Talk:Simon Critchley

Untitled
This page should have a less "promotional" tone. Some of the publication information should be thinned out. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the link to his debate with Slavoj Zisek? the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Critchley#The_Critchley.E2.80.93.C5.BDi.C5.BEek_debate doesn't work...

I'd go as far as saying Critchley wrote this. 26 January 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.244.161 (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't - not helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

why over 50 external links to reviews of the same book?
I think it ridiculous that there should be links to over 50 reviews of his book on dead philosophers - which is by far his lightest piece of writing. I will remove the vast majority of them and see what happens.--Punavuori (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is of a piece with the basic problem with this entry--it reads as a vanity page, covering everything in trivial detail, no matter how slight. It is also highly suspicious that those who keep reverting sensible edits largely edit only one entry, namely, this one.--Philosophy Junnkie

Update
I took some time to remove the excessive linkage, and to make the entry more concise. Does anyone know how to get the wanring banner removed from the top of the page, or if further edits are needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd.Kesselman (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing
Everything in the article should be backed by a Reliable source. Much of this article has been written by Todd.Kesselman who has not edited any other page in the last 5 years.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering also that a person named Todd Kesselman is a colleague of Critchley's,, any noncontroversial edits by this user most definitely need reliable sources to avoid a conflict of interest. While there are some links to reviews, which should be in the reference section, the article, after discounting references to works by critchley or Tom McCarthy, has essentially no references. it is thus highly promotional and in violation of WP:BLP. I would support massive trimming back to, as they say on dragnet, "just the facts, ma'am". (also a useful phrase when deconstructing deconstructionist philosophies)(whoops, there's my bias showing)(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Kind of amazing that an article on such a prominent philosopher can't get more attention. I only read the introduction and the section on The Stone series and felt like I was reading a promotional pamphlet. 131.191.98.224 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

COI?
First of all, I'm fine with this article being pared down, as appropriate, in accord with WP guidelines.

Second, though, now that we've got that out of the way, I'm concerned with a possible COI here.

Philosophy Junkie's very first significant substantive edits were to Brian Leiter.

Philosophy Junkie more recently engaged in an edit war, starting Feb 5, 2013, over this wp article. Here.

Guess who subsequently saw fit to write a blog post devoted to what Philosophy Junkie saw as deficient in that article? You guessed it -- Brian Leiter! In Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog!! This is an amazing coincidence!

It raises to me the suspicion that Philosophy Junkie has a COI with Leiter and/or Leiter Reports.

I've told him as much already.

At the same time, while his suggestions should therefore be carefully considered, that is not cause to, if and as much as is appropriate, prune this article to meet wp guidelines. Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Major clean up

 * I have edited the article per NPOV, may you disagree, but I see that promotional. I assumed good faith to edit that.Justice007 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)