Talk:Alain de Botton/Archive 2

Descriptions in first sentence of lead esp. philosopher

For quite a while the first sentence was overloaded with epithets and job titles. As part of a wider series of copyedits, I removed quite a few of them, including "philosopher" but leaving writer and broadcaster, as well as the detail in the following sentence noting that his focus is on philosophy. That has since been reverted – three times now. I don't want to get into another lengthy debate about whether person X is a philosopher and whether we simply must describe them as such from the get-go, especially with someone who appeared to deliberately follow me here from a related debate to revert perfectly reasonable edits, and am anyway, as noted in my initial edit, open-minded on this one, but there are two issues here:

• The number of descriptions in the lead. We're not back to where we were, but I don't see that an opening sentence needs to include every term or profession that has ever been applied to the subject and constantly creep upwards in number. It needs to focus on the main one or two, for which they are likely to be known and which are not marginal or controversial, enabling concise description and easy identification. For example, Prince Charles is not a "prince, painter, environmental activist, architecture critic, decorated military officer and horseman" but simply the "heir to the throne".
• "Philosopher" specifically. Here at least, unlike on the related page, the term is widely sourced, albeit mostly to media publications. However, he is not published, recognised or employed as a philosopher in any academic sense. "Pop philosopher" and "self-help guru" are also widely sourced, and the former qualified description at least might be said to explain better what it is he does. The same problem regularly occurs with the description "historian", where those with not much more than a history degree but who write widely, and often quite idiosyncratically, on historical topics suddenly become historians in WP-land.

Third opinions might help. N-HH talk/edits 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to describe de Botton as a philosopher. He identifies as such and is regarded by others as such. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

As I said, I'm not necessarily opposed, but as I was trying to point out, it is not as simple as just declaring it is "entirely appropriate", or indeed entirely inappropriate. WP requires more than simply self-identification (anyone can describe themselves as anything they want of course). As to what third parties say, the point of my admittedly quite long post was that: a) when we have several descriptions, we have to choose between them; and b) it slightly depends on what sources describe him as such, what they mean by it, whether we make a distinction between a professional/academic philosopher and a popular writer on philosophy and whether, given that, the term might be better qualified/expanded for clarity. You haven't really addressed any of that. N-HH talk/edits 09:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing

Persons who edit this page for reward should note new usage conditions.[1] Therefore the drive-by spa IP editors who so often add to this article can expect to have their contributions questioned. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

Questionable edits by spa IPs, such as these latest ones [2] [3], continue to be made to this BLP. It is not clear if they are made by supporters of the subject or by enemies who are intent on portraying him as vainglorious. Either way there is a case for permanent WP:Semiprotection. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

These edits continue [4]. Xxanthippe, [5] (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC).

and more abusive ones [[6]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC).

and more [7]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

again [8] Xxanthippe (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

and more [9]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC).

again[10]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC).

and again [11]. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

[12]. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC).

[13]

Personal life

His marriage status is certainly not trivia and belongs in the article. Has been widely reported elsewhere. Contribution is well sourced, timely, and relevant (especially because of his recent writing on marriage).Bangabandhu (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Unneeded personal information is contrary to WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC).

How are you reading those guidelines? Per WP:BLPNAMES - "the names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced" Bangabandhu (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

BLP policy states The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC).

He's not low profile. Its been widely reported elsewhere and the article already talks about other family members, including his sister. Really, its surprising this is even a point of discussion. Hoping some other editors will weigh in. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

His wife and children are low-profile. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC).

They are widely mentioned at length and, again, relevant to his writing. This article suggests that the section could be expanded as the meeting between Charlotte and Alain is indicative of his personality. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have entered this at WP:BLP/N. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC).

My view is as follows: I don't think privacy is a truly consideration at this point; he's discussed his family, especially his wife, at length in interviews, and has freely given information about his wife and sons. This is very widely published. I am a proponent of scrubbing details of this sort from the articles of marginal figures, but Mr. de Botton is not a marginal figure. To me, the sheer number of times this has been published in reliable sources rebuts the presumption of privacy from WP:BLPPRIVACY and leads me to go with WP:BLPNAMES. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bangabandhu points to some of the numerous instances in which De Botton talks in detail about his wife, by name. Details about her in particular are relevant to his biography. Fences&Windows 10:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Vlogger?

Is he really a vlogger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.42.115.33 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Vlogger?

Is he really a vlogger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.42.115.33 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)