessively' on sources too closely associated with the subject. There a case for having more citations from the IAI because it is such a highly respected source. Previously you have yourself stated that Lawson founding IAI does not mean it cannot be used as a source, as long as it is used sparingly.

The same article is referenced in both instances (Hilary Lawson, 'Post-realism'). Once alongside Timothy Williamson's articles to demonstrate the exchange took place between the two, and the other to help explain Lawson's philosophical position on realism, alongside secondary sources such as "Oxford University Philosophy Society, Hilary 2018 Termcard" and "Hilary Lawson". Forum for Philosophy. 7 July 2014.

These sources satisfy Wikipedia's guidance on the circumstances when self-published sources can be used. Cocitare (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No, there isn't a case for having more IAI citations on this article because there's been past cases of the IAI breaching COI guidelines and editing their own Wikipedia page and the Wikipedia page of their festival (no doubt this page as well, at some point). There's at least 4 or 5 single purpose accounts (some now blocked) I've noticed that exist(ed) solely to edit IAI affiliated pages -- and that's just the really obvious ones. I don't think that's how a "respected platform" generally operates. Their repeated breaching and/or sheer ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines really calls into question their verifiability as a "highly respected source" which is why I placed the tag (perhaps a bit generously -- I'll get around to just inline tagging them later). I don't have an issue with them being used to source articles where there's no COI but they shouldn't be used to source the Wikipedia page of its founder. I'm sure there are more reputable sources that can be used. ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for not elaborating further on my previous revision in Talk. I can see that this has been discussed a lot in the past, but I don't think there are grounds to tag the page as excessively relying on sources close to the subject, when a very large majority are from third parties. I believe the use of a handful of these sources, written by Mr Lawson, do also adhere to the Wikipedia 'Biographies of Living Person's Policy', but perhaps it would be good for some other editors to look at the page, given the back and forth on this issue? I also note that you mention suspected cases of COI in the past, but can this be confirmed for this particular page in it's current state? If not, I don't believe this is relevant. Opus6839 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it can be confirmed. They aren't suspected. See my comment immediately above dated 17:14 26 Jan and see other sections in this talk page for people who have noticed the same editing from IAI employees/affiliates. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Lawson as philosopher

I have tried to understand the edit deleting philosopher and replacing with writer. But this change is surely misleading. No citation is offered for Lawson as a writer and there are a large number for Lawson as philosopher. His books are not novels but works of philosophy published by major academic publishers. Closure is the most notable and it would seem the most widely referenced. Cocitare (talk) 20;50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Postgraduate theory

The copy that talks about Lawson's early theoretical thinking is relevant to explaining the progression of thought and the development of Lawson’s theory of Closure. As far as I can see everything about Reflexivity: The Post-Modern Predicament mentioned here is correctly cited.Cocitare (talk) 20;54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

On Richard Rorty

The quote is taken from the Dennis Hackett review which is cited. Rorty has been highly influential in philosophy. Lawson’s collaboration with him is relevant to understanding Lawson’s influences and philosophical approach. The Forrester citation link lists Rorty’s contribution to Dismantling Truth, which Lawson edited.Cocitare (talk) 20;58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The standard procedure is to put the citation directly after the quote it supports so I assumed it was lifted from Forrester's article. I have corrected this. Rorty's influence in philosophy is irrelevant as the article is about Lawson. If their working together is important to understanding Lawson's philosophical approach, then find more sources to expand upon this because as it stands it's just listing works they have collaborated on and nothing more. It doesn't add anything of value to the article. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The collaboration with Rorty is relevant to understanding Lawson's philosophical stance but the text has been updated in the light of your suggestion to make this clear and its relationship to Lawson's work. Cocitare (talk) 11;16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

No explanation provided for removal, nor a response to last Talk comment. Previous updates sought to improve the copy and I don't see a reason for removal. I took time to edit the copy to describe Lawson's development of the theory, and the collaboration with Rorty is surely relevant here. It is not unusual to mention other figures that have played a part in the career of POI and in this case it seems to me it also aids understanding. Cocitare (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Explanation was provided above: "Rorty's influence in philosophy is irrelevant as the article is about Lawson. If their working together is important to understanding Lawson's philosophical approach, then find more sources to expand upon this because as it stands it's just listing works they have collaborated on and nothing more. It doesn't add anything of value to the article." This issue has still gone unrectified as adding in (unsourced/original research) "The influence of a postmodern approach continued in his collaborations with the American philosopher Richard Rorty," before listing things they have worked on has done nothing to explain how their collaboration is relevant to, as you have put it, understanding Lawson's "philosophical approach". ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The Rorty citation is evidence of the development of Lawson's approach because Rorty is a well known, pragmatist philosopher who became associated with postmodernism. His collaboration with various projects with which Lawson was involved shows a similarity of approach and is surely relevent to understanding the way in which Lawson's philosophy developed. Nor is it clear why this should be contentious. Cocitare (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Jargon and Clarity

I have tried to understand your point here but it is not apparent to me that there is anything in this text which could be described as jargon, or is unclear or difficult to understand. Postmodernism has long since ceased to be a technical philosophical term and is in widespread cultural use. Elsewhere the philosophical terms are either as titles of books or are in general use in philosophy. You will find articles on 'philosophical realism' in Wikipedia if you are unsure of their meaning, but it will be very clear to anyone interested in philosophy which will be the majority of those reading this article. Cocitare (talk) 11;09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There is very little done to actually expound upon Lawson's ideas. Some examples:

Lawson's theory "closure" instead proposes that the world is open and, along with other living organisms, we make sense of the world through the process of closure. Closure is defined as 'holding that which is different as one and the same'.

The framework of closure enables Lawson to claim that he provides an account of the relationship between language and the world that does not rely on reference and which he argues overcomes the problem of how language is hooked onto the world that beset twentieth century philosophy.

Given Lawson's earlier work on self-reference, an important element of the theory of closure is its own self-referential character.

The only third party source used to reference the quoted content (sans the last one in which no third party source is used) is a book by Olivia Fane, and even then it's not entirely apparent what exactly their work is being used to reference. When one searches Lawson's quoted definition of closure ("holding that which is different as one and the same") on a search engine (I tried 3), this Wikipedia article is the only result. If Lawson's idea of closure is in such general use/so widely discussed I'm sure there will be a vast array of independent, third-party sources to draw on to expand upon the definition and his ideas in general. Properly-used third party sources could make this section much better (please do not add footnotes in willy-nilly just because Lawson's work is cited in them in an entirely unrelated way -- I've removed quite a few of these because of them failing verification) because as it stands it's written fairly poorly -- whether that's a consequence of whoever initially wrote the section or because of Lawson's own writing, I do not know.

I really do urge you to read WP:WBA + WP:TECHNICAL. There's also still the issue of pronouns in the section and the wider article -- you may disagree on the legibility of the section in other ways but you'll be hard-pressed to find an encyclopaedia written in the first person (inclusive we and all). Also, I do disagree with the belief that most people reading this article will be "anyone interested in philosophy" given Lawson's just as notable as a media producer as he is a philosopher. ToeSchmoker (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The previous comment was helpful. I've amended the copy so that it is directly referenced. There are many references that could have been used. Not easy to get the balance between a readable summary and line by line referenced commentary. Cocitare (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Video Painting

Reverted the copy regarding video painting because you overlooked the change in the previous edit. Although the source references Eno's 'video paintings', they were not defined or conceptualised as such until 2001. The Bolewski source you are refering to states they are labelled as such in '2005', Bizzocchi proposes a definition in that same year - but Lawson defines it prior, in '2001'. The new copy does not claim that Lawson created the first ever examples of video paintings, but that he was the first to define it. He was the first to create artwork in this medium under these criteria and this definition was adopted by a collective of artists in 2001. Cocitare (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I overlooked anything at all. The source doesn't explicitly state he was the first to "define" or "conceptualise" (first being the operative word). If you read a little further, it even goes on to state that Lawson and his peers "claim" to have first developed the concept. If the source itself isn't 100% stating something as fact, we should not be doing so here. ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Self-promotion and doctoring of the Wiki

It has come to light through an investigation into Hilary Lawson and his business practices that his Wikipedia has been written by him or on his behalf, which likely explains many of the above issues and suspicions. It seems likely on the balance of evidence that Cocitare is either an employee or a sock puppet account. I'd motion to add to a warning disclaimer to the page that it is due for a cleanup to remove the extraneous puff from the copy.

The investigation makes note of our discussion and the suspicious edits here: https://www.the-fence.com/issues/issue-12/iai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikeaidealist (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there's been quite a lot of COI editing. I'll not make any suggestions as to who could be doing it in addition to the confirmed Lawson-associated accounts but I've got my suspicions. I've been meaning to clean up the article but have been struggling to find the time. I'll perhaps have a crack at it soon but any help would be appreciated. ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been following Lawson for many years now and have even met him at one IAI festival, but this gives you no right to claim that I am him or acting under his instructions, nor am I biased in his favour. The comments by ToeSchmoker and Ikeaidealist have been poorly referenced, frequently make a nonsense of the page, and on occasion seem blatantly vandalistic. There is also little understanding of the philosophical topics relevant to the page. My aim is to ensure an accurate description of this person supported by well referenced evidence. A worthwhile exercise since Lawson and the IAI appear to be increasingly influential. Be assured I will continue to review the page to help ensure that it provides a balanced and accurate account. Cocitare (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say you were acting under his instructions, did I? I specifically said I wouldn't name names. I digress. It's a stretch to say I've been making "poorly referenced" comments when a fair amount of my edits on this page are removing poorly referenced material - some additions made by you, might I add. Your suggesting that I do not understand the "philosophical topic relevants to the page" is 1) a bold claim and 2) largely irrelevant. I know you're a big fan of Lawson and the IAI but I'd really urge you to try and edit more objectively in future and also refrain from saying other editors are making "nonsense" or "vandalistic" edits. Be assured I will continue to review the page to help ensure that it provides a balanced and accurate account. ToeSchmoker (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hilary Lawson as 'businessman'

I believe the description of Lawson as a 'businessman' is not supported. The article cited describes him as founder of the IAI which is already referenced in the next phrase of the opening sentence. More widely in the public sphere, Lawson is most commonly referred to as a 'philosopher' or as 'founder of the IAI'. There are some references as a 'documentary filmmaker'. I am not aware of any citation describing him as 'businessman'. Companies House shows Lawson to be a company director but he is not notable in this regard, and many other public figures have set up companies but are not listed as 'businessman' or 'businesswoman' for the same reason. Since the IAI seemingly is becoming more notable, if you wanted to elaborate his role in founding the project there might be a case for this later on in the body of the page. The current reference to this in Biography is short. I intended to have a go at this but was unable to find enough good sources aside from the IAI website itself. Cocitare (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Criticism?

There is no mention anywhere in this article of criticism of the person Hilary Lawson or his work. This article seems written as self-promotion, as a press release. Randall Lee Reetz (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)