July 2019 edit
Hello, I'm Aboideau. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Brian Leiter, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! aboideautalk 15:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Hello Aboideau, thank you for your constructive feedback. I updated the article with links to reliable sources.
- 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not resume editing until there is consensus on talk page. I will try to respond to your concerns soon. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- They were pretty straightforward changes that you could have easily clicked on the sourced links (use ctrl+F) and see that it says "close to 300" signatories [1]. I even included links to the primary sources on the talk page [2]. The fact that you keep reverting changes on that page is reminiscent of Ownership Behavior "An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not." [3]
- I was waiting on the talk page for the other changes (re 2014 protest, 30/50 board members, sources to LR blog), but I don't think I need your approval for every single change that I make... 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Andy Cohen, anti-white racist edit
It has already been mentioned on the talk page, see Andy Cohen, anti-white racist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:412B:6300:31CF:EFA3:5B33:4BD0 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi User 2001:8003:412B:6300:31CF:EFA3:5B33:4BD0, as previously discussed on his talk page [1], a single self-published tweet should not be included on wikipedia. I'm not seeing where you gained consensus for adding the tweet. Per WP, Tweets are generally unacceptable as sources Template:Cite_tweet WP:TWITTER. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring edit
Deleted blog posts are not proper sources, compared to Chronicle of Higher Education. Many of your issues have been disussed on talk page previously, and you were in minority. Thanks.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- 1. It is not a deleted blog post, rather it is an archive of the original post, before he deleted unfavorable information regarding the majority of the PGR board asking for his resignation as reported in the Chronicle. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The portion of the blog post you reference was deleted. You do not know why. Perhaps it was a mistake? Regardless it is clearly not appropriate to cite a deleted portion of a blog post rather than a professional newspaper. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- LOL that Leiter just happened to delete the unfavorable portion after it was discussed on his wikipedia article that he is known to frequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Leiter#Discrepancy_between_source_and_article. If his blog is an acceptable source for his wikipedia article, than the original versions should as well. Especially when he has no journalistic integrity and alters the contents of his post months after the fact without notifying readers. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The subject's blog post is an acceptable source for the subject's views. The subject is not a journalist, and the subject's deleted blog material is not an acceptable source when it conflicts with published sources, as in this case.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The subject's blog post is NOT an acceptable source for claims about 3rd parties WP:BLPSELFPUB. I have posted this issue on WP:BLPN for additional insight. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- A subject's blog post is an acceptable source for the subject's views, which is all that is at issue here: what the subject believed.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The subject's blog post is NOT an acceptable source for claims about 3rd parties WP:BLPSELFPUB. I have posted this issue on WP:BLPN for additional insight. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The subject's blog post is an acceptable source for the subject's views. The subject is not a journalist, and the subject's deleted blog material is not an acceptable source when it conflicts with published sources, as in this case.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- LOL that Leiter just happened to delete the unfavorable portion after it was discussed on his wikipedia article that he is known to frequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Leiter#Discrepancy_between_source_and_article. If his blog is an acceptable source for his wikipedia article, than the original versions should as well. Especially when he has no journalistic integrity and alters the contents of his post months after the fact without notifying readers. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The portion of the blog post you reference was deleted. You do not know why. Perhaps it was a mistake? Regardless it is clearly not appropriate to cite a deleted portion of a blog post rather than a professional newspaper. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- 2.There are obvious issues with BLP violations against Jenkins need to have been fixed ASAP that you have left standing on the article without WP:RS. Leiter's blog is not a reliable source as to whether Jenkins threatened Leiter. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The relevant portion of the article on the subject says "Leiter claimed (Jenkins) had threatened him." The subject is a good source for that, and it does not assert any fact about Jenkins that violates BLP.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Where does it say "Leiter claimed (Jenkins) had threatened him." in the reference used as the source? https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Man-Who-Ranks-Philosophy/149007/ 24.217.247.41 (talk)
- The article states that Leiter "portrayed his clash with Ms. Jenkins, for example, very differently than it has been portrayed by his critics. It began in July, when Ms. Jenkins wrote a blog post in which she vowed to treat other philosophers with respect and to speak up when she saw them being mistreated. Ms. Jenkins’s post made no reference to Mr. Leiter, but he said he had no doubt it was about him, given that at the time he was under fire on blogs in his field for his recent harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings."Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again. Where does it say she threatened him? It says she vowed to treat others with respect and that Leiter thought it was in response to his harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings. Your quote is entirely fabricated. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article continues, "In an email Mr. Leiter sent to her the next day, he asked if she planned to spit at him or chase him with a baseball bat the next time she saw him at an American Philosophical Association meeting. He also suggested she may have defamed him with her blog’s reference to unprofessional behavior, and he asked if she was among the "sanctimonious assholes" in their field." The claim that Leiter believes Jenkins "threatened" him is a summary of this part of the article. Would you prefer the word "attacked"? What's clear is the subject believed, rightly or wrongly, that Jenkins criticsms/attacks/threats were aimed at him.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Neither "threatened" nor "attacked" are valid NPOV summaries of Jenkins blog post pledging civility in philosophy. Continue this on Talk:Brian Leiter or WP:BLPN24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article continues, "In an email Mr. Leiter sent to her the next day, he asked if she planned to spit at him or chase him with a baseball bat the next time she saw him at an American Philosophical Association meeting. He also suggested she may have defamed him with her blog’s reference to unprofessional behavior, and he asked if she was among the "sanctimonious assholes" in their field." The claim that Leiter believes Jenkins "threatened" him is a summary of this part of the article. Would you prefer the word "attacked"? What's clear is the subject believed, rightly or wrongly, that Jenkins criticsms/attacks/threats were aimed at him.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again. Where does it say she threatened him? It says she vowed to treat others with respect and that Leiter thought it was in response to his harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings. Your quote is entirely fabricated. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article states that Leiter "portrayed his clash with Ms. Jenkins, for example, very differently than it has been portrayed by his critics. It began in July, when Ms. Jenkins wrote a blog post in which she vowed to treat other philosophers with respect and to speak up when she saw them being mistreated. Ms. Jenkins’s post made no reference to Mr. Leiter, but he said he had no doubt it was about him, given that at the time he was under fire on blogs in his field for his recent harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings."Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Where does it say "Leiter claimed (Jenkins) had threatened him." in the reference used as the source? https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Man-Who-Ranks-Philosophy/149007/ 24.217.247.41 (talk)
- The relevant portion of the article on the subject says "Leiter claimed (Jenkins) had threatened him." The subject is a good source for that, and it does not assert any fact about Jenkins that violates BLP.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- 3. I was "in the minority" because a bunch of random IP addresses which had not participated on wikipedia for months (years in one case) randomly found the talk page...
24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- You are also a "random IP address." The fact that other IP users of Wikipedia disagreed with you does not change the fact that the the consensus was against you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying you don't find it strange that inactive users randomly started being active again and only in reference to Leiter's talk page when sock puppets are a known problem for that page? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I find it stranger that a random IP address from Edwarsdville, Illinois that discovered the subject through a tweet attacking him should become so interested in this entry. I find it less strange that random IP addresses from the New York and Los Angeles areas with many philosophy departments, which are major population centers, should be interested in the entry and should comment on it. But all of these speculations and allegations are irrelevant. As you emphasized a few months ago, we must assume good faith on the part of all parties, and focus on the substance and the arguments, as I have repeatedly tried to do above.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- LOL. As if only NY and LA can have graduate programs in Philosophy. Wow, great job finding out I live in a college town in Illinois and Brian Leiter teaches in Chicago, Illinois... So strange. Also, I've never noticed when reading wikipedia, such a clearly biased and incorrect article as Brian Leiter's before (other than this one about a Snake Man in Australia that I'm also trying to help make more NPOV). 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- I find it stranger that a random IP address from Edwarsdville, Illinois that discovered the subject through a tweet attacking him should become so interested in this entry. I find it less strange that random IP addresses from the New York and Los Angeles areas with many philosophy departments, which are major population centers, should be interested in the entry and should comment on it. But all of these speculations and allegations are irrelevant. As you emphasized a few months ago, we must assume good faith on the part of all parties, and focus on the substance and the arguments, as I have repeatedly tried to do above.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- Are you saying you don't find it strange that inactive users randomly started being active again and only in reference to Leiter's talk page when sock puppets are a known problem for that page? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- You are also a "random IP address." The fact that other IP users of Wikipedia disagreed with you does not change the fact that the the consensus was against you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- ^ http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=full
- ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20030416145141/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu:80/~heck/aboutpgr/html/letter.html
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=908954021&oldid=908953418
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |