This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClaphamSix (talk | contribs) at 00:42, 18 August 2014 (→Help! Metamodernism Has Become a Vanity Page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:42, 18 August 2014 by ClaphamSix (talk | contribs) (→Help! Metamodernism Has Become a Vanity Page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| |||||||||
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used
Maoism
Maoism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is proposed to be renamed to Mao Zedong Thought, for the discussion, see Talk:Maoism -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
More eyes/voices requested at metamodernism
Title says it all. I believe I summarized the core concerns on the talk page here: Talk:Metamodernism#5 Questions. Lots of strong opinions, COI allegations flying around, ad hominems, and so on, but I think the core problem is that the subject needs to be better nailed down and the different sources weighted properly. For that I think we could use some help. --— Rhododendrites | 02:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Natural and legal rights RM
Opinions at Talk:Natural and legal rights#Requested move would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Anarchy and Stateless society
FYI, the scope and purpose of these articles are under discussion, see talk:Anarchy -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
New article: William Henry Chamberlin (philosopher)
Hi all,
I've recently started an article on William Henry Chamberlin (philosopher), an LDS (Mormon) philosopher and theologian involved in a controversial period of the history of Brigham Young University. However, I am not very familiar with theology, philosophy, or even the LDS movement, and would welcome any additions or improvements in the aim of creating a comprehensive biography that clearly explains the philosophy of Chamberlin (ideally with minimal or at least clearly defined academic jargon) and fairly describes the controversy. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism FAR
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Janice Dowell
To be notable or not? -- that is the question! Bearian (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Help dig for sources?
I'm here to ask for some help with the article Tao: The Watercourse Way. I was surprised to see it PRODed, but I have to admit that I'm even more surprised at how difficult it is to search for sources for this. I've found enough to keep it, but I need more sources to help flesh it out more. It's certainly notable enough- I know it's used pretty regularly in college courses and I remember using it in one of my classes. It's been a while since I took said class and I don't have my copy anymore- does anyone here have a fresher memory of the book and/or has a copy so they can add more information? I believe that it's safe from deletion, but more work would definitely be appreciated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Rename discussion of high profile topic
Please see Talk:Freedom#Requested move Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Help! Metamodernism Has Become a Vanity Page
Above, Rhododendrites (talk) begged for assistance with the metamodernism page, and unfortunately since that request things have gone downhill grievously.
First, some background: When the article was created back in January of 2013, members of this Group flooded the page to complain that it was a vanity project. A sampling of comments from three different editors: (1) "The term metamodernism was not, in fact, introduced by the hacks mentioned in the article ("Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker") and the date ("2009") is wrong also. Any search of the term in Google Books will reveal that it was coined in the 1970s and already in use--in the academy--in the 1980s. I cannot help but wonder if Timotheus Vermeulen, Robin van den Akker, or one of their students wrote this inaccurate rubbish." (2) "I agree. The article should be rewritten." (3) "I am aware of at least two earlier--coined in the academic and in the sociopolitical world--definitions of the term. The article, as it is, is biased towards one definition of metamodernism, the one by Vermeulen and van der Akker. It should be rewritten to give all uses and definitions a proper representation, and list them chronologically."
In 2014, a new editor, "Festal82," appeared on the page to try to accomplish what the WikiProject Philosophy had not yet been able to: (1) Mention all notable uses of the term in scholarship, dating back to the 1970s, whether or not these uses represented related readings of what "metamodernism" is; (2) correctly identify the original coinage of the term; and (3) chronologically list all major uses by subsection. About a month ago, this task was finally accomplished, after repeated attempts at disruption from "Esmeme," a single-purpose user account since identified as belong to Luke Turner--not coincidentally, the author of a personal blog (wwwmetamodernismorg) as well as the co-editor of a group blog ("Notes on Metamodernism"; wwwmetamodernismcom) that is focused exclusively on Turner's "Metamodernist Manifesto," a piece of writing Turner has described as "intentionally incoherent" but which was inspired by the work of Vermuelen and van den Akker.
Once the WikiProject Philosophy goals had been met, Luke Turner/"Esmeme" initiated a sock-puppet investigation into "Festal82," alleging that ten separate accounts were run by the "Festal82" editor and that the only reason Turner's work had been deemphasized (or, rather, emphasized no more or less than other uses of the term) was because of a grand conspiracy by these ten accounts. An investigation was conducted, and of the 9 accounts other than "Festal82" investigated, only 1 returned an IP address similar to "Festal82." A review of the edits to the metamodernism page by these accounts revealed that "Festal82" had made 163 edits to the page, and this other account had made 2 unrelated substantive edits. Nevertheless, because the IP address associated with "Festal82" had previously but largely non-sequentially used four accounts (over a period of 7 years) to edit another page, "Seth Abramson," Turner was successful in having "Festal82" banned from Misplaced Pages.
The next 100 edits to the page were made by Turner ("Esmeme"), and the article was returned to the state that this Group earlier found inappropriate and self-interested.
The article for metamodernism is now a personal advertisement for Turner's personal blog and the group blog he co-edits. Every other mention of the word "metamodernism" over the past forty years has either been eliminated completely or cast as an irrelevant "previous use" of the term (in some cases, original-source content in scholarly journals has been deliberately misrepresented to make this possible), with Turner claiming that his own usage of the term is the only "notable usage" the article should be concerned about. Turner has continued to use administrator interventions to remove any/all dissent from the article (apart from a single likely sock-puppet, "Snuffleumpagus," who appears occasionally simply to note that Turner's edits are perfect in all respects). Other users no longer are permitted access to the article, and major publications on metamodernism (including a regular column about it on Indiewire, articles about it in The Huffington Post, mentions of American metamodernists in Salon, Pitchfork, and other major U.S. media) have been stripped away entirely.
Again, the WikiProject Philosophy Group was involved in this article at its inception, with several members noting then what I'm noting now--that it's become a vanity page for Turner's projects--and nothing was done. Another editor (above) begged for assistance, and nothing was done. And now we have a major subject in contemporary philosophy being exclusively edited by an SPA whose author is clearly Turner (as every edit made by "Esmeme" either lovingly details, without references to any criticism, Turner's collaborations with Shia LaBeouf--LaBeouf having been inspired to engage in metamodern performance art by an Indiewire essay published in the U.S. that Turner/"Esmeme" removed from the article--or obsessively edits the article to remove any and all sources not connected to Turner's two websites). The account for "Esmeme" has been traced to an IP address in the same tiny village near London where Turner resides, and Turner's public Twitter account (@Luke_Turner) mirrors every argument made by "Esmeme" on Misplaced Pages. Turner's public feud with "Seth Abramson" on Twitter coincided--to the day--with Turner appearing on Misplaced Pages as "Esmeme" to attempt to remove all references to Abramson from the article.
Turner and Abramson are immaterial here; the issue is the state of the article, which is now embarrassing. People now trying to access the article to fix the damage done by Turner are being blocked from this by Turner's frantic attempt to have every user account who edits the page declared a sock-puppet for "Festal82." Any attempt to note that the term "metamodernism" has been in use for decades is mysteriously derided by Turner as an attempt to create a unified "WP:SYNTH" history, when in fact the aim is the opposite: to show that the term has been read many different (and unrelated) ways by many different scholars and artists, and that these different ways have been documented in major U.S. and foreign media beyond Turner's two websites. I beg for the assistance of this Group to right the ship at metamodernism, lest a potentially significant development in contemporary philosophy be considered no more than a vanity project by a single Londoner. Many thanks for any help you all can offer. ClaphamSix (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Category: