Talk:Sidney Morgenbesser

Untitled
From the article:

In 1975, he was named the John Dewey Professor Emeritus of Philosophy.

Why would a 54 year-old be named Professor Emeritus?  21:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It's incorrect. The title was copied wholesale from the beginning of the Columbia article. Fixed. --Ian 22:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * lists him as Emeritus John Dewey Professor of Philosophy


 * Yes, but that's at the time of his death, having retired from teaching at some point but still holding the Dewey department chair.--Ian 03:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I see. anthony (see warning) 05:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad to see this is back after the whole VFD "vanity" fiasco. anthony (see warning) 01:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content
It was not deleted for vanity, Anthony. It was deleted for copyvio. And, when it comes to that, it still has/had copyvio. We don't get to quote paragraphs from published sources to illustrate our articles. I know you dislike deletion of anything, but the deletion logs show why this article was deleted, and it wasn't due to vanity. Geogre 15:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I never said it was deleted due to vanity. I'm the one who listed it on the possible copyright infringements page, so I would know why it was deleted.  It was deleted for copyvio (inappropriately since the copyvio was a small part of the article added later, the purpose of my listing was to remove the copyvio not everything) while the VFD vote was still running.  It was listed on VFD for being vanity and I believe it had a majority of votes for deletion at the time it was deleted (see the votes below).  As for it now being copyvio, quoting paragraphs generally falls under fair use. anthony (see warning) 16:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete Votes
Note that the full discussion appears to have been lost. It was moved to this talk page, which was deleted at some point. http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/Talk:Sidney_Morgenbesser.html has a copy which may or may not be complete.


 * Listed by User:RadicalBender 23 Jan 2004, reason "Looks to be a personal page? A few returns on Google, but the article itself is of no value."
 * Delete. Looks like avanity page. Bmills
 * delete. vanity page bursting with its own importance  LadyPuffball
 * Delete for above reasons. Anjouli
 * Delete. - UtherSRG
 * Delete, vanity --Jia
 * Delete - vanity - (Are Jack and Anthony voting to keep any and all especially vanity pages?) - Texture
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not for vanity pages - Unknown user

Reverted re-insertion of circular reference
152.163.252.167, you restored the circular reference that I had deleted. Before you do that again, please go to the Wikinfo page in question and scroll down to where it says "References: Adapted from the Wikipedia article, "Sidney_Morgenbesser" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Morgenbesser, used under the GNU Free Documentation License". See? Our article is the reference for theirs. Therefore, theirs can't be the reference for ours. I'm reverting to my version. Bishonen 14:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually it's perfectly possible that they both reference each other. The wikinfo version was copied from an old Wikipedia version which has since been deleted. anthony (see warning) 00:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

01:25, 7 Sep 2004 Bishonen (Reverting to last version by Bishonen, please see Talk page again.)

I don't see anything here. anthony (see warning) 01:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, wow, no, I forgot to save what I'd typed here. :-( Thanks, Anthony. This is a short version: I said I couldn't understand what you said about their both referencing each other, which isn't possible. I don't know any more ways to explain it, but I do know it's a bad reference, and I wish you'd take my word for it. Also I don't understand your edit subject line, "I used the Wikinfo article in my edits to this one", because the only edit I see is your reinsertion of the circular reference. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that all? Isn't it just the same as if you'd reverted to last version  by 152.163.252.167? Bishonen 01:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that these articles are static. They aren't. Technically each of these articles references an old version of the other one, but this is assumed within the category of references. As for the only edit you see, you seem to be using the history function incorrectly. I have made 7 edits to this article. Have you looked at them all? anthony (see warning) 11:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I can see that you have edited this article seven separate times. The edit title for the seventh and last time was "I used the Wikinfo article in my edits to this one", and I assumed that meant "I used the Wikinfo article in my edits this time". I understand now that you meant you used the Wikipedia mirror article all the time (right? or wrong again?), for all your editing, but I still don't think the edit title made that very clear. I wonder, btw, if that means you were using a mirror of the originally deleted Wikipedia article from January? I mean, you do realize that Wikinfo doesn't add any independent information, I hope. So you had to be either using the deleted article, or the very article you were working on, as a "source". Considering that, do you now see that it's not a good reference ? Bishonen 13:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By "this one" I meant "this article". Wikinfo is not a Wikipedia mirror. They do add independent information. In fact, I have an account at Wikinfo where I've added independent information. It is a perfectly good reference. I'm going to re-add it. anthony (see warning) 14:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Say, that's an interesting system you've got there, Anthony: when you do revert, you keep really quiet about it, and then when you say you'll revert, it doesn't happen. Anyway, I think you definitely should re-add the reference, if it means that much to you. I was only doing the reverting and explaining because I thought it might be helpful (referencing is kind of my field), but I just reached my minimum waste of time limit. Be my guest, go right ahead, I won't revert you. Bishonen 19:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't revert any article more than once in a day, that's why I hadn't reverted yet. As for my "system", I don't always use the talk page on the first revert, because I assume I am just reverting an honest mistake. Looking at the times, I did use the talk page right after making my revert this time. So I'm not even sure what you're referring to. anthony (see warning) 19:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You're not. OK, then, your use of the Talk page right after that revert is an example of the system: you spoke, but made no mention that you were making a revert. The example that I had in mind in particular, of course, is when you spoke on VfD/Reverse sexism at 03:25 6 Sept, giving no hint that you were planning to revert the article, and then did revert it very drastically at 03:26. I wish Wikipedia even worked that fast from here. Bishonen 21:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When I spoke on VfD/Reverse sexism I specifically said that your addition was POV and original research. How does that give you a hint that I'm going to revert it? Wikipedia doesn't allow POV or original research. anthony (see warning) 19:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

19:05, 10 Sep 2004 Snowspinner blocked "Anthony DiPierro" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Provocative edit in violation of standing order from arbcom - citing of material on Sidney Morgenbesser that is from a Wikipedia fork that does not reflect material's deletion via VfD.)


 * What is wrong with citing material from a Wikipedia fork? anthony (see warning) 19:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah ...
I do believe it is well-documented (to the extent that the MSM can be called documentation) that Morgenbesser said "Yeah, yeah." In a Usenet thread in 1994, I responded to a similar statement with "Yeah, right," without having known about Morgenbesser. Ever since, I've read variants of both stories, mixing the actors and responses (my favorite one has me as a student in Morgenbesser's class). Jym 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research banner
I added the original research banner on the top of the page. I have a strong suspicion that a lot of the quotations on this page are from student's own experiences. These really need to have citations, otherwise the unverifiable ones must be removed. JEN9841 (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete the article
Unfortunatley, the stated sources does not work, (for the uninitiated; try clicking the first two links; one is dead and the other redirects to the Times main page; e.g., most all of what is written is unverified), and some of the "stories" (i.e. the one about Kant) is a known old joke and "philosopher folk-tale" of dubious truth at the very best. Besides, since when did Wikipedia turn into a repository of "funny stories"? The entire article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.85.45 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)