This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Chicago This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Philosophy: Philosophers / Ethics / Social and political / Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Ethics Social and political philosophy Continental philosophy Contemporary philosophy United States: Texas / University of Texas at Austin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A new section entitled "Criticisms and Controversies" should be added. It existed at one time, but seems to now have been subsumed under the heading PGR. Under this new section RS from the NYT, Boston Globe, Chronicle of Higher Education, and Buzzfeed News may be included explaining what led to his resignation as editor from PGR (i.e., the protests in 2002 and 2014 mentioned in the introduction to the wiki) and the later controversy over feces being sent in the mail to his detractors. For example:

In 2002, the Harvard philosopher Richard Heck (now at Brown) started a petition against Leiter's rankings, accusing them of being methodologically flawed and harmful to the profession; he got close to 300 signatories. ^[1] Afterward, Heck said that although the report improved, the ranking still relied on only one factor: the quality of the faculty's research. ^[2]

In July 2014 Leiter sent an email to Carrie Jenkins, which was later posted online, calling her a "sanctimonious asshole" and threatening legal action regarding a statement she published pledging to behave with civility in her professional life. ^[3] While Jenkins’s post made no reference to Leiter, Leiter read the statement as being about him, because at that time he was under fire on blogs in his field for his recent harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings. In September 2014, more than 600 philosophers signed a statement describing the email as "derogatory and intimidating" and declining to volunteer information for the Philosophical Gourmet Report while it was under the control of Leiter.^[4] In October 2014, Leiter agreed to step down as editor of PGR, after a majority of the advisory board asked for his resignation. ^[5]

In 2016 Jenkins, along with three other vocal critics of Leiter’s (Sally Haslanger and David Velleman who publicized Leiter's emails to Jenkins, and Carolyn Jennings who critiqued Leiter's PGR's methodology) — each received an envelope full of human feces from someone named 'Peter Aduren.'^[6][7] Leiter denied sending the packages and has attributed them to someone who must be trying to embarrass him, noting that one of the envelopes used his law school as the return address. ^[8]

24.217.247.41 (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[[User:24.217.247.41]] 9:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this belongs in the article on the Philosophical Gourmet Report, not Leiter's entry. Blogs and personal pages of faculty involved in the dispute are also not proper sources for a living person bio. There are also some factual mistakes. This needs a lot of work.

Agree with some of the preceding unsigned comment. I noticed that the IP address that proposed these changes had an earlier malicious edit reverted by another editor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=905816863&oldid=905808532. We should find consensus here first. More suggestions later.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brief follow up on yesterday. Most of this material is already in the article, this revision adds trivial details and unacceptable sources, as the unsigned comment observed (disagree however that this should be in PGR article, it's fine for it to be here). Only new material is of doubtful notability, and arguably creates BLP problems.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn’t sign original comment. Want to agree with Philosophy Junkie and withdraw suggestion this really belongs in the Gourmet Report entry. Remember Wikipedia BLP policy: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” Some of this proposed content concerns events three years ago that no one has ever thought notable since. I use Wikipedia for information about the work of philosophers, not tabloid sensationalism.71.105.133.121 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's not my IP address or my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=next&oldid=905808532) and how dare you refer to any of my edits as malicious, 71.105.133.121 (talk).

Apologized elsewhere at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JaventheAlderick. You had other edits reverted on July 10, but not that one.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. The fact that it happened 3 years ago doesn't impact an event's notability.

3. Also, it's not tabloid news, the various disputes between Leiter and other philosophy professors was considered notable enough to appear in the New York Times:https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/books/someone-mailed-feces-to-four-philosophers-a-disquisition.html So it makes me wonder whether you even read the sources, if you think they're "unacceptable sources" Philosophy Junkie (talk). I will concede that the NYU.edu and brown.edu sources may not be acceptable to you, since you consider them to be the 'personal pages of faculty.'

Buzzfeed is "tabloid sensationalism," as another user said above. I think the real issue however is how can this be included in the article without possible harm to a living subject.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Leiter#Criticism,_etc If we present it as the sources suggest--the subject was framed--then it is consistent with BLP but not really notable. If we present it any other way, it does not seem consistent with BLP as it would be possibly defamatory, and we have to make sure not to get close to that line.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed NEWS is not tabloid sensationalism. I don't know many tabloids with pulitzer prizes. Maybe you should try reading the WP article on it.--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News. I think it's notability comes from showing how BL (and his supporters) react to people he gets into public disputes with online. It someone's fans specifically targeted that person's detractors by sending them hazardous things in the mail, I think it would be included on their wikipedia 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4. What are the factual mistakes? What blogs did I cite? If anything I'm for removing blog posts from this wiki, as I tried to do in the lede. Please be explicit when making claims about mistakes and so-called "unacceptable sources" that I used. If any of my sources were unacceptable they can be omitted, but the majority I have cited are reputable and reliable per WP:RS. Furthermore, it seems the article as it stands is what is counterfactual. Pt1: the current wiki states that "In 2002, 175 philosophers signed an open letter calling on Leiter to stop producing the PGR.[32]" whereas the actual number was closer to 300 as reported in 2008 Boston Globe: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=2. Furthermore, the wiki currently states that "who Leiter claimed had threatened him [referring to Jenkins]"[33] but the linked source doesn't support that claim at all. Leiter only says that he was "provoked" and had no doubt that Jenkins' civility pledge was about him. https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Man-Who-Ranks-Philosophy/149007

If you're right about 300, then that can be changed, I have not yet look at that source.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle of Higher Education is the source for 175. Not sure why Boston Globe profile has a different number. Maybe someone can find an archived version somewhere.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I included the archived version right there for you. If you're asking for the CHE archive, it's still behind a paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20141008044919/https://www.chronicle.com/article/175-Philosophy-Professors/34484/. Also, the discrepancy is likely because the CHE article was published during the protest and relied on an early number of signatures, whereas the 2008 article relied on the total at the end of the protest.

This was difficult to find, but here is the archive of the actual signatures from R Heck's 2002 petition, listing 287 (last updated Feb 2003), so "almost 300" as the BG reported. http://web.archive.org/web/20030416145141/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu:80/~heck/aboutpgr/html/letter.html. Also, I was able to manually search CHE website and found a non-premium version of their article (what luck!) with a lower # (170), but was published in Jan 2002, before the petition was apparently over: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Academics-Letter-Blasts/116097. I recommend that we change it to "almost 300" and we can add links to both the Boston Globe and the non-premium version of the Chronicle of Higher Ed as sources, since the current source is not accurate. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why didn't you respond to the second error I mentioned where the wiki claims (unsupported) that Jenkins threatened Leiter? I'm new to this, but maybe someone else knows how to search for who made that edit, so we don't change it without them knowing. Also, please note how Philosophy Junkie didn't respond when I challenged his claims that I cited blogs and made factual mistakes (hint: that's because I didn't). 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5. The wholesale reversion of all of my edits including replacing an unacceptable source in the lede [1]. Leiter's blog post about Carrie Jenkins violates rule 2 of WP:BLPSELFPUB: it does not involve claims about third parties and possibly rule 1: it is not unduly self-serving) and replacing it with an acceptable WP:RS: CHE, strikes me as strange... It's almost as if you didn't evaluate the individual changes and just reverted them. Even the NYT article I linked above is a better source for the protests than Leiter's personal blog. Furthermore, you deleted a revision in which I noted the status (non-existent) of one of the many libel lawsuits Leiter has threatened, which was also supported by a WP:RS.

I did not revert your edits, User JaventheAlderick did.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source for Pynes and Brogaard being the new editors. I agree the subject's blog post is not an ideal, but he would be authoritative on that. The source you proposed didn't mention Pynes at all. Glad to see an alternative source there if one can be found.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your source: https://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/about-the-editors/ or http://dailynous.com/2017/10/11/questions-suggestions-new-pgr-editors/ or https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/controversial-philosopher-will-step-down-as-editor-of-influential-rankings/87797 or some combination of these and NYT/CHE for the protests, but again Leiter's claims on his blog re Jenkins are unacceptable for being a) blog posts, b) claims about a 3rd party and c) self-serving, so it needs to be removed. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6. What you use Wikipedia for is not relevant. Brian Leiter's online behaviors have hits multiple news stories, other than the NYT: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katiejmbaker/professors-receive-packets-of-poop, https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/4-professors-involved-in-philosophy-brawl-find-feces-in-their-mail/114963, http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=3 (even from years ago 2002/2008/2016, various news articles discuss his propensity for ad hominem attacks in his blog, while this wikipedia article omits any mention of the various insults, threats of lawsuits, and other combative tactics he tends to use on people he disagrees with, so why is that?)24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC) (re-added 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

You are now repeating social media rumors, and these do not belong on the talk page either. I am deleting those consistent with BLP.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Junkie you have real issues. It seems you were so enraged by my sources, you deleted my entire point 6--even my signature! So I have re-added it. Nothing about what I wrote there were social media rumors. I listed the articles supporting everything I wrote. Please refrain from deleting anything I write without first gaining consensus and when you do challenge what I've written, be specific in your claims because you seem to love making bold claims without any support for them. The articles I listed specifically mentioned his "derogatory" insults, threat of libel lawsuits, and "combative tactics". Why don't you read my sources before claiming "social media rumors"? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources do not support the claims, which I will not repeat because they violate the BLP policy. Please do not reinsert the same allegations again. I agree there is room for these sources, but not as you characterzie them. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to notability issue. These events occurred three years ago, and no one has ever suggested they be added or added them until now by an editor who seems hostile to the subject. That suggests they are not notable. That is separate from the BLP problems which is the bigger issue IMHO.71.105.133.121 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[removed conversations now included in the 2016 mail incident section]

I agree it is fine to add material to the section on his blogging about his combative rhetorical style. I will do so myself on the weekend. But I also agree with user 204.2.36.20 that the other material can not be included without violating BLP. Please 24, wait for this discussion to play out. The consensus is against you on some points, but I support you on some others, and perhaps other users will too. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you feel the need to "do so [your]self" indicates a great deal of WP:Ownership over this page, Philosophy Junkie. Furthermore, the current objections noted in the talk page center around the notability of Leiter's dissenters receiving hazardous waste in the mail (which I was not going to change or add, until consensus was reached here). However, is there some reason I am not allowed to update the article for factual occurrences (as I did re 175 to 300)? It seems like you feel like you are the only one qualified to make changes to this page... 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did more than correct the factual error and have misconstrued unfairly my offer to fix the error without "pending approval" as asserting "owernship." Please see my comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JaventheAlderick#a_recent_pending_change_that_was_approved You did not simply fix the factual error, you added additional material. The details of Professor Heck's objection to the rankings might go into the entry on the rankings (please add them if you want). I do not think Heck's views about the rankings are relevant to an entry on the subject. The source contains them for any reader who is interested.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As someone unfamiliar to the subject, I had no clue what the 2002 protest was about, why it was relevant, or who or why it started. I also didn't know if or how it was related to the 2014 protest. I had to then go and google even more sources to find out information. All of this because this page is suspiciously missing any negative criticisms of either 1) the PGR report the subject compiled for many years and 2) his online behaviors that were previously present in past versions of the wiki. If there's a section about the PGR on the subject's page and a protest is listed, but no other information is provided, the utility of the wiki as a summary of relevant and notable information is severely handicapped. Furthermore, the 2002 and 2014 protests are over different things, which is not clear in the wiki as it is currently. The 2002 protest was over the substance/methodology of the PGR whereas the 2014 protest was over the poor online conduct of the editor managing the PGR rankings. This information should be included.24.217.247.41 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The standards for inclusion in a BLP on wikipedia are different from the criteria used by google to rank page hits. Someone's "combative" style might be worth mentioning, but mentions of style need to be proportional judged by the standards of an encyclopedia, not clickbait.204.2.36.120 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to stop deleting portions of my comments on this talk page, without reason, as they are properly sourced and are not violations of BLP. I request that you restore the affected portions immediately, or I may have to start a complaint against you. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not support the spin you put on them. I can not explain that in detail without violating again the BLP policy. Please may we keep our focus on the main substantive issues about the entry. I have fixed the numerical error about the petitoin and changed the source as you suggested.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. {Quote|Per WP:TALKO, you should not have deleted User 2[4]'s comments. The primary purpose of a talk page is meant for feedback and discussions on how to further improve an article. As such, other users should have the freedom to express their own viewpoints, including User 2[4]. Deleting his/her comments is (probabaly) comparable to '''censorship''', which is also not allowed on Wikipedia- JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2019 ^[9]}

I have now corrected the factula error user 24.217.247.41 identifed and edited the section on blogging with quotes and sources suggested by that same user. I hope those changes are acceptable to others participating in this discussion.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested text user 204 is responding to: "In 2016 Jenkins, along with three other vocal critics of Leiter’s (Sally Haslanger and David Velleman who publicized Leiter's emails to Jenkins, and Carolyn Jennings who critiqued Leiter's PGR's methodology) — each received an envelope full of human feces from someone named 'Peter Aduren.'^[1][2] Leiter denied sending the packages and has attributed them to someone who must be trying to embarrass him, noting that one of the envelopes used his law school as the return address." ^[3] (preceding unsigned material added by user 24.217.247.41).

Responding to the issue about the PGR controversy. It seems to me that the relevant parts of the controversy that are verifiable and on topic are already in the wikipedia article, specifically that there was criticism of Brian Leiter because of controversial views and harsh comments that he made, and that he stepped down as editor.

I do not think that the incident involving inappropriate mailings from an unknown source is on point or relevant because there is very little to tie it to Professor Leiter. It can only appeal to the prurient interest, not enhance an overall biography. A biography is supposed to only include the most important and well-established public facts. See [| Presumption in favor of privacy].

I looked at the New York Times blog linked above and it describes the source of the mailings as "unknown," and only briefly notes generic "speculation". Speculation is not a reliable source under Wikipedia policy, which requires that " exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

Including this incident in the biography would also violate the [prohibition on Gossip and Feedback Loops] in Biographies of Living Persons, since it mainly comes from a tabloid (Buzzfeed), even if it was later mentioned in passing by other sources.

Including this incident in a biography would suggest that Wikipedia editors have concluded that Professor Leiter was likely responsible for the incident. That's the only way the incident would be relevant enough to include in a Biography. And absent strong evidence that Leiter was somehow responsible--like a criminal conviction--the connection between this incident and Leiter is too tenuous to include in a biography page.) (note--reposting from below for greater organizational clarity and to avoid clutter.)204.2.36.120 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating a separate section for this discussion. I continue to agree with your analysis of the situation. Will try to write more in the next few days.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

204, I disagree with your contention that including this event would indicate that he was likely responsible, given the wording suggested. What it does state is that in the past, people who Leiter criticized on his blog have been targeted by unknown and malicious third parties (possibly by someone who supports Leiter; in this case the international mailing had a tracking number that traced back to the USPS in Chicago see 6th para:^[4], although he contends that it is by people looking to embarrass him). Also, the NYT article did their own research, as you can see with additional interviews from related parties. Furthermore, the original was from Buzzfeed News, which is not a tabloid; I don't know many tabloids with pulitzer prizes--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed_News. Lastly, the NYT or CHE articles I've linked are a much better source than leiterreports for the carrie jenkins protest in the lede. The fact that no one is responding to pt 4b where I note the current wiki Leiter claims Jenkins threatened him is also telling. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rank speculation that supporters of the subject sent the packages, completely unsupported by the sources. The subject is a proper source for his "claim" that Jenkins threatened him.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no, a subject's blog post is not a reliable source WP: Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves, not the least of which is because it involves a claim about a third party (Jenkins)! The link to Leiter's blog (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/12/what-really-happened-three-years-ago-fall-2014-a-recap.html) needs to be removed immediately and the wording needs to be changed to reflect what has been reported in RS. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source for saying that Leiter claimed Jenkins threatened him is the Chronicle of Higher Education article: that is a fair summary of Leiter's position as described in the article. (The subject's blog can be a source for what the subject's motives or beliefs, but we do not have to debate that issue.)Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24, Mentioning the mail incident in a biography suggests that there is a strong connection between the incident and the subject, even if the language doesn't explicitly conclude that Leiter is the responsible party. That's because most things about the subject of a biography--let alone people who are tangentially connected to a subject--are omitted from biographies. Only the most relevant material is included, and a connection makes it more relevant. In a biography of George W. Bush, we would not see an entry about John Kerry falling off a bicycle after the election even though John Kerry and George W. Bush were rivals because Kerry's misfortune is not relevant enough to Bush's life to merit inclusion. Mail to someone tangentially connected to Leiter does not belong in a biography about Leiter.204.2.36.120 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if it is decided that the mail incident is not relevant, I still think a different section (different from PGR) needs to be created, since the Jenkins protests were over his "derogatory" online behavior and not directly tied to his work at PGR, perhaps titled "Resignation from PGR". It would be like if the protests and firing of James Gunn were listed under GOTG (the job he lost) instead of in a separate section James_Gunn#Firing_from_Disney_and_reinstatement24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I'd compare the notoriety of the PGR (a blog that is obscure outside of philosophy departments) to the Walt Disney Company (multinational entertainment conglomerate worth hundreds of billions of dollars) or Leiter (philosopher known by thousands people in his field) to Movie Director James Gunn (director known by tens of millions of people around the world) or an unceremonious firing from someone's primary source of income and prestige to a voluntary resignation from a blog that more or less amounts to a hobby. Leiter stepping down from PGR is perhaps akin to Fred W. Scott Jr. stepping down from being on the Board of a center at UVA over an insensitive email--a minor incident worth briefly mentioning, but not deserving a full section.204.2.36.120 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with user 204.2.36.20 couldn't have said it better myself. Anyone with doubts about the bias of user 24.217.247.41 should look at some of his recent comments, which go well beyond the sources, and clearly assume the worst about the subject without support. See BLP notice at top of this page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."71.105.133.121 (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User 71.105.133.121, please be mindful of the way you talk about me and follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. In fact, repeatedly accusing me of bad faith motives could be seen as a personal attack which is a violation of wikipedia rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Accusing_others_of_bad_faith). Furthermore, when you accuse someone, please be specific in your claims. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I know about this person, Brian Leiter, is from what I've read in the aforementioned sources, which I summarized, and when I googled him I was surprised to learn that there were no references in his wiki to the fact that he "is known for his combative style and caustic judgments of colleagues and programs," (1st paragraph: ^[5]), especially "combative tactics on his blogs and social media" (^[6]). In fact, in almost every article I've read, they mention that Leiter is known as a controversial figure ( "his pugilistic style has drawn cries of foul from a growing number of philosophers" -^[7]; "not a guy known for holding back on his opinions of other philosophers." -^[8]; Those whom Leiter finds wanting are deemed "morons" or "zombies" or "demonstrably incompetent." - 3rd para ^[9]; "a famously hard-charging voice in the field" -^[10]; "a prolific and often pugilistic blogger, has many critics" -9th para ^[11]) , Yet his wikipedia article does not mention anything about him being especially "caustic" or "combative" in his online behavior, so I set out to add 1-2 sentences detailing it under the "blogging and other activities", then I got feedback that I needed reliable sources for his behavior, so I googled him and found the aforementioned articles.

In response to your BLP accusation, what I have written is not unsourced or poorly sourced (do I need to list all of the sources again?), it is not libelous (as it is true)-- Brian Leiter readily admits to his various behaviors (insulting Jenkins by calling her a "sanctimonious arse", telling another professor she works in a "shit department"), but describes them as "intemperate, but provoked" in the case of the email and tweets (see intro and last paragraph of ^[12]), and it is not under dispute (contentious) because in the 2016 mail incident Leiter conceded that "what those three professors had in common “was their role in launching an attack on me around the time the last edition of my philosophy rankings were supposed to come out in fall 2014,” however he contends it was sent by someone trying to embarrass him, which I included the evidence that it was not likely sent by Leiter, but someone else, as a NPOV of the incident (direct quote from email sent by Leiter to buzzfeedNEWS: middle of the page ^[13]). That his online disagreements with 4 different professors resulted in someone sending them hazardous waste in the mail is notable in academia, as professors typically stay above the fray and critique each other's theories/research (not the individual's character) in peer-reviewed journals (not blogs), and such academic disagreements do not typically result in real-world harm. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24, thank you for moving these prior comments forward, it is good to have them in one place. I have added comments about the subject's combative rhetoric to the section on blogging in line with your suggestions. I agree that faculty being sent poop in the mail is, in some sense, notable, but the only question is whether it is notable here, and for the reasons stated well by user 204.2.36.120 it pretty clearly is not. I would also ask user 71.105.133.121 to be more restrained in disagreements with other users. Thank you.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to agree with the consensus against including the 2016 incident and that has been stated really well by user 204.2.36.20. I appreciate Philosophy_Junky’s desire for a constructive conversation, but the fact is user 24.217.247.41 has been making accusations of bad faith and responding to disagreements in a hostile, personal manner (after all, he said you, PJ, had “issues” just because you didn’t agree with him). Everyone should look at this user’s first edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&diff=905668579&oldid=899353933, reverted by another editor because it was some nasty twitter rumors about the subject! This is pretty strong evidence about why 24.217.247.41 is here, and it not because of his love for or knowledge of philosophy.173.2.250.192 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your support for exclusion is noted, but the rest of your comment is unnecessary and unhelpful.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your even-keeled response to him, PJ. I appreciate it. However, in response to @173.2.250.192:, I must say that you misinterpret the situation, and that was in response to PJ's continued deletion of my comments re Leiter's history of insults on this page because he thought they violated BLP guidelines, not because he "didn't agree with me". They did not as they were supported by WP:RS and have been restored. In fact, while you and @71.105.133.121: and @204.2.36.120: have repeatedly questioned my motives, an astute observer might notice that you all are commenting on this seemingly random talk page after year(s) of inactivity. From what I understand IP addresses cannot "watch" pages, so did someone direct you here or were you watching this from another account? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in agreement with those who argued above against inclusion of this material, whose connection to the subject is tenuous, requiring speculation and innuendo improper for an encyclopedia. (Disclosure: I am a graduate of the Law School, but long before Professor Leiter's time and have never met him.)HydeParkerforLife (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Apparent whitewashing of the controversial behaviors and critical depictions of Brian Leiter from this wikipedia page.

Examples include unexplained deletion of Controversy section and unexplained deletion of "Leiter is among the more controversial voices in the philosophical blogosphere, and he has come in for criticism for both his communication style and for comments he has made to other philosophers.^[1]" ^[2], unexplained deletion of "and Controversy" from section header ^[3], deletion of "..."Those whom Leiter finds wanting are deemed "morons" or "zombies" or "demonstrably incompetent."..." ^[4], deletion of "controversial" ^[5], deletion of "... Hunter Baker... alleging Leiter was "attacking" both a student writer and "academic freedom."^{[6] [7]}, among others.

The subject called someone a "moron" on his blog, and you think that is notable? A 2004 opinion piece in NRO? This bio already gives too much attention to the trival 2014 controversy about the PGR and spins it in a way too critical of the subject. Read some other entries on philosophers for perspective about what matters and what does not.71.105.133.121 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User 71, what these edits show is a pattern of deleting information critical of the subject, with little to no explanation, that I find concerning. Thank you for your suggestion re perspective. Here's one philosopher I found with a substantial "controversy" section for 1 incident from 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_J._Beckwith#Controversy. (In fact, I wonder if this page should have similar notices to that of Beckwith's talk page.) Here's a BLP that includes a criticism section for the subject's comments in an op-ed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Criticism. Here's another scientist with an extensive section for his potentially 'racist' comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Comments_on_race. It seems sections on controversial actions for BLPs are not out of the ordinary. So, again, I propose that this philosopher should also have a "Reception/Criticisms/Controversy" section in line with what other BLPs have, since the 2014 protest is only tangentially related to PGR in that his resignation happened as a result of a protest to his online behavior toward another professor. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive discussion of edits to this page, some now archived. Much material, both positive and negative, has been deleted over the years, and much critical material has been added, including by me in response to 24's earlier suggestions. It's not in my opinion a good use of time to rehash old debates from the Talk pages. Also, 2014 protest was directly related to PGR, it called for the subject to step down as editor and threatened not to participate in the PGR otherwise. We should discuss whether to add a subheading about criticisms/controversy to the section of the entry on rankings. I think that is appropriate, but would like to hear from others before doing so. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These criticisms are trivial, they do not deserve their own section. A brief word about the PGR controversies is justifiable, but there is already too much about them as is.71.105.133.121 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Use of links to Leiter's own blog when making claims about third parties WP:SELFPUB ^{[8] [9]}

3. Noteworthiness of links to Leiter's blog for critiques when they have not been covered by secondary RS. ^[10]

4. Editors with potential undeclared COIs deleting talk page comments and information from the wiki ^{[11] [12][13] [14]} 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note I'm a bit concerned with all of the talk page comment refactoring that's been going on and by all of the attempts to reorganise everything. Most discussions don't need this type of card shuffling, so I hope you've all finally gotten the talk page to a place where you feel discussion can resume again. Please remember that it's generally considered unfavorable to refactor other editors' comments, and with the exception of a few indentations here and there, we probably shouldn't be so fastidious with the organisation. Confusion sometimes happens, and sometimes it's better just to slap an {{outdent}} template down and start from the far left. When in doubt, see WP:TPG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyphoid, I was only following the lead of the other users. The only reason I moved the responses was because Philosophy Junkie praised User:204.2.36.120 for copying and pasting his reply from the original section to a new section (which already had a dozen responses to it). I was just going to copy & paste my reply to him, but it seemed more fair to just copy and paste the replies all the users had already made to him/her. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BLP noticeboard}} 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLPN

User:Philosophy Junkie continues to insist that the following phrase "who Leiter claimed had threatened him" in reference to Carrie Jenkins should remain in the article,[2][3][4] despite the fact that it is NOT supported by the referenced Chronicle of Higher Ed article[5] or any other WP:RS.

Philosophy Junkie claims a 1st person, self-published blog post by Brian Leiter, not included as a reference in the article, is an acceptable source for the claim.[6][7] However, I think the unsourced and unsubstantiated claim should be removed. Leiter's blog post is not an acceptable source for this claim about Carrie Jenkins because it violates the first two rules of WP:BLPSELFPUB: it involves claims about third parties and it is unduly self-serving, as I noted months ago on the talk page.

Is this a BLP violation against Carrie Jenkins and should Brian Leiter's blog post be an acceptable source for claims about 3rd parties "threatening" him? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the applicable policy (WP:BLP) is quite clear about this. It says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." This claim has been challenged (it's been removed more than once) and therefore it must be supported by a reliable citation. It currently isn't cited in this way. Unless a source can be found (which is reliable, not the subject's own blog), the claim has no place in the article. It's not a matter of whether any of us thinks the claim is correct or not, it's a matter of Wikipedia policy which says a reliable source is required. Neiltonks (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User 24.217.247.41 misstates both the source and what the entry asserts. Please see the discussion under 'Edit Warring' at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.217.247.41.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if such discussions are held on article talk pages in the future, so they are more easily accessible by other editors. Regardless I see no justification for the statement from that discussion. Someone "asked if she planned to spit at him or chase him with a baseball bat" cannot be interpreted to mean that this person is accusing the other person of threatening them without further context or information. It could be that this person was being sarcastic or simply trying to make a point (e.g. you sound so angry, should I be worried about violence next?). Alleged defamation (that already happened) is not a threat, well unless the defamation includes a threat. (To give a random example "if you don't do X, I'm going to write a blog post saying you're a murderer" could be called a threat. Although "threaten" often means threaten with violence so any such reference would need to be clear what form the threat took. Writing a blog posting accusing someone of being a murderer cannot be called a threat. At best, it's following through on a threat. A threat could be in that blog post e.g. If it ends with "Turn yourself in to the police by the weeks end or this will be your last week on earth". ) Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article differently and think the context supports the summary. But as I suggested to user 24.217.247.41, perhaps a different word would be better than "threatened," such as "criticized" or "attacked." Thanks. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attacked is not necessarily wrong, but without clarification it's unclear what sort of 'attack' is meant e.g. physical. Criticised is better. But IMO if we do want to mention something it will be better to just briefly summarise what was said. Jenkins wrote a blog post vowing to treat other philosophers with respect and to speak up about perceived mistreatment and mentioned unprofessional behaviour. Leiter considered the blog post a thin veiled attack on himself. (This is an example of 'attack' where it's clear from the context what is meant.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, context is crucial. Others did take it as an attack on Leiter, as he did himself, rightly or wrongly An example:

In mid-2014, Professor Leiter was involved in some spats online about statistics concerning job hiring and placement in the philosophy profession, based on statistics collected by a philosophy/psychology academic, Professor Carolyn Dicey Jennings. A few months earlier, in February 2014, Leiter had spoken out in fairly moderate but critical terms about the “vigilante justice” in operation against Ludlow at Northwestern. He had also published a short statement I wrote in March 2014, about my situation—more on that later. In response to these largely inconsequential spats about placement and prestige of academic programs, Professor Carrie Jenkins, a philosophy academic at the University of British Columbia in Canada, made a public announcement that she wouldn’t treat certain people as “normal members of the profession.” This was a passive-aggressive reference to Leiter, who in good Nietzschean humor emailed her a sarcastic reply, suggesting she might chase him around philosophy conferences with a “baseball bat.” He also called her a “sanctimonious arsehole.” http://www.theagonist.org/essays/2019/01/26/essays-ketland-feminist-witch-hunts-in-academic-philosophy.html.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, I agree with you re the use of "attack" or any other verbs that fail to provide the context of the blog post-- which was a pledge to behave civilly. Here's the wording that I proposed back in July for describing the 2014 incident that led to Leiter's resignation from PGR, but Philosophy Junkie blanket reverted any changes I made to the article. What do you think? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2014 Leiter sent an email to Carrie Jenkins, which was later posted online, calling Jenkins a "sanctimonious asshole" and threatening legal action regarding a statement she published online pledging to behave with civility in her professional life.^[1] While Jenkins’s post made no reference to Leiter, Leiter read the statement as being about him, because at that time he was under fire on blogs in his field for his recent harsh rebuke of a critic of his rankings.^[2] In September 2014, more than 600 philosophers signed a statement describing the email as "derogatory and intimidating" and declining to volunteer information for the Philosophical Gourmet Report while it was under the control of Leiter.^[3] In October 2014, Leiter agreed to step down as editor of PGR, after a majority of the advisory board asked for his resignation. ^[4][5]