Talk:Julian Baggini/Archive 1

Page Blanking
SlimVirgin, rather than blanking the page, and then reverting to your own version from some time back, if you have a legitimate concern, could you say what it is, please?

Users who start pages have no special rights over their content. I wonder if you know Baggini - best say so now if you do, and cease to edit it.

The new material posted is NOT the same as that before and is in conformity with the discussions surrounding WIkigiraffes edits, some of which violated BLP and some of which did not, as noted.

Hicklehup, who says he is Baggni, himslef asked that his 'substantial' views be discussed. The criteria for Just War and the nature of racism are two such issues. The page is accurate in summarising his contribution to these debates.

It is properly sourced to articles and books by Baggini himself and is not controversial as a description as it merely notes some of Baggini's recent contributions to certain issues. If there are other views worth noting, by all means add these in.There is, on the face of it, no reason to delete them.

This sort of negative editing of pages is vandalism, but it is evident that some people have double standards on that!

86.220.80.113 (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking
Hickleup, rather than blanking the page, if you have a legitimate concern, could you say what it is, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If the problem was the unsourced material added on June 15, we're not allowed to post unsourced negative material about living persons, so I've removed it. Do you have any other concerns? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not contributing more clearly but I don't know how this works. This is Julian here and I have not sought to cover my tracks here - my username is indeed hickleup. I blanked the whole page because it was obviously malicious in intent. I'm sorry, but the idea that it is impartial is absurd. There was a lot about Martin Cohen and a "very public spat" it wasn't public at all: that is to say, I only ever corresponded privately with Martin, but he chose - against my wishes - to edit my emails to him and publish them in the newsletter of the Philosophical Society of England, which he edits. Also, why a lengthy quote from the worst review of one of my books and none from the favourable ones (of which there were more)? No balance there. I don't wish to go on: it's so obvious that the entry was a hatchet job and not anything like a genuine attempt to be fair that I waste time pointing out the fact. Hickleup (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you put it back in? It sounds interesting, and I wouldn't have heard about it except for this talk page. It's this, isn't it? Based on that it hardly seems notable, although you could add a sentence to the effect that "''The format of his 2005 book "The Pig that Wants to be Eaten" led to accusations of plagiarism from philosopher Martin Cohen, who argued that it resembled Cohen's earlier "101 Philosophy Problems".(source, same link as before)" This is a perfectly reasonable sentence, although based on this talk page I suspect it would be immediately yanked by Baggini or one of his cronies. In fact, let's do an experiment and put it in the article, see what happens. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

University?
Which university did Baggini go to for undergraduate? I think we ought to add this into the article. 213.254.171.194 06:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I've reverted and semi-protected the page because an anon added material that seemed to violate BLP, something that has happened before with this article, and it sounds as though it might be the same person. SlimVirgin talk| edits 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Who should judge this?
My complaint and concern, and I hope Wikipedia will take this up because although the page is scarcely important! the ability of an 'adminstrator' to break all the rules with impunity surely is that Slim is violating these 3 principles with the latest Baggini edits -

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda ... is prohibited.

I have only ever edited my entry to remove malicious material. I did not create it, and nor did anyone else on my instruction. It was a stub, and not promotional. Hickleup (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

The entry that was removed was about as far from neutral as could be imagined. Hickleup (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion involving the wider community, if necessary and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. As far as this particular case goes, Julian Baginni is being re-edited by Hicklehup in viloation of Wiki policies - what's more, it is happening repeatedly. see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hickleup

Administrators should prevent 'page blanking' like this. Instead, Slim is endorsing it. But then, Slim started the Baginni page originally.

04:13, 1 August 2005 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (created stub

Slim is scarcely acting as an impartial observer. I wrote an email to slim, and got back a characteristically aggressive reply quoting various letters and numbers that seem to mean something to them.

As I put in the email, User:SlimVirgin has a long list of complaints against them on one of Wikipedias talk pages (eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#SlimVirgin ?)

but Slim at least can surely find it easily enough), together with various administrators giving their ruling AGAINST them. Slim is found to have rgularly made bad faith edits and vandlaised pages etc etc. That's not my opinion, as I say, that is the view of many users backed up by the Wikipedia 'investigation'.

I complained that yet here again is User:SlimVirgin still up to their tricks - making a clearly 'bad faith' page blanking edit on the 'Julian Baggini' page - and then cheekily using their administrator priviliges to prevent the community having a say over their actions! 18:28, 1 June 2008 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Julian Baggini: 18:25, 1 June 2008 Wikigiraffes (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The version before most of the content was removed was unacceptable in tone, poorly-referenced and the text filled with attacks. SlimVirgin acted perfectly correctly in removing this material. I endorse SlimVirgin's actions here and as an uninvolved admin have semi-protected the page myself for one month. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, thank you Wikigiraffes, for posting this "evidence" of her hard work on the arbitration page. In case some of us forget the hard work she does in maintaining bios free from unsourced gossip and libel :) Merzul (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with SlimVirgin, Tim, and Merzul. Further I question whether someone fighting to have material like "Perhaps typical of his style which combines smugness with dullness" on a BLP should be here at wikipedia at all. Lastly I recommend the posting of this "evidence" of her hard work on the arbitration page be called to the attention of an arb clerk for evaluation and proper handling. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, as always, a little bit of the material was reliably sourced and not directly libel. I looked at the discussion with Cohen, for example, and since Baggini has himself engaged in that discussion it might be worth mentioning at some point. The problem is that when this bio doesn't even discuss Baggini's philosophical views, these minor incidents should wait, and such material must be presented in an appropriate fashion. This is all assuming what was deleted merits mentioning at all. In any case, the blanking was really really warranted. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for looking at this - but actually, you ain't taking much notice of my point. Maybe - I should not have made the page read so critically - but that is an argument to be had. By 'protecting the page' Tim and co just show they are anally retentive (this is not rude Tim - this is psychology!) Sure, some of the stuff may be too much, but then some of it is perfectly legitimate. I repeat, if a writer want to put themselves on Wikipedia, why can't others can quote extracts from their work and reviews of their work? Do you nderstand the difference between advertising a writer and describing a writer? Maybe you can ask such discussion to be 'neutral', that's okay - but it can't be all one sided, as it is at present. Wikipedia is full of pages by dodgy writes giving their CVs and puffing their books. I am amazed that you make this accusation so confidently. I repeat, I, Julian Baggini, did not write my entry, and nor did I ask anyone else to do it. I don't know who wrote it. Hickleup (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That undermines the project. This for sure is a minor page, but what about the other Living person pages - are they to be closed to criticism?

As a new user, I should be given the opportunity to 'negotiate' the content, not have some anti-democratic administrator impose their view. Slim started the page, they are scarcely neutral. Tim has endoresed their view, which is fine, but he shoudl nto have gone furter to prevent the editing of the page.

I am a writer myself, and I shall be interested to see how this develops... it might be a good case study I think of how Wikipedia succeeds or fails? Is it a story of how the imaginative ideals of collective editing are protected by dedicated volunteers (as several people here might like to see themselves) or is it how the ideas are easily perverted by the cynics and the egotists!

Wikigiraffes (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to present specific sources and suggest material for inclusion here on this talk page. Given the indiscriminate collection of gossip this page was before the blanking, I don't think it is wise to open the article for editing just yet. You say you are new here, have you read the what we consider fundamental principles in writing biographies of living people? It is important that you indicate you have understood it. In particular, biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.


 * This means that the entry must look like a true biography at all time. Even if you have criticism that has been published in a reliable source, you will find most of us object to including that, unless it is presented within the proper context. Do you understand the concerns? We want this to be an encyclopaedic biography. Merzul (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

mischief
Now here's a curious thing. A few days ago when I looked at the history of the Baginni page history, it was quite clear that my edits were removed by one 'Hicklup' who had also made a wholesale deletion of comments by docmartincohen a few edits back. Curious about this user, I looked at his user page, and it contained only edits to the Baginni page. But now all these episodes have gone! The hickleup version of Baginni just does not exist! Hickleup the user and his history has gone!

It looks to me like someone is falsifying the 'histories' on Wikipedia. I think we won't need to look very far to see who it is. Surely you can see that this is wrong.

I'm disappointed that several of you failed to understand that my complaint was not about the edits to the article, but about their wholesale nature plus the 'blocking' of the page, that pre-empted further negotiation. That said, I write again as I got the impression that whether you agreed with me or not, you were trying to be honest.

As to policy, recall this section allows negative comment as long as it is correctly sourced:

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

Wikigiraffes (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like the article was oversighted by User:Pilotguy, if I'm reading the edit-history correctly. That's done if material that could be harmful to a person is added, to keep it from existing even in the history. I can't see the deleted edits, so I don't know exactly what was in them that was that inappropriate, but in general, it's very important that material in articles be 100% neutral and, if it reflects badly on the subject, cited to unimpeachable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pilotguy admin-deleted one of Wikigiraffe's recent edits, which had been reverted by Hickleup but was inadvertently restored by another editor. That is the only edit of Hickleup's that was deleted.


 * Wikigiraffe, it's clear that you're involved in a real-life disagreement here with Baggini, which you're trying to import into this page. Your edits are being resisted because they're not in line with our policies, particularly WP:BLP. There is no conspiracy, nothing untoward going on; we would be doing the same for you if someone who had a personal issue with you was trying to alter your Wikipedia bio in a way that violated our policies.


 * I respectfully suggest that you consider not editing this article. You're very welcome to post suggestions on the talk page, along with reliable sources, bearing in mind that talk pages are also subject to the BLP policy. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 22:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake; thanks for clarifying, SlimVirgin.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

moving forward?
Slim makes some comments that I take to be intended as 'moving on' from this, I agree, time-consuming and unproductive dipsute.

I'm quite happy to accept that I went too far in my enthusiasm for editing Bagginni (who incidentally, I do not know, have never met or spoken to, and do not think is very interesting):

1. The source for the 'plagiarism' dispute 'The Philosopher' is not reliable enough, it may not accurately reflect Bagginni's words as the site is edited by someone involved in the dipute. So I think it si right to drop that.

2. The Blog quoted on Baggini is amusing but again, not a proper source, esp. for this critique of a 'living person'.

3. However, I still consider that the quotes from Baginni's writings are legitimate, they accurately convey his style and his views, even if should not have been presented with such dismissive language.

"Selective quoting to make me sound banal, I'm afraid. Hickleup (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)"

4. The indication that he is a contorversial figue who suported very publicly the Iraq war, and defends the activities of the Far Right British National Party, as indicated in the quotation added to the page, are in line with Wiki policy (quoted above) and I still thinkshould have been allowed - perhaps subject to minor edits.

"The BNP claim is demonstrably false, as any impartial reading of the Independent argument would show. It is also libellous and should be removed. Do you think the Indy would print an article that supported the BNP? The Iraq war is far more complex than the claim that I very publicly supported it. It is true to say that I failed to oppose it, was ambivalent about it, and was critical of many opposed to it, but also of many who supported it.Hickleup" (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

matters arising (as they say)
1. All users are equal in the editing process (and all follow the Wiki procedures)

In the process of this debate, however, users are clearly unequal and if I inadvertently did not follow Wiki procedures, teh 'admin' have cynically abused them.

Firstly, as I say, I should be allowed to edit the pages not 'blocked' at first go by some user who has infiltrated themselves into a postion that allows them some slight editing privilges. This is the important matter, and the one I complained about to various editors, such as Tim Vickers (who had, inretrospect, hypocitically) invited me to raise issues with him on my 'talk' page), albeit the point seemed to be hard for them to distinguish from the minor 'content' issues. This attempt to create two classes of editors is illegitimate and undermines the key foundation fo the Wiki project.

2. It seems that strange things are being done to the 'talk' pages and the 'history' pages. User Hickleup has been deleted and revision history of Baginni himself ahs been falsified. This is not as suggested above - to remove rude comments, there weren't any, (the nearest we come is a suggestion that I'm not suitable to edit Wikipedia, and my own point (in reference to Tim's frenzied padlocking contribution) that placing large padlocks on pages was the behaviour of someone who was 'anally retentive' which is less rude and more psychologically explanatory of behaviour and reactions than it sounds perhaps to physicists.)

Wikigiraffes (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you calm down and argue sensibly, it is quite likely that they will open this article for your editing, but note that 3 different administrators have been involved in this incident. Your continued insistence that forces of evil are at play just makes you look like a disruptive editor. We can only move forward, if you take it easy.


 * So... you want to include some of Baggini's writing to show his style? That's not against policy, but I personally consider it inappropriate for a biography. Information about his controversial views, subject to a more neutral presentation, is definitely workable.

What controversial views! You need more than selective quotations with misleading introductions to show I even have any! Hickleup (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you ready to move on from the previous incident and discuss article content? Merzul (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, now Merzul, how about we take my points under 'moving forward' as a start? Dorftrottels notes that I indicated I did not consider Baginni's views 'important' (which is correct) but nonthing on Wikipedia is important in many ways. If it wasn't said yesterday, it didn't matter, and if isn't said tomorrow it won't matter much either. But as a project, Wikipedia should indeed take all its pages 'seriously', and so, yes, my first draft went too far, but there are 'critical' points are worth including in any page on Baggini alongside what I suppose must be his own and his friend's and fan's glowing ones! Wikigiraffes (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You suppose falsely, which given you've gone public, means you accuse falsely.Hickleup (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the next few days, I will try to add some material about his views from slightly more sympathetic sources, and then we can incorporate critical reaction. This weekend I'm travelling, so could you wait a couple of days? Alternatively, do you know any material we could use to describe his views before we set out with negative commentary? Thanks, Merzul (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know my views, you could always ask me. In any case, if views are to be posted, they should be on things I've written more at leangth, not taken from occasional newspaper columns, so you could find some expressed in books like Atheism, What's it All About, Welcome to Everytown and Complaint. Hickleup (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly no rush! How about saying this sort of thing (using bits from version 1 but more 'reasonably'):


 * [removed a text that has already been rejected; BLP applies to talk pages too]. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hicklhup/Baggini says he should not be judged by thins he has written in newpaper 'columns' (they are in fact lengthy articles' but only in his 'serious' book. This in nonsense. As far as the public goes, very few people read the latter, and far mroe read the former. His 'contribution' to the public domain is made in the first and should be judged there too.

Slim as usual shows little respect for any principles of Wikipedia. Dishonest and sinister are his hallmark. The material below is NOT contrary to BLP - I indicate why:

I put it in seperately in case Slim can't bear to let other people join the debate.

Wikigiraffes (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [material removed per BLP] SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask all serious Wikipedia editors to consider the implication fo allowing Slim and co to trample the rights of editors in this way, and to record their views so that we can have a thorough and 'open-minded' debate. I ask Hicklehup and Slim to stop blanking the pages, or hiding behind false use of Wiki acronyms, and produce arguments for their side.

Wikigiraffes (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WG, if you post that material again, you risk being blocked under BLP, which applies to talk pages as well as articles. It's clear that you're in a real-life dispute of some kind, and it's also clear who you are. It is never a good idea to write about a living person you have a beef with. Also, apart from that, the tone of the writing is not appropriate for a BLP. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

confusing advice
Slim et al, I was encouragd to suggest new text for the page on this page. If admin cannot agree on policies, what hope is there fro the rest of us? I posted substantially modifed text, which in good faith I considered to comply with policy. It is difficult to beleive it did not, as it consisted of quotes from Baginni which in other contexts he would no doubt have been delighted to see publicised!

It is an absurdity that an extract from someon'es books can be blanked by Slim like this - form a talk page even - and coupled with threats to bar a user. The quotes may not give the image of the writer that the writer likes, but since when have writers chosen whcih quotes can be used or not from their works? In passing, may I ask a few questions.

1. I do not have any real life dispute with JVB. I've never met him and I don't even live in the same country. I don't like his writing, I think he is a windbag, but that is all. Why does Slim think I have?

2. Who is Slim? Why did he start JBs page anyway? If he had not done so, I would not be inventing one. Does he have any connection to Baggini - have they ever met? Which other users are his sockpuppets? Can we have a list please?

3. Hicklehup says material from his columns should not be used. Why not? But in any case, these are not columns but pieces running over several pages in national newspapers. They are substantial works and not any comments are not mere 'slips' or malapropos as a columnist.Why can't we quote views expressed thus on the page?

4. Hicklehup makes several barely veiled threats: viz: "You suppose falsely, which given you've gone public, means you accuse falsely". This is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy - why is this not acted on?

5. Hicklehup and others object to my quoting of his piece on the far-right BNP. This, as I argued earlier,(But Slim deleted it I think) is clearly material in the BLP exception - controversial but on a matter of public interest and propely sourced. User:CIreland calls my quoting of it 'original research' and says it contravenes policy. This is a strange analysis of BLP - if users cannot identify interesting elements on LPs using proper sources, and then put them into a coherent whole, allowing others to contribute so that a 'balanced' picture results - then Wikipedia is going to be very short indeed.

6. Here's a new quote from Baginni - is this one acceptable for example - or is it 'unbalanced? Does it show JB enouraging racists, or deconstructing simplistic assumptions? I ask this to indicate how strange the claims made by some admin are becoming. My own proposal is to quote such material and let readers judge for themselves.


 * quote starts *

Paki." I can't honestly remember the last time I had heard that word outside of a news expose of the far right or a "hard-hitting" drama about racism. That was until my first proper conversation in Rotherham, when it was dropped into a sentence as though it were just another adjective, like "tall" or "Italian". Clearly I did not know Britain very well at all, because I hadn't stumbled across the town racist, I had simply discovered how many people normally speak.

Reading the reaction to Jade Goody's rather milder language on Celebrity Big Brother, it seems that many people are as ignorant as I was, or choose to ignore the uncomfortable truth. The mainstream British mind is not so much misunderstood as not seriously considered. To rectify this, 18 months ago I set out to examine the national "folk philosophy" - the set of beliefs and assumptions that informs how we live and how we think. To help me do this, I found the area with the closest match of household type - young and old, rich and poor, single and married - to the country as a whole. And so I ended up living for six months in S66, on the outskirts of Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

It was during my first conversation in the local pub that a former steelworker, Reg, mentioned the "Paki shop". The effect was magnified by the fact that he said it so casually. It was not part of some racist diatribe, but was simply a matter-of-fact description of the ethnic origins of the shop's proprietor. As Goody has just demonstrated, taboos are broken most powerfully by those who have no sense there is any taboo to break.

Over the coming weeks, it became clear that Reg was no anomaly. I was immersing myself in everyday life, spending time in pubs, cafes, working men's clubs, shopping centres, public baths, sports stadia and betting shops. Almost everyone used the word "Paki" when referring to British Asians, yet of everyone I got to know, only Neil - happy to be described as somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun - would merit the charge of being truly racist. Nor was use of the word confined to the older, male drinkers I mixed with. I heard customers come out with the word while chatting in Rotherham's cultural oasis, Philip Howard Books. On the 25-mile charity Round Walk, the 16-year-old daughter of a successful small businessman shared with us a joke video-clip she had downloaded on to her phone. It showed George Bush, in a broad Yorkshire accent, saying: "I hate Pakis." "Not very politically correct!" laughed her dad approvingly.

Although people's use of the word made me feel uncomfortable, there was a kind of innocence in their use of it that made me react less strongly than I would have imagined. There was no edge to what they were saying. It didn't take long before I became able to hear it without assuming the speaker was racist."


 * quote ends *

(this is from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/23/race.bigbrother )

Wikigiraffes (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All it shows is that the author has grown up in an insular bubble, and does not interact with people outside a tiny sub-section of middle class British academic society. I get the impression that he sees "ordinary people" in the same way that you or I perceive meerkats. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This still goes against the spirit of BLP
I'm sorry but no matter how well-sourced having a section entitled "positions" and then the first sentence saying... "Baggini has argued that cartoons are the best form in which to do philosophy, and that the true heir to Plato is Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons."

This is against the spirit of how biographies should be written. Although perhaps in this case the ridiculous picking of such an insignificant aspect of his writing reflects more badly on us than it does on him... I'm sorry, the efforts on this page don't seem to be coming from someone interested in writing a biography. Merzul (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, your comment goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. All pages are open to editing. You have created a new set of rules that limits editing. Will we have rules, say, for pages concerning 'history' or 'science' or.... too? What an arrogant attitude. Or maybe it is just the activity of someone with a special agenda.

Docmartincohen (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, I know very little about Dr. Julian Baggini, I know very little about Dr. Martin Cohen, I know very little about the dispute they have with each other... What I do know is that this material is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. And I apply the same standards to all articles, the only special provision for biographies of living people is to avoid doing harm, i.e., we can't wait for proper context being added eventually. This entry must look like a balanced biography at all time; and your edits are not helping. Merzul (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merzul, I don't honestly see the problem with the material. I think it is 'unwise' of contemporary philosophers, let alone those who are more accurately described as journalists, to have pages on themselves, if they don't wish to have their publishd views described on them. An entry on a writer shoudl include description of their distinctive views. Most of the contributions to that debate have been refused on the grounds that they presented an unkind picture of Baggini. Hicklehup even suggested we ask him to provide his own account instead! But this view, to make things more absurd, is one that I would classify as 'interesting' not 'controversial', and it represents an 'original contribution' to the debaze about the nature of philosophy. It's inclusion on the page tells us something about Baggini's style, his philosophical interests and his assessment of one particular matter. In that sense, it is much more appropriate to the page than the list of 'personal information', links to future projects etc etc which I would classify as advertising and fly contrary to established principles of internet encylopedias.

In sum, the role of encylopedia is to present the distinctive contribution of the individual to their subject area. This is a start to doing that. Nothing else on the page has any reference value or role.

I expect someone to come along and delete the quote, and I will 'try' not to get interested in the page again - but I can't speak for any of my friends! 86.220.43.126 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Baggini has published several full-length works in popular philosophy; to give half of his biography over to one borderline trivial comment about cartoons is to accord the latter a ridiculous amount of undue weight. I've moved the quote to the Notes section for now rather than simply removing the entire section en masse, but unless the article is soon expanded to cover Baggini's substantive contributions to the field, it really ought to be excised entirely. Sincerely, Skomorokh  12:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My revert
I've reverted the addition of the plagiarism claim because the first source is a self-published one written by the person who originally made the claim; and the second source (The Guardian) simply says of the book that it's written in the same format as Cohen's, which is not even close to saying it was plagiarized. For an editor to add that, despite the similar format, "no action was taken" is OR. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)