Talk:John Searle/Archive 3

Good bye, Derrida debate
New editor (and thus far SPA) Sonduarte writes above:


 * Someone allegedly said that Searle-Derrida debate is "a minor part of the topic of the article". Though, if the Searle-Derrida debate is "minor", then the role that intentionality plays in Searle's work is "minor", too. [...] We cannot consider "minor" a fundamental critique to someone's major work without consider that major work "minor", too. Are you willing to remove "Intentionality" topic from this article?

I'm mildly surprised and disappointed to find that the "someone" isn't me.

I repeat something that I wrote above:


 * Having looked for books about Searle, finding only one (although mentions of at least one more), and looking within this book for references to Derrida and finding none whatever (search within this page for the string "rust"), I thought I'd try surveys in reference books. I found four:


 * Fontenot, Karen Anding. "John R. Searle." World Philosophers and Their Works (Salem, 3 vols, 2000). 3:1756-1762.
 * Gochet, Paul. "Searle, John Roger, 1932-". Dictionnaire des Philosophes, 2nd ed (PUF, 2 vols, 1993). 2:2603-2607.
 * Harnish, Robert M. "Searle, John (1932-)". Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed (Macmillan Reference USA, 10 vols, 2006). 8:705-707.
 * Lepore, Ernie. "Searle, John (1932-)". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (10 vols, 1998). 8:589-591.


 * Possibly I overlooked something, but as far as I am aware these four bring a grand total of zero (0) mentions of Derrida.


 * I tentatively infer that neither Derrida nor the debate with him is of much lasting importance to the work of Searle (the subject of this article).

I infer [scrub the "tentatively"] that neither Derrida nor the debate with him is regarded by those who are regarded as experts on Searle's works as having more than minor importance to the work of Searle (the subject of this article).

Hibrido Mutante seems very interested in what Derrida has to say. I suggest that the huge majority of people who are interested in Searle's works are not much interested in what Derrida has to say. If written to Wikipedia's standards (which, incidentally, respect concision), stuff about Derrida can go in articles about Derrida, his books, subjects that he illuminated, or subjects about which his writings are demonstrably significant. But, please, no more than a mere mention in this article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Thank you Hoary. Update: the problem is found in Deconstruction as well. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think there are definitely sufficient secondary sources about the debate for it to merit its own article and at least a couple of sentences of summary in this article. The "someone" referred to by Sonduarte was probably me. I don't think the debate is very relevant for a description of Searle's philosophy, but it clearly is important for deconstructionism (which does not belong in this article).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is rather this: people who are interested in Searle's works aren't interested in Searle's works (where some are dedicated to Derrida's thought)?

How come this Wikipedia article about Searle's positions doesn't even refer "The Word Turned Upside Down", Searle's most direct attack to Derrida's deconstruction, pretending to be a review about someone else's book: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1983/oct/27/the-word-turned-upside-down/

How can you give a precise image of what Searle is criticizing in Derrida's theory without presenting the counterpart? Obliterating what Derrida said about Searle's theory is to nullify the sense of Searle's objections in this respect. Every critique has to be reciprocally determined in relation to the opponent's arguments. He was not talking to the wall...

Searle wouldn't waste his time writing articles about deconstruction, if he completely dismissed it as a minor issue.

Derrida must have really (and greatly) annoyed him, because Searle went to the point of using a subterfuge to say, in a footnote: «... Derrida as "the sort of philosopher who gives bullshit a bad name."»

This kind of subterfuge, seemingly worth of a gossip teller, is very typical of his, recalling Foucault's anecdote: http://reason.com/archives/2000/02/01/reality-principles-an-intervie/1

He seems to appreciate very much "secondary sources"...

So who wanted secondary sources, huh? Let's see if this one is secondary enough for you... The relevant part starts by: "In the piece that launched the debate..." http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/philos/dascal/papers/divide.html

Sonduarte (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sonduarte, you start by asking The question is rather this: people who are interested in Searle's works aren't interested in Searle's works (where some are dedicated to Derrida's thought)? I tentatively infer that you mean Are those people who are interested in Searle's works not interested where these works are about what Derrida wrote? If this is indeed what you mean, then my answer is that no, they are not likely to be interested. I base this answer not on my own estimation of the importance of this area of Searle's work but instead on the estimations by Karen Anding Fontenot, Paul Gochet, Robert M. Harnish and Ernie Lepore, as evidenced by the considered, published summary by each of Searle's work to the date when the respective manuscript was completed. The earliest publication was 1993, so we can assume that the manuscripts were completed by 1991, of course well after the 1983 publication of what you term "Searle's most direct attack to Derrida's deconstruction". If Fontenot, Gochet, Harnish and Lepore indeed did not mention Derrida -- and NB I looked through each of the four articles rather quickly, and do not swear that Derrida is not mentioned. I may have overlooked a mention. Feel free to check for yourself: each of these books should be in a good library -- then your (apparently) overriding interest in what Searle wrote about Derrida clearly puts you outside the mainstream. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, you're basing your negative answer in some particular cases and trying to sell it as "universal". In philosophical terms, that is called an "inductive fallacy", generalizing from incomplete information.

For professional reasons, I'm one of those who are interested in Searle's works including what he have said about Derrida's ideas.

As you imagine, it won't be difficult to find other academic publications or bibliographies about Searle that mention the debate with Derrida and/or the article "The World Turned Upside Down". For instance:

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/biblio-2009.pdf http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/Johncv.pdf (Searle's CV and bibliography from his page) http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1168254/?site_locale=en_GB http://www.phillwebb.net/history/Twentieth/Analytic/Searle/Searle.htm http://www.unige.ch/lettres/philo/enseignants/km/doc/SearleDerrida.pdf http://www.csl.sony.fr/downloads/papers/2000/rajagopalan-00a.pdf

In Searle's own CV, the section entitled "Major works about the work of John R. Searle" doesn't include any of the books you pointed out, though it includes at least one of those I put above which mention Derrida's debate: "John Searle", Barry Smith, Cambridge University Press, 2003. He might be a voice to consider when selecting the best books that talk about himself.

But let's suppose that those "secondary sources" didn't exist in English and that only existed Searle's texts about Derrida, to whom he consecrated two articles, one letter (not to Derrida) and part of an interview. Don't you think that any well-informed and serious editor or researcher should mention it? If he doesn't, he's skipping some of Searle's main interests and interpretations, not only about Derrida's theories, also about Austin's thought (cf. "Reiterating the Differences").

Let's suppose you're writing an article about a foreign author, not translated or badly translated to your language. You simply have to offer primary sources, if you don't want to spread misinformation... So, it isn't always a good practice to use secondary sources as a rule for every case. That's obvious.

You also will spread misinformation, if Derrida's reply to Searle is not rendered side by side with Searle's critique of Derrida's ideas. Imagine that you're watching to a debate on TV between two people and the sound is taken off from one of them. It would be quite an incomplete and hardly understandable debate...

If it is a question of article lenght, we just have to focus on a good summing up of Searle-Derrida discussion.

Here is a possible start (sorry, it's in French):

«On sait que John Searle et Jacques Derrida sont très critiques l'un vis-à-vis de l'autre en ce qui a trait aux méthodes philosophiques et aux thèses proposées. La querelle a commencé avec la critique par Searle de l'oeuvre de Derrida, dans un compte rendu intitulé: "Reiterating de Differences", paru dans Glyph en 1977. Cette critique fut reprise sous forme d'attaques contre Derrida et ses adeptes, qui parurent dans le New York Review of Books en 1983 et 1984. Du côté de Derrida, la polémique contre Searle a débuté avec "Limited Inc. a b c", où il répond point par point, en quatre-vingt pages, aux critiques de Searle dans "Reiterating the Differences", et s'est poursuivie en 1988, avec l'ajout d'une postface de quarante-neuf pages à "Limited Inc a b c", intitulée "Vers une éthique de la discussion". Ce titre évoque les bonnes manières qui devraient avoir cours dans les rapports entre philosophes professionnels. (...)» http://www.erudit.org/revue/PHILOSO/1996/v23/n2/027399ar.pdf

And then, we should present each side of the debate.

Based on these facts, I would like to propose a correction to the present Wikipedia article, where it says "The debate began in 1972...". The debate didn't really begin in 1972 - Derrida, as far as I know, didn't allude to Searle in "Signature Event Context". The debate begins in 1977 with Searle's "Reiterating the Differences", where he attacks Derrida's reading of Austin's works.

Sonduarte (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will ask all editors to concentrate on the consensus being build and not start new discussions. As Manus said, we already agreed Derrida and Searle debate was something tho be mentioned. Manus maid a contributions of 5.000 characters. We are now only concluding the last 2 paragraph based on my proposal (basically 9 paraphrases from Derrida's arguments).
 * I understand other editors would like to start everything all over again,but we should now try to respect wikipedia rules and try to get to a final consensus together.
 * Please give your arguments in a clear and distinct manner (please, number each one) so your interlocutor can deal with each one in a clear and distinct way.
 * Do not start another section before the consensus to the last 2 paragraphs is established.

Thanks Best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sonduarte: I agree with your proposal, but now it is not under debate. If no one is against it we can change it later. Also the "french quotation" il n'ya pas hors-text" is wrong and we will change it later.

If you have any contribution to review the last 9 sentences, you are very welcome (I gave a different argument than yours about Derrida's critic to Searle not knowing about tradition and phenomenology. It is an explicit option from Searle in "Intentionality, 1983, p.ix - I wouldn't mind with it if it was only "Searle's ignorance". It is worst than that, it is a methodological option that is being legitimated, with terrible effects in the serious debate between different philosophical perspectives. If you want to suggest how to say it in one sentence... I think we should in fact quote Searle so it is clear that it is not an "opinion" from Derrida.

I said:

"Please, note this is not an "opinion" from Derrida, but facts. It is Searle that says that (Intentionality; 1983 p.ix):

"I am even ready to admire how the author of a book bearing this title, Intentionality, could choose, as he declares at the very outset, in the Introduction, to "pass over in silence" "whole philosophical movements" which "have been built around theories of intentionality," avowing, as one of his reasons, " ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality" (p. ix) . Something that is indeed evident in reading the seven lines devoted to Husserl in this book of three hundred pages."

How can we make it more clear to the readers that comes here that Derrida doesn't approve authors that give "as one of his reasons, " ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality" (p. ix).

I also call your attention to this: "I put quotation marks around "Searle" and "I" to mark that beyond these indexes, I am aiming at tendencies, types, styles, or situations rather than at persons." --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hibrido, concerning Searle's methodological option for ignoring the past:

«One of the reasons why the subject of speech acts is so much fun is that you don't have to worry about what all the great figures from the past said, because most of the great philosophers had no theory of speech acts.» - John R. Searle (quoted in Nerlich and Clarke, 1994, p. 440)

Sonduarte (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ) Yes... we all know how fresh (but also naif) Americans can be ;) ... but here Derrida is not making a critic about Searle talking about "speech acts" but about "Intentionality"... without being aware of Husserl (!!! and Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, Ricouer, Desanti etc. etc. etc.). If this is so, he is not even aware of Derrida's critics to Husserl's "intentionality" (that are quite similar with some he is doing to Searle... we feel that Derrida would have to repeat most of his old arguments against Husserl to Searle... that is why he says Searle repeats the most problematic gestures of "tradition")... and, I would like to make it clear: this is important not because of Searle himself but "I am aiming at tendencies, types, styles, or situations rather than at persons" ;)

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As it pertains to Searle and his philosophy, is there much else to say except that Searle was defending Austin and otherwise does not consider Derrida's obscuratist prose to be philosophy? No. Mixelpix (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations
This Buzzfeed post has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? Looking at the talk page of another philosopher who had a similar article written about him by Buzzfeed, Thomas Pogge, I think those editors waited for more coverage, maybe even for the response from Pogge. Here's some of the coverage so far: As far as I can tell, these are all just articles about the lawsuit, and they mostly just parrot the Buzzfeed coverage. Finally if a more experienced editor would like to replace what I've written here with a better introduction to this discussion, please feel free. Utsill (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Original Buzzfeed post
 * Los Angeles Times
 * East Bay Times
 * SFGate


 * I think there is plenty of coverage for inclusion. There is also this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * BuzzFeed is in now, referring to its facsimile of the Searle filing. For obvious legal reasons, I think WP should stick very close to that document, with general reference rather than attempting to summarise allegations.  Wikiain (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that this edit by Collect, which removed many details about the accusations, was reasonable. Collect gave WP:BLPCRIME as a justification for the edit at the BLP noticeboard, but that section of BLP states, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." Searle is not a relatively unknown person. He is a prominent and well-known philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I second this position. warshy (¥¥) 20:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree and have restored the section in an earlier, fuller version. Searle is not "relatively unknown":  he is one of the most famous philosophers alive.  BuzzFeed can be dodgy, but it has a solid-looking article on this occasion:  especially, the article contains a facsimile of the suit as filed.  One can see in the facsimile that the suit is against both UC and Searle personally.  Further coverage can be expected in BuzzFeed and other media that have been covering the story, such as the reputable Los Angeles Times. Wikiain (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * He's very prominent and well known as philosophers go. Philosophers aren't well known. I don't know what "relatively unknown" means in this context. -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * second this. "Famous philosopher" is pretty much oxymoron. Mixelpix (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per common sense, it means a person who is basically obscure, someone with no public profile to speak of. That does not describe Searle, who is famous as a philosopher. The fact that the general public might not know of him is not relevant; he is well-known in his profession, and that suffices. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per common sense, most people have no idea who John Searle is. The inclusion of two paragraphs detailing the allegations is irrelevant to the biography. It is enough to mention that allegations have been made and cite reference.Mixelpix (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That comment is tendentious wiki-lawyering that will accomplish you nothing. Searle is notable enough to have an article, which means that he is not "relatively unknown" for the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME. The details of a major incident in which Searle was accused of sexual harassment are obviously relevant to his biography, and your announcing otherwise is inconsequential. We aren't giving this guy special treatment simply because he is a famous philosopher. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are begging the question. That he has a wikipedia article does not make him "well known" nor is "notable" "well known". John Searle is relatively unknown and as stated inWP:BLPCRIME "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured."Mixelpix (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The lawsuit is against UC Berkeley. Searle has no "standing" in that lawsuit. The claim is made that Searle was not investigated, which is a far cry from doing as some wish - to declare him guilty of charges for which there has been no legal action at all in the first place. Collect (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, you're saying: "Searle is not being sued, UC is", and therefore the lawsuit is not relevant and should be removed. I think a reading of the filing shows that Searle is indeed a party to the lawsuit - he is named as a defendant ("vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity; JOHN SEARLE, an individual..."), is included in actions one through four (which are against all defendants), and is named specifically in action five ("Assault & Battery against Defendant John Searle..."). So to characterize the lawsuit as only against UC is materially incorrect. The text removed appeared to be a reasonable and neutral summary of the publicly released filing. So for this reason, having thought about it, I'm restoring the material removed in the latest revert by User:Collect and I'd urge continued discussion here. inksT 13:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Searle is on the "laundry list" of defendants - as one who reads the material will note. He is not being sued for a sexual tort per se.  In fact, there is no way in hell that he will be able to provide testimony on that issue, and thus this is simply one more of the "he is accused of sexual misbehaviour, so Wikipedia should make sure we point out that the person is evil incarnate."    I commend you to read User:Collect/BLP  and note the parallels thereto. I fear that Wikipedia is "headed to hell in a handbasket" as this is now the norm for all living persons.  The suit is against UC Berkeley and that is all that matters here.  Collect (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "In a lawsuit filed in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday, Ong is suing Searle, the UC Board of Regents and unnamed defendants for unspecified damages on allegations of sexual harassment, assault and battery, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination." "Ong alleges that Searle openly watched pornography in his office with the sound on as students went by. "  The "assault" on Ong was the "Searle looked at pornography in his office" not any physical attack according to the press reports, other than one alleged instance of an attempt at "groping".  The actual filing is, of course, a "primary source" and is not a source for claims of fact under Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree for the following reasons. Reasoning below for any that continue this discussion: As to the wider context, I personally agree strongly that accusations should be suppressed until conviction or acquittal. However, in the absence of a federal law mandating this, we shouldn't make exceptions for the powerful or well-known - and in fact not making exceptions is the best way to achieve change.
 * He is being sued for a sexual tort - this action is being brought by the accuser, not the state.
 * As already explained and proven beyond doubt by the filing document and reporting, the suit is against UC and Searle.
 * Speculation about intent of the plaintiff (saying whom the suit "is against") is irrelevant.
 * Groping is physical assault.
 * The article does not rely exclusively on the filing. In compliance with WP:BLPPRIMARY, it cites a range of secondary sources.

inkstalk 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No one has suggested that, "Wikipedia should make sure we point out that the person is evil incarnate", Collect. That is an unnecessary and emotional comment. Rather, all that is happening is that a now widely reported incident is being briefly mentioned in Searle's article, which is quite appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs are far more than a "brief mention" and to describe them so is disingenuous. Furthermore, these allegations are entirely irrelevant to the man's biography. I suspect an agenda at work here by those unsympathetic to his work. (talk) 21:35 6 April 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs are brief compared to the article as a whole. They are properly cited, do not go into unnecessary detail, and concern a widely reported matter that quite obviously is relevant to Searle's biography, in that they will permanently affect how Searle is viewed both by the philosophical community and by the wider public. Omitting all mention of the issue would make for a major and bizarre gap in the article's coverage of its subject. Your suggestions about an agenda to discredit Searle are incorrect. I have a rather favorable impression of Searle's philosophical work, and of course the accusations, whether correct or incorrect, have no bearing on its merits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Mixelpix, the reason you gave here for removing some details about the case ("the details of the case need not be included as they are easily found online") is entirely spurious. The fact that Donald Trump is currently President of the United States is also easily found online, but that is not a reason for Wikipedia to not mention it. We mention facts to the extent they're relevant and encyclopedic; the presence of the information elsewhere is irrelevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not sure what spurious means FreeKnowledgeCreator? I ask because your example is completely spurious. Trump's status as president is central to his biography. That an 84 year old philosophy professor has allegations filed against him is completely irrelevant to the details of his biography. Should these allegations be demonstrated and proven true, that might be worth mentioning briefly. Were he noteworthy only for his sexual misconduct, then sure, new allegations would merit inclusion. As is, two paragraphs detailing what may turn out to be completely unsubstantiated is abusing wikipedia for a gossip column. Mixelpix (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No one cares about your unsupported assertions about what is relevant or irrelevant. Try saying something that might convince someone not determined to remove all mention of this matter if you want to convince other people. Whatever you may mistakenly think, Wikipedia does not have a "never mention accusations of sexual harassment against a philosopher" rule, as witness the Thomas Pogge article. The allegations seriously affect Searle's image, and that will remain true even if they are not absolutely proven to the satisfaction of everyone, which may not be a realistic thing to expect under the circumstances. Furthermore, if you could be bothered checking, you will certainly find plenty of articles about living people that mention accusations that were later proven incorrect. All I see in your comments are inane excuses for removing an obviously relevant detail of Searle's biography. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator are you capable of posting pertinence without ad hominem? You might want to check my latest edit and you will see your extensive presumptions proven incorrect, however, your insistence regarding the relevance of the sexual allegation inclusion is likewise nothing more than your own assertion. Searle is not a well known person and most importantly, Wikipedia is not a gossip column. Please stop treating it as one. Again, I suspect you have an agenda at work here to further the damage done to a persons reputation without any support for the relevance of the allegations. Your spurious equivocation of trump's presidency and Searle's status as a defendant demonstrate this conclusively.Mixelpix (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you cannot come up with a relevant policy-based argument for keeping out any content, your comments are irrelevant. As you have cited no policy and offered no evidence, nothing you have said above is relevant. I will be restoring the content you removed here when appropriate. The only reason I even mentioned Trump was to help you to understand that the presence of information elsewhere is not a reason for removing it from Wikipedia. The point stands. Rather than admit its correctness, all you've done is try to change the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator The case: Searle is relatively unknown and as stated in the policy: WP:BLPCRIME "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." Despite your unsupported insistence (and logical fallacy) that Searle is "notable" because he has a wikipedia article, the fact of the matter is that outside of 1) his students, 2) other U.C. Berkeley faculty and 3) the relatively small amount of people who know anything about the specialized areas of philosophy, neuroscience or artificial intelligence, Professor John R. Searle is relatively unknown.Mixelpix (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Searle is not relatively unknown. He is a prominent philosopher, well-known in his profession and to an educated public. You have simply misunderstood the policy you have invoked. "Relatively unknown" means someone with no significant public profile, an ordinary member of the public, say. Searle, as the author of many books and a long-time university professor and teacher, does have a significant public profile. You have, incidentally, confused the issue of Searle's notability, which concerns whether he deserves a Wikipedia article under WP:NOTE, with the question of whether an uneducated public has heard of him. The two issues have nothing to do with each other. Plenty of notable subjects, fully deserving of an article on Wikipedia, are quite unknown to or unheard of by ignorant people. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your qualification of "in his profession and to an educated public" undoes your assertion as "an ordinary member of the public" is simply not familiar with John Searle. "An ordinary member of the public" is neither in his profession nor has a university education (citation: "Nearly 40 percent of working-aged Americans now hold a college degree, according to a new report from the Lumina Foundation") Are you aware of how few people read his books or listen to his lectures? He is by no means "well known" even among the ~40% of Americans who have a college degree and much less the entire world. Again, you are confusing "notable" with "well-known". That he has a public profile, Searle does not have a significant public profile. That he is a noteworthy philosopher, does not mean that anyone is making note of him. Again, outside the specialized areas of those who study philosophy, those who study neuroscience and those who study critiques of artificial intelligence, Searle has no more significant a public profile than any other University professor, i.e. insignificant. Your insistence upon inclusion of irrelevant details regarding the allegations made are out of place with Wikipedia policy. And this despite your regular practice of editing articles here. As is, the current mention of the allegation is more than adequate. Further inclusion of details is against stated policy and unwarranted until further developments in the legal case. Lastly, the "due weight" policy consideration clearly puts both Searle and the allegation outside the bounds of "relatively known", e.g. "the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." Mixelpix (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I confused nothing with anything, Mixelpix. WP:NOTE concerns which topics may have Wikipedia articles created about them, and has nothing to do with whether a subject is well-known to ordinary people. I pointed out the difference above. You are the only person confused here, a fairly new user trying to lecture a much more experienced user and doing a pretty poor job of it. Your comment is a pile of tendentious nonsense. The sexual harassment allegations against Searle have now been widely reported. Sexual harassment allegations against a person only get widely reported if that person has a significant public profile. Otherwise, there would be no point, would there? Who would even care about sexual harassment allegations against someone who was genuinely obscure? Apparently you suppose that "significant" means "known to most people"; it does not. I'm sure SlimVirgin and NeilN are monitoring this dispute, so I would like to ask them for their views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator that's great you have a high opinion of yourself, however, your personal attacks and self aggrandizing rhetoric does neither refute the fact that Searle is relatively unknown nor does it change the case that the only reason Searle is mentioned in the news coverage is in relation to and the context of the institution which employs him. If you want to include the mention of the allegations in the article about UC Berkeley, that would be appropriate. Inclusion of allegations against a relatively unknown person does nothing more than cast aspersions and this violates Wikipedia policy. You have yet to justify your claim that Searle is well known. It's cute that you imagine me to be "the only person confusd here" as you have yourself clearly stated that you confuse nothing with anything. Please think about reigning in your sloppy grammar before you continue your campaign of misusing wikipedia as if it were your personal blog. Your assertion that "Searle is notable enough to have an article, which means that he is not "relatively unknown" for the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME" is a logical fallacy of begging the question. Please take a logic class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixelpix (talk • contribs) 07:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not understand what "relatively unknown" means. You assume that it means that most people have not heard of a person. That is a ridiculous interpretation to place on it, because essentially everyone in the world would be "relatively unknown" by that standard. Plainly that is not how WP:BLPCRIME is meant to be understood. If you won't believe me, then why don't you ask SlimVirgin, who pretty much wrote WP:BLP, or NeilN? The article contains more than enough information to show that Searle is well known, by any reasonable standard, if not by the foolish standard of being known by most people. It is not my fault if you won't read it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See the policy []: "Low-profile: Does not use occupational or other position(s) for public projection of self-worth (above the level normally expected within the field in question – academia, like business and politics, can be quite competitive). Such a person may be notable anyway yet still low-profile (e.g., if generally acknowledged to be a preeminent authority in a particular field, or a CEO of a notable but not market-dominant company, etc., but not particularly self-promotional)." Again, you offer no support of your claim that Searle is not relatively unknown except your own pale insistence.
 * I assume that unsigned comment was by Mixelpix. If you were more experienced, Mixelpix, you would have realized that what you quoted is not "policy" but an essay irrelevant to this discussion. Fortunately, an administrator has now told you that you are wrong, so I do not have to waste any more time on your nonsense. Go on making edits based on an interpretation of policy that you have been told is wrong, and you could well wind up blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neil N 's "general comment" below, that "somebody being sued does not generally have a large impact", could be interpreted as reducing the importance of the matter to Searle's biography. Nihil novi (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mixelpix has been told that he is wrong in his understanding of what "relatively unknown" means. The importance of Searle's being sued might be a more profitable subject for discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If John Searle is known, then it is for his contributions to the philosophy of thinking, and that would seem the proper focus for the article. A brief mention of his current legal involvements should suffice, pending their adjudication.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are supposing that because Searle is not known specifically for being accused of sexual harassment, that we don't give the details of accusations made against him? That is not how it works here, nor how it should work. Please review the Thomas Pogge article. Yes, Pogge is known for being a philosopher, and no, that does not make him immune to having the details of accusations made against him mentioned in his article. The accusations are even mentioned in the lead of his article, and there would be a case for following that example here. Philosophers don't get special treatment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not create a "Category:Philandering philosophers"? Nihil novi (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nihil novi Indeed, I had edited the section down to the first two sentences which are more than adequate. Now FreeKnowledgeCretor has edited back details not pertinent to the biography, including further allegations thathUC Berkeley is "protecting" Searle. He has provided NO support for such inclusion or his assertion that Searle is not relatively unknown.

General comments

 * "Relatively unknown" is generally taken to mean people who do not have their own articles or there's a limited amount of material out there, only enough for a stub or short article.
 * While articles focus on what the subject is notable for, we aim to write a complete biography. That is, while a subject is not generally known for where they grew up, where they went to school, or who they married, we include these facts as they are standard biographical details. Editors must decide if various events in a subject's life have enough impact on a subject's life (in various ways) to merit a mention in the article. For example, somebody being sued does not generally have a large impact while a notable writer being accused of plagiarism causing job suspension and having columns retracted would generally merit a mention. --Neil N  talk to me 13:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Restoring Buzzfeed Citations
I've restored the Buzzfeed Citations. I suspect they were removed in response to User:Maineartists saying "...the sources (such as Buzzfeed) are not that reliable" at the BLP noticeboard. However, as noted above, while Buzzfeed may be low-quality in general, this specific article appears balanced and also links to the filing, which would be useful to people interested in further reading. I would argue that specific should be preferred over general, and thus the citations should remain in this instance. Finally, citation removal is contrary to WP:NOCITE. inkstalk 03:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Inkypaws. I would have restored the citation if you had not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of citations which fail WP:RS is not contrary to policy. In fact, using sources which fail WP:RS is contrary to policy. Collect (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Failing WP:RS was not the reason that was given when you removed the citation. The reasons given were "talk page discussion dod [sic] not end up supporting use of biuzzfeed [sic]", and "use of buzzfeed to link to a primary source when buzzfeed is not accepted is also "not a great idea"". The first reason is not accurate as the talk page discussion above supports the use of this particular buzzfeed article, while remaining critical of buzzfeed in general. The second reason (and the issue of WP:RS) is dealt with by the same reasoning - while Buzzfeed may be low-quality in general, this specific article appears balanced and is useful for further reading. inkstalk 20:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Congrats on stressing typos. "Not accepted" meant "not accepted as a reliable source" and I most certainly did then and now consider BuzzFeed a poor source for claims about living persons. Did you read the discussions?   If so, you should have noted my position on BuzzFeed not meeting WP:RS in this case. Collect (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Searle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010221025515/http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.html to http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010221025515/http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.html to http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.searle2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the concept "Mental fact" useless?
Mental fact should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luizpuodzius (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Section order
I'm surprised to see the sex allegations coming before his philosophical contributions. The lead has the allegations in its final sentence and I think the body of the article should reflect that. Spicemix (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good point: his philosophy is what he is most notable for.  Moved it. Wikiain (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't a good point. The reason why the sexual harassment allegations were mentioned before Searle's philosophical contributions is because they were a subsection of the section on Searle's biography. Logically, they belong within that section, not as a separate section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They might well fit in that section, but most definitely they do not belong at the top of the article above his very important philosophical contributions, as the lead implicitly makes clear. It is not a proportionate placing and in my opinion violates WP:BLP. Spicemix (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a BLP violation. What matters for the purposes of WP:BLP is whether any material is properly cited to reliable sources and presented neutrally. The current order of sections within the article clearly is not a violation of the policy. Instead of illogically separating the sexual harassment allegations from the biography section so that they can be placed after the section on philosophy, it would make better sense to keep them within the biography section but move the entire biography section behind the philosophy section. I would still be opposed to that, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be rather unusual for the article not to begin with a biographical section. What about moving both the politics section and the sexual harassment section to after all the philosophy, then have those matters mentioned briefly in the Biography section with "see further below" links? Wikiain (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The material on politics and that on sexual harassment both logically belong in a biographical section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made my suggestion. No more from me on this.  Wikiain (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How aboout moving the biographical section to after the philosophy? It is also not uncommon to have a "personal life" or "controversy" section after the background and main career contributions section in biographies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with moving the biography section after philosophy. I also disagree (more strongly) with removing details such as Searle's political history, and the sexual harassment allegations, from the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with removing this material from the lead. The lead should summarize all of the article; if something is significant enough to have a whole section devoted to it (as the sexual harassment allegations are) then it should be mentioned in the lead rather than buried dozens of paragraphs down where nobody will notice it. I have no strong opinion on section ordering. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking again at the changes, I have to question whether it is accurate to place a section on "Politics" within a larger section on someone's "Personal life". Politics presumably involves more than only someone's personal life, considering that it is concerned with how someone interacts with the larger public? Beyond that, it is hardly logical to have one section called "early life" and another called "personal life" - how is someone's early life not part of their personal life? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the article, but it did not. I support rewriting the lead to summarize the article, and include minor mention of the politics and sexual harassment allegations. It is very normal in biography articles to have a final section about aspects of their personal life that are not what they are primarily notable for but which have nonetheless garnered media attention. When writing a biography article one can either be chronological (in which case the sexual harrasment allegations come last and his contributions to philosophy will be the middle) or you can advance by topics (e.g. segregating professional and personal lives) in which case what should be first is what the person is most notable for (philosophy). Alternatively, as we do in many article we have a short section on early life/background and then the career and then finally minor personal issues. IN any case, the sexual harrassment case and his political activism should not go before his contributions to philosophy which is his claim to notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The version of the lead that you wrote has no such "minor mentions" of politics and harassment. It doesn't mention them at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't write a lead, I removed some material from the lead because it was ridiculouslyimbalanced with one line about his actual careeer for which he is notable and two paragraphs about his politics in college and his recent sexual harrasment scandal. It should of course be rewritten to have three or four paragraphs of which three need to deal with his philosophy and his politics and sexual harrasment accusations are given at most a couple of lines.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong whatever with placing the material about Searle's politics, and the sexual harassment case, before the material on Searle's contributions to philosophy. The misguided belief that there is appears to have motivated the current contorted organization of the article, with purely biographical material divided between different sections. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing contorted whatsoever about having a separate section about personal life following the section about career and early life - we have literally thousands of biographies that do just that. What is wrong is to have a long section about recent controversies that come before the description of the career that the biographical subject is in fact notable for. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Purely biographical material logically belongs together, as it is different in nature from a discussion of someone's philosophical work. What other articles (you don't mention any) do is irrelevant to the desirability of the current arrangement. The issue is not whether material specifically about the recent controversies should go before the material about Searle's philosophical contributions, but whether biographical material in general should do so. I see no reason why it shouldn't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Searle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108051728/http://tobias-lib.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2006/2273/pdf/Dissertation_Doerge.pdf to http://tobias-lib.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/volltexte/2006/2273/pdf/Dissertation_Doerge.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

> Derrida, in his response to Searle ("a b c ..." in Limited Inc), ridiculed > Searle's positions. Arguing that a clear sender of Searle's message could > not be established, he suggested that Searle had formed with Austin a > société à responsabilité limitée (a "limited liability company") due to the > ways in which the ambiguities of authorship within Searle's reply > circumvented the very speech act of his reply. > ... > [28][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Eight references and no one ever noticed that French société à responsabilité limitée has SARL for an acronym - more or less pronounced as 'Searle'... ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:3F99:BC00:B470:7436:202F:3F16 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)