Misplaced Pages

1. February 2006 – March 2006
2. March 2006 - February 2010

There is current somewhat of an edit war occuring on Brian Leiter as a result of some referenced, but not academic, material being added that criticises the subject of the article. I have done a little Googling and there seems to be a fair body of people critical of Brian Leiter. Can someone more familiar with philosophy review the available material and if appropriate post a suitably referenced and WP:NPOV criticism section?

The following may help: (Redacted) Lineslarge (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit war appears to be created mostly from Chicago IPs, including one registered to the University of Chicago, and a single-purpose account that bears an extraordinary similarity in name to one of Leiter's colleagues. This pattern (as I learned following an IPs recommendation to look into the archives) has been going on for a while. It is my suspicion, as well as the suspicion of past editors, that the article's subject himself, and his colleagues, are participating in the maintenance of the content to suit a specific POV, which would be a clear conflict of interest as well as intellectual dishonesty. I'll post at some relevant WikiProjects to see if extra eyes can't be brought over. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too and think it seems pretty plausible that edits are being reverted by someone with a WP:COI. Currently though the article says nothing negative about the subject. If there is something valid to say, I suggest we get consensus here before adding it, then we can collectively ensure the article stays WP:NPOV, Lineslarge (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've been involved in a lot of philosophy related stuff lately. Someone I've been working with flagged this issue for me to take a look at earlier today. I'm currently talking with several people off-wiki, and am hopeful that issues on all sides here will be resolved in large part in the near future. Sorry for not giving more details here, but they would be oversighted as WP:OUTING. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• At the present time I am not going to fully protect this page, but I would encourage all editors present to act with care, paying careful attention to our core content policies, and preferably reaching consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of content before editing the article itself. I would suggest that it may be a good idea for interested editors to work together on a new draft of the article (or portions of the article) in a sandbox if they feel it's necessary, although obviously that's up to you all. I would encourage you not to worry a significant amount about COI/sock/meat issues at the present time; I'm pursuing a chain of conversations that I believe will deal with a lot of the potential problems with that regard. I would also encourage editors to stick to using high quality reliable sources and to pay special care to WP:NPOV. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kevin Gorman I found this article while checking up on the list of Pending Changes in my capacity as a reviewer, so I don't have a perspective on this subject one way or another. What quickly became clear was that sourced information had been added, then removed by a Chicago IP with insufficient reason, then re-removed by another questionable IP, then a questionable SPA sprang up and removed the content, as did another infrequent (though autoconfirmed) eidtor. Then going back through the talk page history it appeared that this has been an ongoing practice by individuals close to the subject, and/or by the subject himself. I filed a Sockpuppet investigation as I would do in any similarly compelling case of suspected sock/meatpuppetry. I'm disclosing that to you in the interest of openness and to invite you to participate. The situation that you are describing is not one that I am aware of experiencing before in my general antivandal work. On the one hand, if there's clear evidence of sock/meatpuppetry (which I believe there is here per WP:DUCK), a record of that suspicion should exist so that if there are future violations, editors know what they're dealing with. I don't think that's unreasonable considering the previous accusations of socking in the top secret version of the talk page archives. On the other hand, since blocks aren't meant to be punitive, rather to dissuade improper use of Misplaced Pages, I have no inherent interest in blocking IPs or users if you feel that your personal influence can persuade them to contribute constructively to the project and perhaps to steer clear of COI issues. If you have the ears of the interested parties, you might mention that the preferred method for dealing with such changes is to disclose conflict of interest and to use the {{request edit}} template on the article's talk page. If I can be of any other help, please let me know. I don't want you to think that I'm your antagonist (and so far I don't get the impression that you do.) I also don't like to think that I might be an unwitting accomplice in an attempt to denigrate another person. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll make some comments on the SPI in a moment. I certainly wouldn't suggest that there haven't been COI (and potentially sock) issues on this page in the past, but will state that I'm fairly confident that they won't be an issue in the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Linkslarge: those links absolutely do not help, and if you post anything like that sort of link on Misplaced Pages then you are likely to end up blocked under our policy on biographies of living people. We cannot use pejorative blog posts as sources, and we don't need them on talk pages or anywhere else either. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

- completely unfamiliar with the guy and contemporary philosophers at large. however, stumbled across this link to a Statement of Concern from some NYU/MIT profs on Facebook: https://files.nyu.edu/dv26/public/Statement_of_Concern.html. came to check wth is going on to find the article completely blanking controversy. this seems quite odd. it must be possible to in some way document the fact there is a controversy about the guy whilst retaining a neutral (non-libellous) POV. 77.103.178.162 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Just be careful about recentism. It's often tempting with living persons to give disproportionate attention to disputes that they are currently involved in, or have recently been involved in, compared to what may be long and varied careers. Often, much of what is currently on the internet will relate to such topical disputes. But whatever Leiter is notable for, it's not the current controversy going on, with all sorts of accusations on both sides. If you do write about it, try to find neutral and reliable secondary sources, rather than trying to synthesise a story from primary sources. If the dispute ends up with cancellation of his Philosophical Gourmet or with him handing it over to someone else, that will be an important thing to record. But meanwhile, try not to get caught up in the rights and wrongs, or in the details, of a dispute that is still unfolding for a living person. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

- I'm late to the party here, but I think that some of the language currently used in the controversy section should be toned down per WP:BLP and that the section as a whole should probably be shorter. If there is consensus, I will go ahead and prune. Sneekypat (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I support the toning down and pruning. I also support the merger, FWIW. Since the controversy appears to only concern the Gourmet Report, a section on the Gourmet Report could incorporate a more balanced version of the controversy. Philosophy_Junkie — Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sneekypat that "some of the language currently used in the controversy section should be toned down per WP:BLP and that the section as a whole should probably be shorter." It reads to me as if someone with some personal vendetta is editing into this page and it's lost its neutrality and objectivity. PhilosophyWiki (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)PhilosophyWiki

I looked at it carefully, and it comports with our BLP section, and the tone matches that of the RSs. There isn't anything substantive that I can see deleting without deleting what the RSs report on and we properly in turn reflect. PhilisophyWiki is an SPA that has just been created, in an article plagued for a long time by sockpuppets (just read the talk page) and SPAs (just read Junkie's talk page), so its opinion should be discounted accordingly. Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sneekypat, Philosophy Wiki, Philosophy Junkie, and Metamagician3000. The article as it currently stands gives disproportionate weight to recent controversies about tone rather than substance. A third of the article is basically devoted to saying that some people think Leiter is rude. Criticisms of tone are getting more space than any discussion about the substance of his scholarship. He's had a 30+ year career in academe. Academe is full of argumentative people who think they're the smartest folks on earth and everyone else is an idiot. Saying he's rude is like complaining that a rock concert is loud. At most his rudeness deserves a single sentence in a criticism section, and most of the criticism section should cite to academic sources that have critiqued the substance of his views. Academics love arguing with each other, so it should not be hard to find other philosophers who disagrees with Leiter on philosophical substance and fill most of the criticism section with substance, and with a minor mention of tone. The issues of tone do not belong in a paragraph in the headliner. Wikaeditor (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As there has already in the past been concern about COI editing on this page, it is worth noting that a complete newbie editor seems to be editing in accord with the past suspected COI editor, and also even though completely new has somehow come to track this page and the page that is being asked to be merged into it. They were also created the same day as another editor with similarly focused edits. This bears watching. See that newbie editor's comments here, as well as his chest-beating as to the subject of this article being a respected person in his blog-like very long postings here. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• I found the user's posts, although not technical violations of outing since you've disclosed your identity here, vicious enough and evidence enough that he is not here to make productive contributions to wikipedia to indef him. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a short enough entry to me that the lede can be made minimal and entirely uncontroversial with the rest of the, apparently controversial, details left to the body of the entry. I'm seeking consensus on reducing the text of the lede to simply: "Brian Leiter (born 1963) is an American philosopher and legal scholar." Lots of other living philosophers and legal academics have similarly short ledes.Sneekypat (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but maybe add current institutional affiliation, "at University of Chicago Law School."Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the lede is supposed to summarize the text, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is of course not a reason per wp policy to change this to not comport with our guidelines, and the controversial material is a material part of his bio. We are not to whitewash bios. And the material is all RS-sourced, and per our standards for ledes should be reflected in the lede. "Lots of living philosophers have short ledes" is a reason to bring those ledes up to standards, not to whitewash this one. That would directly fly in the face of wp standards. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The lede as written by Epeefleche is clearly not NPOV. This is not even a close case. The only question is whether to shorten the lede further, which is fine with me. Epeefleche, please also do not remove relevant content elsewhere in the article. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course the lede is NPOV. Whitewashing it by deleting significant RS-supported material that Leiter views as IDONTLIKEIT is what would be NPOV. As to Junie's effort to bolster Leiter by including the National Jurist info which is not significant enough to be covered by an RS, and where even the NJ (used as support for itself) is NN, there's no indication that that is notable enough for inclusion. If an RS covers it, there would be an argument at least for inclusion. We certainly don't cover non-RSs awards, covered only by the NN itself. And the lede edits Junkie keeps on deleting follow wikipedia guidelines -- which is what matters. No cogent wp-based reason has been given for their deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Caustic rhetoric and combative tactics" was the phrase you used, and it is not supported by a RS; the RS indicates that the subject responded to two critics with harshly critical e-mails, that's it. I now see you have written on other TALK pages that you want to discredit the subject as a "disgrace," and that, as the original retaliation charge suggested, this was all prompted by some debate about a law school website which I do not even understand. What you call "whitewash" is an attempt to maintain NPOV about a living person. I continue to support Sneekypat's proposal. Enough doubts have now been raised about the editing by Epeefleche to warrant reporting to a Noticeboard. I do not have much experience with this, because most philosophy entries do not provoke editing by people unfamiliar with philosophy. I hope disinterested editors like Sneekpat can find a resolution.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the "caustic rhetoric and combative tactics" language, and remit. I don't want to "discredit" the subject -- rather, I want to reflect what the RSs reflect, and not whitewash the article. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you missed this. The RS ref -- the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education -- reported: "Brian Leiter ... who has come under intense criticism in recent weeks for his caustic rhetoric ... Leiter’s combative tactics on his blog and social media—he called one philosopher “a disgrace” and said she works in “a shit department”—fueled a protest that prompted the change. Hundreds of philosophers signed a statement saying they would not complete the surveys that inform the publication’s rankings as long as Mr. Leiter was its editor." Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize you were purporting to quote from the Chronicle of Higher Education blog, rather than the Chronicle article. If it is a quote, it should be in quotes, but it does not belong in the lede, and there is no consensus for it to be in the lede, so you must stop reverting. In addition, the Above the Law blog is not a RS.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

How did you not realize that the ref supporting the statement -- which followed the statement -- was the Chronicle of Higher Education article? When a sentence is followed by a ref, if you click through to the ref and read it, you can see what it states. And here, the ref followed the sentence in question. So I can't understand your initial assertion above that: ""Caustic rhetoric and combative tactics" was the phrase you used, and it is not supported by a RS; the RS indicates that the subject responded to two critics with harshly critical e-mails, that's it." Your assertion was flatly incorrect, and you've not explained or apologized how you made such an incorrect accusation.

Furthermore, it's not a quote in the article. In addition, it does belong in the lede -- which by consensus Misplaced Pages says is to summarize the article. Finally, Above the Law is certainly an RS, with all the indicia of an RS -- you can't (yet again) just throw out false accusations. Thanks.

Finally, an admin has just reverted your last deletion of material from the lede, deletion of Above the Law material, etc. Please respect what he also wrote in his edit summary. Please don't edit war. Please take this as a warning -- and I say that not to be confrontational, but to meet our criteria which requires that I warn you before asking that further action be taken if edit warring continues. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Admin who reverted has his own COI, apparently having a connection with Noelle McAfee, who was involved in the Gourmet Report controversy. "Above the Law" is not a RS, and it is not a RS for the subject being a Nietzsche expert (you inserted a link to the post that accuses the subject, falsely, of defending racists!). I agreed with Speedypat that the lede should be trimmed. You have ignored our opinions, even though it is presently 2-1 in favor of trimming. You have also destroyed this article, and have repeatedly added contentious material that, at best, is poorly sourced, and thus in clear violations of the rules about bios of living persons. This is one of the worst violations of Misplaced Pages rules I have ever seen in nearly ten years.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just inserting a response here to say: yes, I know Noelle, no, that does not give me a COI w/r/t Leiter, and no, I do not believe that makes me WP:INVOLVED w/r/t this page Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In response to your other point, there are two Chronicle sources, an article and a blog posting. I thought you were referring to the former not the latter. As I said, if it's a quote it should be put in quotes. But it belongs in the controversy section, not the lede.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Misplaced Pages definition of "questionable source": "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." This is obviously the case with "Above the Law," a blog that the subject has criticized extensively on his law blog: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22above+the+law%22&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fleiterlawschool.typepad.com%2Fleiter%2F&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fleiterlawschool.typepad.com%2Fleiter%2F&gws_rd=sslPhilosophy Junkie (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Philosophy Junkie, you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of almost all Misplaced Pages policies you have mentioned that unless you remedy it, you're unlikely to make any progress here, and likely to get banned. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Agree w/Admin Gorman, immediately above.

"Above the Law" is an RS, as I said, with all the indicia of an RS, including an editorial staff. You've not supported your contrary notion. And there is no reason to think that it is not an RS for the subject being a Nietzsche expert.

I trimmed the lede, while keeping all substance. You, in contrast, are seeking to delete from the lede material that summarizes what is in the text, and is of moment, that you don't like. That is whitewashing. And is not acceptable. Admin Gorman as well, most recently, restored to the lede what you sought to delete.

The sourcing of what I have added is appropriate -- all RS. There is material in the article that is not properly sourced, and the article (as well as some specific unsourced sentences) is tagged for this malady. The unsourced sentences are subject to deletion if RS inline sourcing is not supplied. I've added RS refs to some previously tagged uncited sentences, but a number more remain.

I know that Brian Leiter is the # 1 article you have edited at Misplaced Pages. And that your very first significant substantive edits were to Brian Leiter. But you do not own the article, and it is not appropriate for you to seek to whitewash it.

As to your inexplicable baseless accusation - your "explanation" is nothing of the sort. You had a sentence followed by a ref -- that directly supported the sentence. You made a false accusation that I had failed to support the sentence. What in the world is that all about? (And I answered your comment on quotes; and no ... yet again ... the lede reflects in summary form what is in the text, so it belongs both in the lede and in the text).

Last point -- Leiter's law blog, as much as you slavishly point to it (and to him), is not an RS. It is his personal blog; simply his personal musings, and certainly not an RS. Plus, though it is either here nor there, it's not as though he has a pristine reputation. Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid this has passed the point of being productive, I hope other editors will intervene and rectify what you have done. "Above the Law" does not have an editorial staff: the editors are the authors. I did not cite Leiter's blog as a RS, but to indicate that you are using a gossip blog that Leiter has severely criticized for years as a source. That you continue to think a gossip blog about law is a RS for Leiter being a Nietzsche expert shows you are beyond reason. (Leiter is a Nietzsche expert, there is lots of actual evidence for that, but you would have to do more than search blogs to find out.) As I told you before, I have edited hundreds of philosophy entries over the last nine years, and haven't edited this one since 2012--before the current edit war. If I have made more edits here, I guess it is because it attracts vandalism and retaliatory editing, unlike most other philosopher entries. As to your continued tantrum about my confusion between the Chronicle article and the Chronicle blog, I didn't look at the reference, I was responding simply to your saying the Chronicle was the source, which I took to mean the article, not the blog. Take a deep breath please and have a nice weekend.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Junkie -- Have you ever noticed that Leiter, when discussing a strongly worded view that he faced, resorted to calling it a tantrum? Also, Above the Law certainly does have an editorial staff, including a Managing Editor and a number of other editors. And yes -- you were using Leiter's personal musing blog ... which is not support for anything of moment on wp. And the Leiter article is not only the article you've edited most, it's the first one you made substantive edits to, when you started editing. Your accusing me of not having an RS source for a sentence when I clearly did have one is incomprehensible, still. Seriously -- "I didn't look at the reference"!!! Sheeeesh. (And still, no apology for making an unfounded accusation against me). Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize Leiter had trademarked the word "tantrum," my bad! I withdraw the characterization in the hope that we might make constructive progress and that you might show more willingness to listen to other editors. Tom Morriss has shown here very clearly that because you are unfamiliar with philosophy, you do not know how to find reliable sources, the way he has. Whether the Above hte Law gossip blog is a RS, it is not a high quality source of the sort rerquired by the rules on BLP. Having now read the Chronicle article, I think your summary of it in the lede is not very accurate, please take a look. The boycott was initiated in response to a single e-mail sent to the UBC professor, not to his generally combative blogging. Like Sneekpat, I still favor a short lede, similar to the one on the article about Eugene Volokh, which you have edited. Finally, please assume good faith, as I will do with you going forward. I have a single interest: philosophy, especially contemporary philosophers in the analytic tradition. Leiter is a marginal case for me, but unlike the hundreds of other philosophy entries I have worked on, it attracts the most controversy.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a further look. But a few comments. First -- I already told you why your continued "I know more about philosophy than you do" attack on me is not just inappropriate, but irrelevant. I don't care if you know as much about philosophy as Leiter himself, or have a PhD in it from a school Leiter likes, or teach it at a school that Leiter approves of -- it holds no water in this forum. I can be a 15-year-old pimply 80 IQ dwarf from a non-English speaking country who has trouble passing my spelling re-test in school -- if I follow wp guidelines, and you do not, that is what matters. I've also responded about the lede. I don't see a negative result as to ATL as an appropriate RS source for the purpose used. Finally -- as to your editing of Leiter, as you know it goes far beyond him being a "marginal case" for you. As pointed out his is the first article you edited substantively, the one you have edited the most, and you have been in email correspondence with him vis-a-vis the editing of Misplaced Pages articles, and he has followed that by devoting an entire blog to attacking a Misplaced Pages article that you were the one editor who edit-warred with regard to. Please stop trying to downplay that connection that you have with him. Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent my editing work at Misplaced Pages. Please just stop. As I have pointed out elsewhere, you should stop downplaying your hostility to the subject and your desire to discredit him with this entry. Prove by your actions that these doubts about your own motives are not warranted. I know you are proud of your ignorance of philosophy, but the problem is it prevents you from identify RSs, which Tom Morriss showed. Above the Law is not a RS about Leiter being a Nietzsche expert. Tom Morriss quickly identifies multiple reliable sources for that. You should exercise more restraint and show greater respect for the opinions of other editors. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I continue to correct your efforts to downplay the fact that your very first significant substantive edits, on the second day you edited WP, were to Brian Leiter. That you have communicated with him by email, by your count 15-20 times. That you complained to him about a WP article on which you had edit-warred, deleting swaths of material. That Leiter followed receipt of your email by posting a blog post on his blog, mirroring your complaint. Entitled: "Simon Critchley's bizarre Misplaced Pages page". That you have edited Leiter's article more than any other. All of this is true -- and not a misrepresentation.

On my part, I just a few days ago for the first time edited his article, and his blog's article. I've never had any communication with him. And I edited well over 35,000 articles before I edited his -- in contrast to you, he's not a primary focus of mine. On my part, that's not what this is about. There's no substance to your unfounded accusations about my "motives", while there is circumstantial support that evidence exists in contrast with regard to your COI.

As to me knowing what an RS is -- that stems from my experience editing wp, and I stand by it, and the BLPN has not, despite your baseless assertions, concluded that the editorial staffed ATL is not an RS. And as I said, the depth of my knowledge about the subject of philosophy is irrelevant in this discussion, despite your continued effort to make it a discussion point. I know Leiter likes to seek to discredit opponents based on where they went to school versus where he went to school (despite his not having attended an Ivy League graduate school); that's a fine game for him to play there, but it is not a meaningful discussion point here, so I will not tell you what schools I attended or the level of my degrees, or who I studied under ... it is all irrelevant here. Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I started editing WP entries in August 2006. I first edited Leiter's entry eight months later. As I have said to you, repeatedly now, his entry has proved much more controversial than THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER PHILOSOPHY ENTRIES I have worked on. You began editing this article after becoming enfuriated that someone described the subject as "respected" and you made clear your goal was to discredit the subject, which all your editing so far suggests is your goal. You surely know how to identify an RS for professional athletes and shopping malls, but, as Tom Morriss showed, you don't know how to do it for philosophy or law professors. I do not know why you have asserted that "Leiter likes to seek to discredit opponents based on where they went to school versus where he went to school (despite his not having attended an Ivy League graduate school)." On the Noticeboard page, you were the one who invoked David Lat's credentials (Yale Law graduate) as evidence that his law gossip blog is reliable. As I mentioned before, your reputation as an abusive administrator precedes you on Wikipediareview. I do not want to waste more time on this. I plan to continue editing philosophy entries, using RSs.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What did I say that you disagree with? As to your first edits -- you edited the Leiter article on the second day you ever edited WP. With the first substantive edits you ever made. An edit ten-times that of any of your first 8 inconsequential non-substantive edits, that consisted solely of formatting or adding non-sourced personal opinion. And the effect of that Leiter article edit ... the same as your edits till today ... was to whitewash it.

My editing of his article was in contrast me editing article number 36,836 or so of all WP articles I ever edited.

I dislike anti-wp-guideline editing, and whitewashing, and COI editing. Other than that, this is just another article on a person I never met, never communicated with, and didn't even know the full name of until a week ago. In contrast with your personal connection to him.

And no -- Tom didn't "show" that I don't "know how to identify an RS ... for philosophy or law professors." I get that you are trying to pit Tom against me, but he said and "demonstrated" nothing of the sort, and I (and I expect he) won't go for your effort to cast him as having said that. I said that Leiter likes to seek to discredit opponents based on where they went to school (and/or where they teach) because this week as I've been reading up on him I noticed him do it more than once.

And, no -- I think that you are flatly incorrect when you attack me personally and untruthfully, stating "your reputation as an abusive administrator precedes you on Wikipediareview". That's clearly not the case. Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want to note my agreement with Sneekypat at the top. The lede should be short and the controversy section should not take up so much space, to an outsider it seems rather minor.HydeParkerforLife (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Except -- you're not an "outsider". You're an insider. Your edits show you to be an SPA. And you are, to be more precise, "a proud graduate of the College and the Law School at the University of Chicago ... interested in all things related to U of C." To true outsiders -- and that would be me, who only edited this article after tens of thousands of other edits, and who follows our lede guideline, and who is aware that this article has been plagued by SPAs such as you claiming to be NPOV while seeking to whitewash the article (including the editor who carries on an email correspondence about Misplaced Pages articles with Leiter), this informs the weight to be given your comment. Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I had suggested the trim because I hoped that a severe haircut might provide for some consensus, allowing us all to move on with our lives. You are, of course, right that the lede is supposed to summarize what is in the article, but it should be a brief summary and, frankly, I'm not sure that there's enough meat here to merit this long a lede. The style guide for writing a lede suggests two to three paragraphs for an article of this length. Two short ones seems appropriate to me, given the degree of notability of the subject and depth of the article. Right now we are dealing with a lede that is roughly as long as the ledes for Bertrand Russell and Ayn Rand, articles twice as long (and of significantly more prominent recent philosophers). I put the following, trimmed, two paragraph version forward for consensus—

—I would appreciate substantive thoughts on why this is not a sufficient summary of the article or insufficiently neutral. Sneekypat (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this constructive suggestion and the helpful comparisons. The first paragraph seems fine. The second paragraph is too long, given that a recent controversy should not dominate either the article or the lede. It also isn't accurate. I suggest a single sentence added to the paragraph, above: "In 2014, Leiter stepped down as sole editor of the PGR after philosophers at University of British Columbia organized a boycott of the PGR to protest an e-mail Leiter had sent to one of their colleagues, whom Leiter claimed had criticized him." All the other details can go in the controversy section, which should itself be shorter and more NPOV. I would also suggest moving the laudatory material currently in the lede into the section on "Philosophy."Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Restricting ourselves to the content in the lede for the moment, Philosophy Junkie, would you find the proposed version or something very similar acceptable despite what you consider to be the overemphasis on the PGR issue? I'm trying to work toward getting something everyone in this discussion can live with. The back and forth on these issues has been going on for almost a month now. Sneekypat (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph you drafted is certainly acceptable. The second paragraph is not accurate as written (putting aside the question of length). Leiter stepped down not in response to "intense criticsm of combative rhetoric," but in response to the petition organized by the UBC philosopher regarding an e-mail sent to their colleague, who is not a junior philosopher, but a full professor. So if we can fix that, I am willing to go with your version. So how about:

In 2014, Leiter stepped down as sole editor of the PGR in response to a boycott petition organized by philosophers at University of British Columbia to protest an intimidating e-mail Leiter sent to one of their colleagues, whom Leiter claimed had attacked him. Over 600 philosophers, including 30 members of the PGR's 54-member Advisory Board, requested that Leiter relinquish control over the PGR's management. Although dismissive of the criticism—which he attributed to feminist philosophers angry about his advocacy for due process rights and to philosophers upset with their own department's PGR ranking—Leiter appointed a co-editor of the PGR who will fully succeed him in 2015.

I will be off-line for awhile, but perhaps others will weigh in. Thank you for your efforts.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with Philosophy Junkie's proposed version of the second paragraph, so long we can add a cite to the Chronicle article at the end of the first sentence. Sneekypat (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sneekypat, thanks for your reply. On reflection, this doesn't seem to be much of a shortening of the lede, though I am fine with your revised first paragraph. But if Epeefleche is right that the lede must summarize the whole article, then we probably do need three paragraphs. I will add the revised second paragraph though to the lede now, since the current paragraph is inaccurate and violates BLP as a result. Maybe what we should mostly discuss is how to handle the controversy section?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy Junkie, I think we should all hold off on making any additional changes until we have some consensus or at least a reasonable time has passed. We have been at this for more than a month, so we can wait a few days before going ahead with anything at this point. I will be happy to make the changes myself on Friday or Saturday if we can all live with the proposed version. However, I'd like to hear from Epeefleche and any other editors who have been involved so far about my proposed changes to the lede (which shortens the lede by more than a paragraph) before doing anything. Sneekypat (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, understood, thank you. I was worried that we are presently in violation of BLP as the paragraph in the lede doesn't accurately describe the controversy. The paragraph we worked on, above, is more accurate I believe. Please take a look when you have a chance.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, just to be as clear as possible. The revision I'm currently proposing, which incorporates Philosophy Junkie's suggestion up thread, would change the lede to read:

I think this adequately and neutrally summarizes the article, without being overlong in relation to the overall size of the article. Sneekypat (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems fine, though I'm not sure about the book and article count. I think he has three authored books, and then many other edited books. I don't see why half the lede though should be devoted to just one section of the article, namely, the recent controversy. Why do all those details belong in the lede, rather than in the controversy section? We could shorten the lede to a single paragraph as follows:

I think this proposal is consistent with your aspiration for a neutral summary of the main sections of the article. The further details of the controversy can go into the controversy section, just as the further details of his philosophical work and his blogging can go into the other sections of the article. Also, just as an aside, there was another PGR controversy around 2001, I will find some details and sources about that, I do not recall very well the particulars.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy Junkie, I'm confused. I'm not looking for the ideal outcome here, I'm looking for consensus. It is quite clear that unless the controversy is mentioned non-trivially in the lede, there will not be consensus. The second paragraph in my proposal was, accordingly, included and then edited to conform to what you said you could agree to up thread. Can you no longer agree to my proposed revision of the lede? If not, I think I'm going to refer this entry over to get more third-party input because I don't think the dispute will be resolvable without more serious outsider participation. Sneekypat (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for creating confusion. I don't see how we can justify devoting half the lede to a recent controversy. Only one user seems to be advocating that. What is your opinion on that? I am fine with giving the controversy more than one sentence in the lede, but if the lede is to be a summary, everything has to be in proportion, do you agree? More input from editors less biased than Epeefleche, and less inclined to attack other editors, would be helpful. I will be away from the computer for awhile, but will check back in a few days or a week.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. In the lede, a recent controversy, especially one over as trivial an issue as a rude email, does not deserve a full paragraph. At most it deserves a sentence, and it can probably just be moved entirely into the criticism section.Wikaeditor (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)— Wikaeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As an outsider to philosophy, I find the one paragraph lede proposed above adequate and fair. I also liked the suggestion by Mr. Gorman elsewhere on this page that the controversy be integrated with the article rather than constitute a separate section. I leave that to the more experienced editors however.HydeParkerforLife (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be no support for merging the Gourmet Report entry with the entry on the subject. I think the Gourmet Report deserves its own entry, given its prominent place in academic philosophy for 25 years, as evidenced by the many refs that Epeefleche and others have added. I suggest that the current controversy section be merged into the Gourmet Report entry, since it centers around the subject's role (or former role) in that Report. Opinions of other editors? Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be that that will be the ultimate result. But on what basis do you assert that "there appears to be no support for merging"? And, in any event, the controversy that you continue to seek to whitewash -- you as an editor who emails the subject of this article, and whose initial substantive edits have been to his article -- the controversy of course of great moment both to him and to the report article. Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that it makes a difference, I've changed my mind on merger. To be clear, I am against merger of the two articles generally, and also against merging the controversy section of this article with the PGR article. I think they probably do belong separately at this point as Leiter is being replaced as editor of PGR and the ranking seems to still have cache with academic philosophers. The controversy about Leiter should probably be mentioned in both entries, but I'd like to leave exactly how long and how phrased such mentions ought to be to discussions specific to each article/section. Sneekypat (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sneeky -- I understand your view on merging the two articles, and can see the points on both sides on that issue. As Leiter's role has been reduced, and apparently is to be further reduced, the argument strengthens to keep them as two articles. I also agree with you that should the articles remain separate, it would not be appropriate to merge the controversy section of this article with the PGR article. The controversy is highly relevant to both him (it related to his behavior, and removed him from a highlighted position in his career), and to the report (it resulted in a change in leadership of the report, which formerly was called the Leiter Report, reflecting his imprint on it and connection with it). Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the case for merging is not very strong, so I think we should focus on revising the recent controversy, so it does not dominate the article.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As an editor with an email correspondence with the subject of this article, and one whose edits have been highly of the "whitewash" variety, I fear your comments and edits are often not appropriate. You keep -- both in edits and comments -- on trying to whitewash the RS-supported information in this article that Leiter himself may prefer not be here. He may be your email buddy, but you have a conflict of interest here. Please stop trying to whitewash this article. Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

}

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Religion and philosophy Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How much of the controversy section should be reflected in the lede and are there issues with Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View throughout the article? Sneekypat (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This entry, which has been the subject of problems before, has had an ongoing edit war as to how much should be included about a 2014 controversy regarding the subject and as to what sources are appropriate to use for other sections. Several editors have been involved, there have been accusations of COI and failure to assume good faith and, despite my best efforts, it appears that the current crop of editors is unable to reach consensus on any of these issues. Sneekypat (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Fine as is. The section as it stands now is fine. If anything is pared, it should be the block quote.

The controversy is a major event in the subject's career. It was covered by various RSs, as far away as Australia. Over 600 philosophers, including 30 members of his 54-member Advisory Board, signed a statement that demanded that Leiter relinquish control over the management of the Leiter Report. In response, Leiter will step down as editor of The Philosophical Gourmet Report. Obviously, all very significant as to his career -- even if it is buried at the bottom of the article.

This article has for years - and for years before I ever edited it, which is only recently - as the talk page and the article history reflects been a subject of whitewash efforts by SPAs. And by people with a COI with the subject of this article, including one who has carried on an email correspondence with Leiter, about (of all things) WP article content. And in addition, at times by newly minted editors. That effort continues to this day, as reflected above.

We would benefit from seasoned editors (e.g., with more than a couple of thousand edits) opining. And with input from editors whose initial and ongoing substantive focus has not been this article. And with input from editors who do not have an ongoing email correspondence with Leiter about WP articles. Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you Sneekypat for opening this for comment from other editors. Here is what the entry looked like before user Epeefleche began a wholesale rewrite of it:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brian_Leiter&oldid=662603591. Epeefleche only became interested in this article, when its subject was invoked as an authority on a law related entry, and Epeefleche became enraged and made clear he wanted to discredit the subject (all the documentation is above). Contrary to Epeefleche's continued false assertions I do not have an on-going e-mail correspondence with the subject about WP articles. This is clearly false and illustrates the unhappy state of the discussion, although I have repeatedly asked Epeefleche to assume good faith, rather than trying to bully me and other editors who disagree with him into silence. The subject, Leiter, runs the most widely read blog in philosophy. Thousands of philosophy faculty and students send him links to news stories of interest. I am one of those thousands. I sometimes get a short "thanks" from him, though not in a long time. I e-mailed him years ago about a promotional WP entry on Simon Critchley. Leiter never responded, finally writing about the entry three years later. The subject is, as best I can tell, a major figure in two fields, legal philosophy and Continental philosophy, as his appointment at the University of Chicago would suggest. No one has suggested removing the controversy section, I favor keeping it, but in proportion to the subject's career. Epeefleche asserts, without any RS or evidence, that this was a "major event" in the subject's career. How does he know? What is the evidence? It certainly deserves to be in the article, which is why I added RSs about the controversy. But it is not a major event compared to twenty or more years teaching and writing about philosophy and legal topics. The current lede misrepresents the RSs, as Epeefleche has been told repeatedly. I will be offline for as much as a week, but I hope other editors will carefully review the record of what has been going on here. I have edited philosophy entries for years, this one was locked because of repeated vandalism. Epeefleche ruined a perfectly fair version from mid-May for reasons that some other editors, above, think was retaliatory. The subject provokes strong reactions due to his rankings and his blogs, but we must preserve NPOV.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• This is not really an appropriately formatted RfC, and is unlikely to result in any result worth its salt. Sneek, I would suggest withdrawing the RfC and finding different ways of addressing each issue you brought up.

• • At most one sentence of the controversy should go in the lede.Wikaeditor (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)