Talk:Philosophical Gourmet Report

Possible Retaliation Edits
User Epeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Retaliation_by_Epeefleche_and_Stesmo by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663725919&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663826565&oldid=663635214 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663712714&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABA_Journal&type=revision&diff=663728099&oldid=643625305 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis&type=revision&diff=663728236&oldid=652907416 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663725721&oldid=663714656 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Chicago&type=revision&diff=663727449&oldid=662822725 This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_repeated_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sour_grapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

List
There are far too many lists in this article! It's like a list of lists!

Philosophers are good at expressing large sets of data in list form, I guess.Llamabr 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this article
This is quite an impressive article for a topic non-philosophers might call "obscure"! However, I'd like to see it get a major rewrite to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the Wikipedia Manual of Style. My main concerns about the article are listed below.
 * The article contains extensive "pro and con" lists, which are unacceptable for a variety of reasons, including some listed below. The information in these lists, if it is neutral and verifiable, needs to be incorporated into the main body of the article in descriptive, encyclopedic prose.
 * In particular, the article seems to be devolving into open debate in the Suggested improvements and/or alternatives section. For example, one point in this section currently reads: "A more proportionally representative sample of the board in terms of geography and area of specialisation. (Response: but the board is already representative: what would be the relevant proportions?)" This discussion needs to be removed from the article and taken to a forum or blog.
 * The article lacks inline citations. Adding these is necessary so that readers and editors can more easily determine whether the information comes from reliable sources. A guide to adding inline citations can be found here.
 * Wikipedia is not an advice column. The "suggested advice" section is inappropriate both for that reason and also because:
 * It is an unreferenced synthesis of already unreferenced material.
 * As such, it probably qualifies as original research. "No original research" is one of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia.
 * It addresses the reader as "you", making substantial assumptions about his/her background, education, and career aspirations. Prospective philosophy graduate students are certainly not the only audience for this article.
 * It makes normative statements about how the report should be used. Encyclopedia articles are not in the business of telling people what they should do.

Since a rewrite of these proportions would involve massive changes to the article, I thought the best thing was just to add some templates highlighting what's going on in the article and post my concerns on the talk page. The editors who are already familiar with this article will probably have a much better idea than I of what can be done to improve it. I hope this has been helpful. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 07:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Brian Leiter
Redundant of what is there; and not much here at all in the first place, in terms of notability, anyway. Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support merger with the Brian Leiter article.24.63.65.72 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger would be a mistake. Leiter is stepping down as chair of PGR. PGR is useful and interesting ranking of institutions. Merging two thus seems like a bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.1.129 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The second IP, disagreeing with my merger nomination, makes a reasonable point for consideration. At the time I nominated this for merger, Leiter was listed in the article as the Editor. As it turns out -- that was incorrect. As a result of the voiced dissatisfaction with him, he is no longer the editor (instead, he is now a "co-editor"), and though I am unclear on the timetable apparently he has agreed to also relinquish his new co-editor status (I'm unclear what the basis is for the IP indicating that he will step down as "Chair").--Epeefleche (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does this article exist at all?! Epeefleche is correct, about lack of notability. I don't believe it should be merged with Brian Leiter article given that Leiter is no longer editor of PGR.--FeralOink (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing merge proposal given consensus not to merge; I'm neutral on the deletion question.Klbrain (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

COI editing
As there has already in the past been concern about COI editing on this page, it is worth noting that a complete newbie editor seems to be editing in accord with the past suspected COI editor, and also even though completely new has somehow come to track this page and the page that is being asked to be merged into it. They were also created the same day as another editor with similarly focused edits. This bears watching. See that newbie editor's comments here, as well as his chest-beating as to the subject of this article being a respected person in his blog-like very long postings here. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

EL
I agree with the pruning of links, per our EL guideline, as reflected here. I caution the editor who restored them not to edit war, and not to edit against consensus. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeated deletions
An editor keeps on reverting my edits as here, deleting RS-supported text. While adding non-RS supported text, claiming a NYT opinion pieces is an RS article.

The editor's basis (in part) being that my RS-supported edits "appear to reflect COI" and "someone with COI". I have no COI here.

He may have a COI. He is "Philosophy Junkie", editing "Philosophy Gourmet Report". A publication by Brian Leiter, with whom he says he has been in email contact.

Some of my concerns of his potential COI are reflected here.

I would ask him, as I have many times on his talk page, to stop deleting RS-supported appropriate text. And to stop adding a non-RS opinion piece, at the same time, as "The New York Times" says. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These COI concerns should be reserved for user talk pages or the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. How do you (Epeefleche) feel about the current revision, which reads The PGR was extremely influential, even being described by David L. Kirp in a New York Times op-ed as "the bible of [philosophy] graduate students. ? Geogene (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, we should all agree not revert someone simply because of suspected COI or suspected retaliatory editing, I see that seems to happening in the edit history.. That's edit warring even if nobody breaks 3RR.Geogene (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can also all calm down a little. It seems to me that neither you (Epeefleche) nor Philosophy Junkie are COI editors.  You both have long edit histories and I don't see any of the other hallmarks of sock-puppetry.  I think we can actually get someplace if we work with consensus and avoid accusing each other of things (e.g., Philosophy Junkie seems to have agreed with your merger proposal over on the Leiter talk page).  Sneekypat (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A few things. Thanks for your input, Geo and Sneeky.

1. It is actually appropriate to mention COI concerns on article talk pages. Mention of them is not "reserved" for elsewhere. Though it would also be appropriate to mention them on a user page. And further, if appropriate, as mentioned above COIN is an option.

2. As to Geogene's query regarding the added sentence, the second part of it is fine.

The first part is not at all fine. It requires an RS. It is an assertion in WP's voice, without any support, let alone RS support. If RS supported, and it might well be supportable, then it would be fine. But as-is ... no. Thanks for asking.

3. I agree that one should not revert someone simply because of suspected COI or suspected retaliatory editing. I agree that that is what happened, as reflected in the edit history. I agree that is edit warring even if nobody breaks 3RR.

4. I'm not a COI editor in regard to Leiter and his reports.

I do have suspicions about the Philopshophical Junkie editing the Philisophical Gourmet, based partly on editing history referred to on his talkpage. Certainly, he has been in email contact with Leiter. With regard to WP articles. And certainly his first edits of substance were to Leiter. And certainly he first edit warred significantly over a WP article that Leiter subsequently took to task (a whole post about it!) in Leiter's blog. And certainly the Leiter article was the subject of COI editing in the past involving Leiter. And there is more. But, not a subject to be decided on here; just one worthy of flagging. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So, can we reach consensus on phrasing that sentence as: " The PGR has been described by David L. Kirp in a New York Times op-ed as "the bible of [philosophy] graduate students' " ? Sneekypat (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Closer. But it still had problems -- as short as the quote was, it mis-quoted what was written.  I've fixed it. And added a year, for context. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

5. I believe that the edits deleted here were appropriate, were reverted on the improper basis discussed in # 4 and by Geogene, and would ask that they now (given that Geo has weighed in, and given wp guidelines) be restored.

6. If we can restore what was improperly deleted, we can look at moving forward. No proper reason has been offered for the indicated deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I seem to be having some trouble identifying what the improperly deleted text was. It looks to me like the crux of the changes you made (if not the exact phrasing and sourcing) have stuck, but I might just be missing it.  Can you identify what you think needs to go back in, exactly?  I'm not being purposefully obtuse here, I promise.  It's just been a long day.  Sneekypat (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sneeky. Understandable. At this point, the easiest thing is to try to fix them. I've begun.
 * I deleted the above-discussed statement that is uncited, and being made in WP's voice; corrected a clear mis-quote of what was actually stated, added the year it was said, restored some edits, including correcting the mis-statement that he is the sole editor of the report (which the gourmet junkie kept on insisting on), and made an add. All to clean up what the other editor kept reverting. The very first step is here. More to come. The nature of the other corrections that have to be made, where material was improperly deleted etc., other than in the first para (which I've not addressed), are indicated in junkies' deletions/edits here.
 * I should point out as well that much of the first para is currently uncited (let alone cited to an RS), and it has been challenged (going back to April), and is subject to deletion per wp:v, unless proper RS sourcing is supplied. I think much of it can be sourced properly, but that remains to be done. Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will assume Epeefleche's misrepresentation of our exchange at my TALK page is inadvertent, since Sneekypat has vouched for him. But here is our exchange, copied and pasted, after Epeefleche impugned my motives because I suspected him of having a COI after the accusation from others of retaliation.


 * I started editing in 2006, I first edited Leiter about eight months later when I noticed what a mess it was, unlike other philosopher entries. The Leiter entry was subjected to unusual amounts of vandalism and non-NPOV editing, probably because of his blog. That is why I suspect it eventually got locked. I was one of several people who e-mailed Leiter about the Critchley entry apparently, though he waited a couple of years before writing anything about it. The Critchley entry is well-known among philosophers. Also, blogs are not RSs. --Philosophy_Junkie (talk)


 * Leiter has been a primary focus of your editing -- compared to other articles. The edits to his article were your first substantive ones. You are in email correspondence with him. You claim knowledge that he received emails from others. He didn't write about Critchley on his blog until you first edit-warred about Critchley (and you were the one who did that; it's not as though others did so). It seems that you have a COI vis-a-vis Leiter. Epeefleche (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I last edited Leiter in 2012, I have edited hundreds of entries about philosophers! Everyone is in e-mail correspondence with him, he has the most widely read blog in academic philosophy. You cited an article in which he said several readers had e-mailed him about Critchley, that's where I got that information!!! What is your agenda? -- Philosophy_Junkie


 * I think the entry on the Gourmet Report is now fair if incomplete. The Gourmet Report remains very influential in my field, even if "controversial" as the entry says accurately.  Last fall's melodrama is more complicated than Epifleeche seems to realize, and it involved many different constituencies mobilizing against the rankings.  Leiter has since retained a lawyer to sue the organizers of the boycott, claiming they lied about various things.  (All this detail is on his blog.)  I doubt much of this is worthy of Wikipedia, except that he has stepped down after the controversy.   By the way, Leiter has repeatedly claimed that of the 600 boycotters, only 50 or so were actually nominated as evaluators, so this was I guess mostly a campaign by 'outsiders' to the Gourmet Report.  And there are 20 or 30,000 English-speaking philosophers anyway.  FWIW.--Philosophy__Junkie (talk)Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential source
I'm aware of a more secondary source that might be helpful. It's a single-paragraph news writeup by Sue Robertson in Philosophy Now magazine (issue 105, Nov/Dec 2014 p. 5; ISSN 0961-5970). It says that the Philosophical Gourmet Report is "widely consulted", also says "invaluable reading...for philosophy graduate students and academics". Re-wording that in a single statement with an encyclopedic tone, this could say that the rankings do carry some weight with many in the field. I would suggest it as a replacement for the 'bible for philosophy students' quote (preferably while retaining the existing reference).

I'm not opinionated on the article, but since I happened to have that magazine around I thought I would draw everyone's attention to it in case that remains a sticking point. Geogene (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine IMHO for an attributed opinion but it should have the year it was made added to the wp text entry. It's not fine if -- as Junkie kept on doing -- it is used to support a statement in WP's voice to that effect. As I read it, both are in effect seeking to say the same thing, so I don't see a difference on that score. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)