Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 26 April 2016

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Flydubai Flight 981

• The question is about the similar air accidents and involves possible unpublished analysis of published material that serves to advance one's position. It is also discussed in this section of the article's talk page. My opponent, User:Petebutt, suggested me there to contact the administrator to resolve our dispute and I am thus following his advice.

So, here is the story: User:Petebutt added a paragraph to this article with information about English Electric Canberra bomber crash in 1983, claiming that this crash was similar to Flight 981. He provided two sources with the description of this bomber crash, but none of them mentioned any similarity between the bomber crash and Boeing 737 Flight 981 crash. I removed this paragraph, with the explanations that the suggested similarity between these two cases is an original research for the reasons I just mentioned. He reverted my edit, insisting that documented references could not be original research and asked me to provide my reasoning on the talk page. I provided my reasoning on the article's talk page. User:Petebutt replied, suggesting me to contact the administrator to resolve our dispute. - Daniel (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources to support claim that Timothy Leary was a philosopher

At issue in Timothy Leary is a claim that he was a philosopher, with several editors insisting he was not. One source was already cited and I have added 6 more. FreeKnowledgeCreator and Skyerise object, arguing that this is impermissable WP:OR. , , . Further discussion may be found on the article talk page, especially at Talk:Timothy Leary#Protected edit request on 1 April 2016. Guidance is requested. Msnicki (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear about it, the issue is not whether Leary was a philosopher, but whether the article should describe him as one. I realize that this may seem like an overly subtle distinction to some people, but it is important to be clear what has actually been under discussion. Msnicki is incorrect in asserting that I have insisted that Leary was not a philosopher; Misplaced Pages is not a debating site, and this is in any case a matter I have no interest in discussing. Msnicki has likewise misrepresented my position regarding the citations she added. I stated that in two cases using them to try to show that Leary was a philosopher constituted original research; that's all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the other four sources state that he was a philosopher, and that the article therefore should describe him as a philosopher. Good, that was quick. We're done here then. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they state that Leary was a philosopher - I can read, OpenFuture. I do not necessarily agree that this means that the article should describe Leary as a philosopher, but that's for reasons not connected to the ban on original research, which it would therefore be pointless to discuss here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you are going to try to push your opinion through by different kinds of hairsplitting and wiki-lawyering for each source. OK. Then we DO need to discuss these two sources in detail here, since you are wrong about at least one of them. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary, so that the people here doesn't have to read through very long discussions. The sources under debate are:

1. Isralowitz, Richard (May 14, 2004). Drug Use: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1576077085. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Leary explored the cultural and philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs
2. Donaldson, Robert H. (2015). Modern America: A Documentary History of the Nation Since 1945. Routledge. ISBN 978-0765615374. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Leary not only used and distributed the drug, he founded a sort of LSD philosophy of use that involved aspects of mind expansion and the revelation of personal truth through "dropping acid."

And the question then is:

1. Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "explored cultural and philosophical implications"?
2. Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "founded a sort of philosophy"?

--OpenFuture (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That drastically over-simplifies the issue. The question should be whether an encyclopedic article on Timothy Leary should state that his occupation included philosopher. If the information is WP:DUE, it is fine to give some attributed opinions to the effect that Leary's comic acts and drug explorations involved "philosophy", but that is not the same as having the infobox or the article text baldly state that Leary was a philosopher. I can often work out how much change I'm due when buying a few things. If an article described me, should it say that I am a mathematician? Should Hillary Clinton include fighter in her occupation (Hillary Clinton is known as absolutely tenacious, a dogged fighter and many more similar sources). Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources don't say that his acts "involved philosophy", the sources state he was a philosopher. If reliable sources for you state you are a mathematician, then the Misplaced Pages article on you should reasonably state that you are a mathematician, no matter if you can count your change or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

While I think the sources are sufficient to describe him as a philosopher in the lede paragraph, I don't think the philosopher label belongs under "occupation" in the infobox. OhNoitsJamie 13:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this captures the point. There's "philosopher" as a recognized occupation, and then there's "philosopher" implying a great thinker but not necessarily their day job. (This MW definition gives the latter implication as the first one, and the more formal role as the second). I would agree sources consider Leary as a great thinker, but I do also don't think the sources identify him as a professional "student of philosophy" to be considered as a career role. The word can be used to described want people thought of him, but should be avoided as if he were factually one. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be an acceptable compromise for FreeKnowledgeCreator, et al? We keep it in the lead, but remove it from "Occupation" in the side-bar? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems a good route. Leary was a philosopher, but it wasn't his main occupation or commonly-accepted priority profession. Randy Kryn 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Philosopher" is not verified simply because there's public use of that term to describe him in some popular sense of the word. Such descriptions are not sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the article. If there were secondary sources which describe a controversy as to whether the term applies and the pros and cons, yeas and nays, that controversy might be noteworthy. Otherwise not. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate. If a person is given a certain label (regardless if it is possible or negative, as long as it does not introduce direct BLP problems) and it widely used about that person, then stating, with sources, that that person is labeled that is generally acceptable practice. So I would readily agree that calling Leary as a "great thinking" philosopher is reasonably okay here with sources presented so far; we just can't say his professions included being a philosopher. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how anyone could conclude philosopher wasn't his main occupation. Never mind that we even have the news report that he testified that this was his occupation. From Timothy Leary bibliography and from examination of his citations on Google scholar , it's clear that around 1964, he abandoned what appears to have been a successful academic career as a psychologist, judging by the 2817 citations received by his 1958 paper, Interpersonal diagnosis of personality.. From then on, his entire life work for the next 36 years appears to have been focused solely on his philosophy, which numerous sources describe as "think for yourself and question authority" and advocating LSD for "mind expansion and revelation of personal truth".

At this point, permit me digression on citation counts in academia. This is a huge deal for those on tenure track, c.f., . It's how academics judge impact. In engineering, where I teach, it takes a PhD and about 1000 citations to earn tenure. That's the number you'll see in my earlier citation and it appears to match what I observe. A top paper in engineering is one that gets over 1000 citations on its own. But in faculty meetings, I hear all the time from colleagues in other (slower changing) departments that even a few hundred citations is remarkable.

That appeared to be true as I somewhat randomly (H/L/M?) spot-checked a few full professors of philosophy (whom I assume we can all accept as full-time philosophers, whatever that means) at Harvard, , , , UC Santa Barbara, , , and University of Washington, , , this morning. Skipping over the obvious false hits for same-named people in obviously different fields, what you'll notice is that only a few of them appear to hit 1000 citations total even by full professorship, never mind just for tenure as associates and that it's a rare paper that got over 100. The highest I happened to find this morning was Korsgaard's amazing 2246 and Wylie's 559 .

So that's the background, now here is a table of citation counts for Leary's top publications in philosophy also taken from Google scholar.

Publication	Citations
The psychedelic experience	295
The politics of ecstacy	211
Chaos and cyber culture	139
The religious experence: Its production and interpretation	83
High priest	77
The Cyber-punk: The individual as reality pilot	56
Design for dying	31
The interpersonal, interactive, interdimensional interface	42
Turn on, tune in, drop out	33
The psychedelic reader	32
Religious implications of consciousness expanding drugs	31
The politics of conscienousness expansion	15
Psychedelic Prayers: And other Meditations	14
Foucaut and the Art of Ethics	258
Your Brain is God	13
The politics, ethics and meaning of marijuana	11
Start your own religion	12
Total	1353

It looks to me like Leary was a philosopher no matter how you slice it. Numerous WP:RS call him that. He testified that was his occupation. He spent his entire life from about 1964 on writing thousands of pages on his philosophy, which sources have no trouble describing in specific terms. He's reported to have had trouble generating income and what he did generate appears to have come from writing and speaking about his philosophy. His publications on philosophy had significant impact as most academics might measure it by citation count. Were it not for the fact that his philosophy included taking LSD, he compiled a publication record that might have earned him tenure in the philosophy department almost anywhere in the country.

I just don't know how anyone argues he wasn't a philosopher except by vague hand-waving claims that amount to little more than, "I know one when I see one and he's not it." We should be able to do better than that. Our objective here should be verifiability, not truth. I understand that some of you believe that, in truth, he wasn't really a philosopher. But what we can verify is that he was. Msnicki (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd simply like to note that if any one reliable source were enough to call Leary a philosopher, then that reference should be the only reference that need be added. Adding multiple references to support the claim that Leary was a philosopher, when one reference might suffice if it really proved the point, is unnecessary, bad editing, and disruptive. According to Fyddlestix, the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes Leary as "a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens." I am not suggesting that any source should be added to show that Leary was a philosopher (I think the merits of doing so are questionable at best) but if one did want to add one, the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences would be much better than any of the sources added by Msnicki and would not involve original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Too many WP:RS is disruptive? Wow. Just wow. Msnicki (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not a meaningful response to my comment above. Common sense should suggest that if one citation is enough adding half a dozen is pointless or disruptive; I think other editors would agree. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Common sense would have been to agree he was a philosopher a week and several drama boards ago. If your concern was merely that we needed better sources and you knew how to find them, common sense would have been to add them then rather fight tooth and nail. I'm still struggling to understand your hairsplitting claim about WP:OR. That also deserves a wow. Msnicki (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only do others agree with FKC, but they wrote a respected essay: WP:OVERCITE. The he's a philospher supporters only need one reliable source that asserts Leary was a philosopher in the standard encyclopedic meaning of that term. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that there might be a point that FKC is presenting in that if one is trying to justify a contentious point by throwing lots of weak RS, disparate sources at it rather than one or two high quality sources, that might be a bit of SYNTH and POV pushing, particularly if those main sources are completely mum on the point or present a counterpoint. I cannot speak to this being the case for this specific situation with Leary, but it is a valid possible concern. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We had one WP:RS and that was obviously NOT enough as demonstrated by the edit warring and numerous trips to drama boards.

I think it would helpful if we could nail down this possible overciting/synthesis concern. Is that a genuine concern here or just a hypothetical concern in some hypothetical articles? None of these sources are "mum" on the question of whether Leary was a philosopher. They ALL call him a philosopher and/or describe his philosophy in similar terms. Are we now agreed that Leary really was a philosopher and that that was his occupation? These latest responses sound a lot like yes, but that FKC would prefer we use his source. Is that all it takes? Are we close to done here? Msnicki (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, the concern is that listing him with philosopher as a lede sentence or as an occupation does not jive with how WP defines a "professional" philosopher (see Contemporary philosophy), compared to someone who simply promotes a given philosophy but is not a professional philosopher. I see some of the uses in text, and I don't see much to support the first version (nothing much to support the idea that Leary was professionalized), but plenty that go along with the second case, and its the issue of understanding the nuance of that difference in how the sources present it as to apply to our article. It is comparable to understanding that you have people that are called out as philanthropists like John D. Rockefeller III, but while the act of donating money to a cause would make a random person a philanthropist by definition too because they gave $5 to charity, clearly one would not properly apply that label to that person. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course this is overciting. Of course the one source was enough. But this overciting is a direct effect of FreeKnowledgeCreators refusal to accept the sources that existed, forcing Msnicki to show that this wan not just one source that demonstrated that Leary was a philosopher, but there was many. The overciting is therefore an effect of FreeKnowledgeCreator's usual stonewall argument style. That he comes here and now *complains* about it shows that he is not interested WP:NPOV and WP:RS, he is here to push a POV, as is always the case, everytime he shows up an ad administrator noticeboard. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources call him a philosopher. He testified that was his occupation. It appears that he devoted the last 36 years of his life to writing and speaking on philosophy and that that was primary source of income. His philosophy works accumulated an impressive citation count. He had the PhD, the critical qualification mentioned in that Contemporary philosophy article as part of the "professionalization". This doesn't seem comparable to someone giving $5 to charity and wanting to be called a philanthropist. It looks to me like he was a philosopher who met every qualification anyone has suggested should be necessary. Msnicki (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Will this edit satisfy the last of any concerns? Msnicki (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the term philosopher has several meanings. In its broadest sense it means someone who has opinions about the world and expresses them, which is what Leary did. We also use the term psychologist to describe people who have some understanding of people. In that sense, Donald Trump is a great psychologist. But philosophy is also an academic discipline with a defined subject matter and a body of literature. Since Leary did not write about that subject, it would be misleading to describe him as a philosopher. What was his reply to Hume's theory of causation or Kant's categories of human understanding? How did he respond to the logical positivist argument against meaningful a priori knowledge? TFD (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So your position is that you can only be a philosopher if you write essays about Kant or Hume? Are you aware that very few full professors in philosophy do that? Most of their research is in other areas, e.g., contemporary issues in law and ethics.

More to point, I'm curious to explore your argument that Leary never wrote about philosophy. Can you kindly identify which of the publications I listed in my table above, where I've tallied Leary's citation counts, are, in fact, not works in philosophy? And can you tell us what they are instead? It would be especially helpful if you could a provide an WP:RS stating that they are not works in philosophy. To avoid any problems with all that pesky WP:OR stuff, it would be helpful if you could find quotes stating that in pretty nearly those exact words. Msnicki (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Philosophers do not necessarily have to write about Hume or Kant, but they need to write about the issues that they did and even if they do not reference Hume or Kant by name, it would be rare indeed for a paper on philosophy not to mention at least one of the philosopers associated with the empiricist or rationalist traditions of which Hume and Kant were the leading proponents. I do not know if there are sources that say these books are not about philosophy any more than there are sources that say they are not about differential calculus. Do you have any books about philosophy that include sections on Leary? TFD (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Among those 1300+ citations Google reports on scholar, it seems pretty likely some of those are in scholarly articles on philosophy, since that's the kind of stuff Google reports as citations on scholar. Do you need me to find a few of them for you? How many would you need to disprove a claim of never? If this seems likes an interesting question and you'd like to know what the sources state, not just work a POV, do you think you might be able to take a stab at the research on your own? Do you see any difference between what I've been doing and what you're doing? Msnicki (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

TFD; you have a rather antiquated view of philosophy and philosophers. The topics that you mention and think philosophers discuss are topics that has already been discussed to death and is today not mentioned outside textbooks. Although Alain de Botton surely has mentioned both Kant and Hume in his TV series, made for lay people, I can't find a paper where he mentions them. And philosophers are no longer just professors on a college with a beard. Sweden's most interesting and controversial philosopher is also a judge on the Swedish version of American Idol. This is all just a version of "I don't like it" or claiming to hold WP:THETRUTH. Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. What we need it not The Truth, but reliable sources. The question here is if the two sources above are reliable sources for the claim that Leary is a philospher, and since not one single person has argued that they are not, the conclusion must reasonably be that they are.

Case closed. For other arguments, please discuss that on the article talk page, this is the notice board for original research, which by the way is a good label for your claims that a philosopher has to conform to your specific prejudices about old men in beards. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I absolutely stand by my position that Msnicki is guilty of original research in using the sources by Isralowitz and Donaldson to claim that Leary was a philosopher. The whole point of WP:NOR is that you do not use sources to try to show things that the sources do not directly, unambiguously, or uncontroversially state, and neither Isralowitz nor Donaldson states that Leary was a philosopher. Msnicki is simply using her personal assumptions and beliefs about what a philosopher is to try to deny that she is engaged in original research; she should not be encouraged in this. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "explored cultural and philosophical implications"? Yes, because there is no agreed upon definition of "philosopher" according to which it means that someone "explored cultural and philosophical implications" of LSD or anything else. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "founded a sort of philosophy"". Again, yes because founding a "sort of philosophy", whatever that means, and it may mean anything or nothing, is also not a recognized definition of "philosopher." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Further to that, it is preposterous to say that Leary should be called a philosopher because he testified that "philosopher" was his occupation. Obviously that is a self-serving claim; a reliable source needs to be found independent of Leary. Msnicki, I again suggest that if you want the article to state that Leary was a philosopher, you should use the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences rather than any other source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note my edit cited above (once again: ) in which I moved those two citations to further down in the article. You're complaining about something that's no longer there. Msnicki (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. You would do well to remove all the current citations for "philosopher" from the lead and replace them with something better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We are all volunteers, FKC. I have a FT job as an academic in an area that has nothing to do with this. This is the amount of hobby research I can contribute this week. Earlier, you indicated you thought you had a better source, but you never gave the citation or a quote. If you think you have a better source, please propose it. Depending on what you offer, I might surprise you by agreeing. But let's see it first, please, before deleting more stuff. Msnicki (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a further original research issue: Msnicki restored the "philosophers of mind" category, despite the absence of any source identifying Leary as a philosopher of mind. I've raised the issue on the talk page, and Msnicki's edit has no support there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

::::::That claim is both false, and original research. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)I must have misunderstood or replied in the wrong location. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(outside opinion) There are certain academics (and editors here on Misplaced Pages) that strongly desire to downplay the contributions of philosophers that they dislike, disagree with, or that work outside of stale academia to become pop culture figures. They will engage in this sort of attack on the use of "philosopher" not for the betterment of the encyclopedia, but to give themselves some misguided sense of value.
The reality is that journals and other sources of academic citations don't typically call anyone by the common name for their occupations. Someone doing a journal article about the Great Depression is highly unlikely to describe one of his sources as "economist John Jenkins" in plain text within the body of their article. Rather, the author will cite the person, source, and date for whatever past work he's referring to in the journal, and discuss their ideas in context. Likewise, these kinds of sources aren't ever likely to call Leary a "philosopher"... but context matters. When someone is writing about philosophy and they cite Leary mentioning his philosophy, they are confirming that Leary has produced ideas with tangible philosophical value - which is certainly part of the definition of a philosopher. Its not OR to equate philosophy with philosopher, its really just different word forms, not a vast gulf of meaning. Clearly, Leary has worked in philosophy and been cited as such. That makes him a philosopher. -- Netoholic @ 12:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please provide three examples of peer-reviewed published articles written by acknowledged philosophers that cite Leary's work, per the model you describe, without labeling Leary as a philosopher? SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Would these need to be individuals with articles here on Misplaced Pages listing their occupations as philosopher? More to the point, it doesn't seem helpful to raise a lot of "prove to me the sky is blue" arguments where, if you actually have a serious concern and an open mind, it can't possibly be that difficult to contribute a little scholarship of your own to go find the sources. I've given you a table above showing that Leary's work received over 1300 citations as reported by Google scholar. They only count scholarly citations on scholar and we can be pretty sure he wasn't getting them from people writing about engineering, math and physics. Do you think you might to be able to poke through a few of them on your own to research your interest in knowing what fraction were from other philosophers? Perhaps you might sample 100 of them and then present a breakdown of your findings. Or, I'm pretty sure, you could find the three your want on your own without too much trouble and call it good. It just can't be that hard. Msnicki (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have searched extensively and can find no RS for the assertion that Dr. Leary was a philosopher. My question was in response to the preceding statement, which claimed that indisputably qualified practitioners of philosophy, botany, economics, refer to colleagues as if the cited work were tagged, -- Philosopher Kant says, Economist Marshall says -- but do not articulate the tag. I have been unable in my research to find any instance of this. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

To say that someone can only be acknowledged as a philosopher by *other* philosophers is exactly the sort of problem I'm speaking about. A historian can cite an economist, and in doing so, gives credibility and confirmation of that economist's occupation - after all, we cite people who are experts in things we aren't experts ourselves in. An archaeologist might cite a metallurgist, a social scientist might cite a geneticist, etc. So the real question here is why are philosophers some special class that can only be acknowledged by others of their kind? Why can't Leary's work in philosophy be cited by a chemist, or a neurologist, or a psychologist, or a biographer, or a newspaper reporter? None of these can pass judgment as to how "good" he is a as philosopher (whatever that means), but their description of him as such is sufficient because they are reliable sources. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot provide even one example to establish proof of concept, I think we've reached a dead end with that approach. "Reliable source" refers to its qualification for the statement sourced to it. RS is not a genetic term like Antelope. A newspaper reporter, chemist, or pastry chef is not RS for WP to cite as verification that Dr. Leary was a philosopher. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course they are. They are RS for confirming his occupation. They are not RS for evaluating his output. That is the difference. A newspaper reporter about a movie would be a RS for stating that John Smythe was a director, but it would take experts in film-making to be RS for commentary on his directorial style or effectiveness. -- Netoholic @ 23:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That (incorrect) statement is helpful, because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP policy. Please read WP:RS and for the specific misstatement above, see WP:NEWSORG. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing there that conflicts with what I said. A newspaper source is fine for providing a simple fact like someone's occupation. It would not be fine for an in-depth, academic discussion. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Timothy Leary article still includes a category identifying Leary as a "philosopher of mind". In the absence of a reliable source calling Leary a "philosopher of mind", the category seems to be unacceptable original research. Discussion on the article's talk page is ongoing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Was Aldous Huxley a philosopher?

It's deja vu all over again. Just when you thought the question of whether Timothy Leary was a philosopher was settled, we have the same question being raised at Aldous Huxley. Previous discussion is at Talk:Aldous Huxley#Doubts about whether Huxley was a philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator, User:Johnuniq and 2605:a000:1200:600f:bdc2:282a:6c52:766b have been edit warring over whether Huxley was a philosopher and whether he should be described as such in the infobox. Initially, FKC indicated he only wanted a source, , not that he had any particular reason to doubt Huxley was a philosopher and seemed to agree that a {{cn}} tag would suffice until someone had time to do the research., Four days later, FKC removed the claim and the tag insisting the claim was simply wrong.

This morning, I finally got time to do the research. It wasn't hard to find four WP:RS all describing Huxley as a philosopher. FKC and JU have both reverted, and , insisting these citations are insufficient, that this really wasn't Huxley's occupation. It seems to me that both FKC and JU misunderstand what it means to be an intellectual. Both seem focused on how the individuals monetize their work,, which I believe misses the point that an intellectual is occupied by his thoughts, not by how they put bread on the table. A philosopher is an intellectual whose thoughts are occupied by questions of philosophy, e.g., and sometimes literally, the meaning of life. Sources clearly indicate that Huxley was occupied his entire life with with developing his philosophy, they clearly identify the unique aspects of his philosophy and they report that other important philosophers took his ideas seriously. This sure sounds like a philosopher to me. Msnicki (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That is misleading. The issue is not whether Huxley was a philosopher. I have no interest in debating whether anyone was a philosopher, as I have already said repeatedly. The issue is whether the article's infobox should list Huxley's occupation as "philosopher." As Huxley was generally self-employed, and never employed specifically as a philosopher, it seems pretty clear that it should not. Msnicki apparently thinks that Huxley's occupation should be given as "philosopher" simply because he wrote books about philosophy. That is false logic - just as it would be false logic to suggest that someone's occupation was "electrical engineer" simply because he wrote books about electrical engineering, or "prostitute", simply because he wrote books about prostitution. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you recall if Socrates was ever employed as a philosopher? Do you really think this is an important test of whether an individual was "occupied" as a philosopher? You don't count self-employment, where the individual decides completely on their own how to pursue their philosophy and occasionally monetize it? It has to be job where someone tells them, "We're paying you to be a philosopher, so we get to pick what you think about"? Msnicki (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant specifying. As Johnuniq said, people write books about plenty of subjects, but that just makes them writers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

To take your (added later) example of someone who writes books about electrical engineering, well, now you're barking up my tree. I'm full-time faculty in EE at a state university. I can promise you that if someone wrote a book on an actual EE topic of the kind and quality as might make it suitable for use as a text in an undergraduate or graduate course in EE, then you bet, we would consider that individual an EE. It wouldn't matter to us if his degrees were in physics or math or whether he had a job someplace as an engineer. We would care that this was his intellectual occupation. A PhD is a terminal degree, meaning that once you get one, you're expected to know to add to knowledge and research anything, which is why it's not uncommon for many engineering faculty have earned their degrees in other disciplines. Msnicki (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, Msnicki. For Misplaced Pages purposes, someone's occupation is "electrical engineer" if reliable sources state that that is their occupation, and not otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that

While in principle I agree that not everyone who thinks about philosophy should be listed as a philosopher, should the Socrates article list his profession as "bricklayer" and the Plato article "wrestler?" That was how they were specifically employed.

The comparison on writing books on philosophy to writing books on prostitution doesn't really work, because philosophers are known primarily through communicating their ideas, which includes books. It's like saying that someone can't be listed as a screen writer because even if they wrote some screenplays for movies that got made, that no more makes them a screenwriter than does creating a website make one Bill Gates.

That said, whether or not Huxley or anyone else should be listed as a philosopher in their infobox is best determined by tertiary sources on philosophy (indicating that the individual is known as a philosopher, regardless of their other pursuits), or any non-primary sources specifically about that individual's philosophy (such that the philosophy risks meeting WP:GNG). Mentions of philosophizing in non-primary sources are sufficient to mention in the article (but not the infobox) that they engaged in philosophy. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the comparison is perfectly accurate, whether you like it or not. Obviously someone can write books about philosophy without being a philosopher, just as someone can write books about prostitution without being a prostitute. Simply writing about philosophy is not the same as engaging in it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you mean that one can compile a book on philosophy (such as The Perennial Philosophy), then yes, it is possible to write about philosophy without engaging in it. But once any consideration of the subject matter comes into play beyond "where should this go" (such as The Doors of Perception), they are engaged in philosophy. The threshold for philosophizing is rather low, which is why the issue should not be "do they engage in philosophy," but "is their philosophizing noteworthy among scholars of philosophy?"

I think you and Johnuniq are right for the wrong reasons, and Msnick is wrong for the right reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL, you forgot to mention someone in your list of those who have been edit warring!

Here is a quick test: if it's so obvious that Aldous Huxley was a philosopher, why is that no one thought to add that information until now? I think the first edit in this battle was 28 March 2016 which changed Huxley's infobox to say: Occupation Writer, novelist, philosopher

The infobox shows key facts such as "occupation" and is not the place to add original research based on mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The age of the article and what it has said in the past seems as irrelevant here as it would be at an WP:AFD per WP:LONGTIME. What matters is what the sources say. One reason it may have been wrong for a long time is if those who have worked on the article in the past (especially, those with the loudest voices) were either too lazy or too attached to their personal opinions to bother fact-checking their positions. Not everyone is suited to scholarship and capable of accepting that if that's what the sources say, that's what they say. Msnicki (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that you have not ventured to restore "philosopher" as Huxley's occupation, this seems like a dead issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've decided life is too short to waste it arguing with you, especially as it seems unlikely you've ever read any works by either Huxley or Leary. It's like arguing with someone about a movie they've never seen. Providing citations in WP:RS, my usual strategy for dealing with difficult people on WP, doesn't work with you. You simply turn to arguing that anything that doesn't match your opinion doesn't count because philosophy and philosopher are so entirely different or because we have too few sources if it's only one or too many sources if it's more than one or because biographers get people's occupations wrong all the time, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, you never contribute any research of your own, only just more opinions. WP is usually fun, collegial and intellectually interesting. But you make it tedious, combative and unpleasant. Msnicki (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what we think because people pushing the philosopher angle are not engaging with the arguments presented but are merely repeating the idea that anything mentioned by a source has to be in the article. No one has denied that Leary or Huxley have been described as philosophers—the issue is the context of the description and whether they should be extrapolated to statements of fact about the subject's occupation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not true, the fight was about describing them, not about "occupation" in the box. I proposed a compromise related to that during the Leary-debate, it was completely ignored. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Where can that proposal can be seen? At Talk:Timothy Leary? You made several comments there and a very quick scan did not turn up a proposal or any kind of engagement. Johnuniq (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it was here. I noted that perhaps Leary could be noted as a philosopher in the lead, but not under occupation in the Info-box, as a compromise. Randy Kryn supported it, but those that was involved in the conflict ignored it. Then again, this requires all "occupation" values in infoboxes to have reliable sources that it really was somebody's *job*, which may be a bit silly. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Since Huxley did not write about philosophy or express opinions about it, he should not be described as a philosopher. TFD (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that four WP:RS , two biographies and two books on his works, disagree with you? They're just wrong and you're right? Msnicki (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Since Huxley did not write about philosophy or express opinions about it" -- He literally wrote the book, The Perennial Philosophy, on it. Its literally the only thing you see for pages and pages if you do even a basic Google search of "Aldus Huxley philosopher". -- Netoholic @ 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Perennial Philosophy is about mysticism, not philosophy. The term "philosophy" can be used to have a wide meaning as for example in Mungo Jerry's song, "In the Summertime" ("Life's for livin' yeah, that's our philosophy.") No reliable sources about philosophy refer to Huxley as a philosopher. TFD (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says mysticism is definitely not philosophy? I ask because it took mere minutes to find several sources suggesting it is, e.g., , , . Is this yet another case where all the WP:RS are wrong and only you know the truth? Msnicki (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that saying that treating mysticism and philosophy as distinctly separate would be pedantic if we pretend to ignore some of the rather huge historical overlaps (c.f. Neoplatonism). That said, as I have said earlier, we need RSs about philosophy (such as an 'Encyclopedia of Philosophy' or something) which discusses the philosophical community's assessment of Huxley -- then his status as a philosopher would be undeniable. Works which are focused on Huxley would be adequate for article itself, but the infobox needs to summarize what sources that really weren't even focused on him can affirm (the broadest and least contested definitions). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on mysticism, which reports, "Various philosophers, sometimes dubbed “perennialists,” have attempted to identify common mystical experiences across cultures and traditions (for the term ‘perennialism,’ see Huxley, 1945)." helpful? Msnicki (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your three sources are all called "philosophy of mysticism." Indeed there is a philosophy of mysticism, just as there are philosophies of science, religion, politics, and many other subjects. But Huxley did not write about the philosophy of mysticism, he wrote about mysticism. Jones for example says, "Mystics claim to experience reality in a way not available in normal life, a claim which makes this phenomenon interesting from a philosophical perspective." You can read more of his book He says that the philosophy of mysticism is normally treated as a branch of the philosophy of religion. That does not mean that religion is philosophy. TFD (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

By that logic, when Bertrand Russell wrote Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, that wasn't really philosophy, it was something else? What was it instead? I think it's clearly WP:OR to conclude that "philosophy of religion" is not philosophy. The source clearly does not say that. May I ask again, do you have even one source that actually supports you without you having to put your own spin on it? Or do we just take your word for all this? Msnicki (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Russell wrote, "Much of what is set forth in the following chapters is not properly to be called “philosophy,” though the matters concerned were included in philosophy so long as no satisfactory science of them existed.... can hardly claim, except where it steps outside its province, to be actually dealing with a part of philosophy."

Why do you misrepresent my comment "Indeed there is a philosophy of mysticism, just as there are philosophies of science, religion" as ""philosophy of religion" is not philosophy?" Do you understand the difference between religion and the philosophy of religion.

TFD (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Msnicki: That Stanford citation is almost there, but it puts too much between "Huxley" and "philosopher" to use without violating WP:OR. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Ouch. Okay you did catch me being careless. But then again, I hope we aren't trying to decide if Betrand Russell was a philosopher as a way of deciding whether that makes Aldous Huxley one as well, especially, as you point out, from this one poor sample. Yes, I think I understand the difference between religion and philosophy of religion. The former is not usually philosophy, it's usually faith-based (meaning beliefs that do not require evidence) dictates and explanation of the world. And the latter usually is philosophy, e.g., a discussion of why we have religion, can religious beliefs be tested, the relationship to our concepts of ethics and morality, what purposes they may serve. (My words but I notice they appear to agree with our article at Philosophy of religion.) Are we in agreement generally on this? Msnicki (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Russell was both a philosopher and a mathematician, which probably explains why he included the text I cited. Russell was not writing about the philosophy of mathematics, although hw might have touched on the topic. Similarly, Huxley was not writing about philosophy, whether the philosophy of religion or philosophy of mysticism, as Russell would have understood the term philosophy. I do not mean to be abusive, but it is apparent that you and others who would call Huxley have no understanding of the subject and base your demand on the fact that his views are sometimes referred to as philosophy. The same is true of most original thinkers, even pop groups like Mungo Jerry. But unless they discuss the subject matter of philosophy, it is misleading to call them philosophers. TFD (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Rodriguez (Pianist)

Hi, I need an opinion about a stub page I'm trying to get back up Draft:Anthony Rodriguez (pianist). The admin that deleted said the modification was okay and needed a second opinion. Can anyone please help and see if this Article is OR?? Thanks a million! StrongWik (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis and tables

We have a dispute about WP:SYNTH (and WP:NPOV) as it applies to lists, and specifically an article consisting of a table. The point of disagreement is whether the table should be based on a single RS which all editors agree to use, or on all relevant RSs, which differ in their selection of rows (events) in the table. Below are the two latest comments in the exchange, which seem to summarize the two positions well enough (sariya refers to a type of event listed in the table):

• Position 1: Reflecting multiple RSs isn't synthesis; it's what we're supposed to do per WP:NPOV. A table is not a conclusion, and NPOV holds for tables as much as regular articles. The question is how to reflect them appropriately in this case. I've already made some proposals before, including citations in the year column, and additional columns marking presence of the items in major RSs.
• Position 2: It's synthesis, exactly because: "suppose source 1 mentions a sariya X and source 2 mentions a sariya Y, then we can't use that to make a table composed of sariya X and Y since source 1 may reject the authenticity of Y and source 2 may reject the authenticity of X (as an example), hence the table will not be reflecting what the RSs state"

Just in case, here's a link to the (long) discussion. Thanks in advance. Eperoton (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Chrysler reception, rankings, ratings

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?

Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.

Issues with original research have been raised in discussion. Participation from colleagues with expertise in identifying original research is respectfully requested.Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Buddhist influences on Christianity

Article is about theories that Buddhism influenced early Christianity (by way of Alexander the Great's conquests in Asia, then into Judaism through the Septuagint, and then into Christianity. A revision in dispute contains the following: It is agreed by most scholars that Buddhism was known in the pre-Christian Greek world through the campaigns of Alexander the Great (see Greco-Buddhism and Greco-Buddhist monasticism), and several prominent early Christian fathers (Clement of Alexandria and St. Jerome) were certainly aware of the Buddha, even mentioning him in their works. In addition, the earliest versions of the Bible, known as the Septuagint were written in Koine Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Middle East following Alexander's conquests. Is this synthesis? Particularly concerning the mention of the Septuagint "being written in Koine Greek" (!) but perhaps the entire paragraph as well? Geogene (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure, I made the edit in question. I feel it all ties in rather nicely, since this is an article about the possibility, or not, of Buddhist influences on Christianity. I certainly do not feel I was pushing WP:SYN since the common language, Koine Greek, is what ties everything together. Even early Christian Saints were aware of Buddhism through their own writings, which also just happen to be in Koine Greek. To say Koine Greek is total OR or synthesis to the topic is a stretch. Lipsquid (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The word Bible is Koine Greek as is the word Christ. Lipsquid (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

1. McEvilley, p391
2. Clement of Alexandria Stromata. BkI, Ch XV http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.i.xv.html (Accessed 19 Dec 2012)
3. http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S&search=Paul%20of%20Tarsus#964 "Saul of Tarsus: Not a Hebrew Scholar; a Hellenist"], Jewish Encyclopedia
4. Roy M. MacLeod, The Library Of Alexandria: Centre Of Learning In The Ancient World

The citations aren't specific enough to let me see what's in the sources and what's not. "Most" is a quantifier that would be OR unless a RS makes that generalization. "Certainly" and "even" look like WP:EDITORIALIZING. The second sentence would be synthesis unless it reports what a RS says about the relevance of the Septuagint to the subject. Eperoton (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

From Lipsquid's post, it sounds like he's using the Koine Green language to tie together Buddhism and Christianity. It's OR unless a reliable source specifically makes those claims. WP editors are not allowed to formulate their own theories and put them into articles by combining multiple sources. So Lipsquid, do you have a quote from a specific source that makes the claims in question? The first source is not specific enough information to locate the source and is unverifiable. The next 2 sources don't mention the word "Christianity" once, and the final source doesn't mention "Kione" once. So it doesn't appear that these sources support adding this information into the article because the inherent implication is that this influenced Christianity. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution