Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Panam2014 (talk | contribs) at 07:50, 27 March 2016 (→Pov pushing of Kiluminati in Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Pov pushing of Kiluminati in Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map

Hi. @LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Kiluminati is a Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account. He refused sources that mentionned Hadi advance. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. He removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira , official media Houthi . This is unacceptable. And he accused the others to vandalism. He had been warned here and here. 2016 (UTC) First, I ask Kilumnati cease to qualify those who do not think like him vandals or saboteurs . This is a personal attack and I demand punishment. For its wars of editions of removing information about advanced Yemeni government , just see his latest contributions . Enough 's enough of this pov pusher . And personal attacks , simply view comments for change , there's always a personal attack. Moreover, it is somewhat strong coffee that has come out of nowhere in December 2015 , already knows the community pages of Misplaced Pages and has the nerve to accuse of vandalism. So he who does not know the definition. Moreover, it is certain that behind the Kiluminati account hides an experienced account , perhaps even banned.@Jytdog: Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with @LightandDark2000:, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi . Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi . Regards. Panam2014 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. User:Kiluminati has been POV-pushing on the Yemeni Map Module for months now. Despite being warned by other users and a number of discussions on the modules's talk page, he refused to cease his disruptive behavior, and is continuing to alter the map in favor of his own pro-Houthi views, using unreliable sources or seriously biased sources to carry out the changes. He also mass reverts any other users who make changes in favor of the opposite side, using reliable sources, and he accuses them of "vandalism" when this happens. And if any user happens to revert any of his unreliable or poorly-sourced edits, he reverts them also also hurls similar accusations of vandalism or disruptive editing. This is unacceptable. User:Kilunimati's edits are seriously shifting the Yemeni map module away from a neutral point of view, and sadly, since December 2015, the map has become the most unreliable map module on Misplaced Pages, except in the instances where I or another user managed to revert his changes or update the map using reliable sources. This needs to stop; this is damaging Misplaced Pages's neutrality and accuracy policies. Please attempt to mediate a solution with the user in question. If all else fails, I recommend a topic ban on the user for at least 6 months, to end any further disruption. Also, if things get too out of hand in the short term, then please lock the module for 3 days, to kill off any further disruptions or edit wars from this user, until a solution can be mediated. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, i'm so sorry for failure to follow WP:NPOVN laws where strongly been emphasized to notify editor who is the subject of a discussion with red color! given that by coincidence i faced to this topic that it show pretenders legitimacy how observe the law!

For POV Push accusation with regards to leaving in irrelevent section in noticeboard (Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view where place to article content is compliant with the NPOV) should be snapback to Yemen Civil War talk page where editors must be told sources that based on doing edit. but the two not provide anything for their edit and always are be elusive from responding, here is visible. basically, there are not completely impartial resources for validation and accuracy of claims! and the two rely on sources that the majority of them are founder of war and the rest of its supporters. of course we all know they cant be neutral so what's the solution? answer is using all of them as jointly it's means admit one side to domination the other side and vice versa. it's the only operational way-out at the moment. except this method just lead to more chaos and i taked it for reduce disputes (User contributions).

Now the this two trying with working together and trick handling asperse and defame me and going to introduce me as POV Pusher in public opinios but weak works not benefit. it seems to me can be work out this difficult problem side by side not against. I hope intellection overtake from ignorance, hope.... K!lluminati (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Killuminati is indeed a pov pusher and I have demonstrated. So I will not dwell on it further. Furthermore, he claims that Al Masirah is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh. that's the weakest coffee complaining about defamation when we used to accuse others of vandalism and sabotage. Moreover, Kiluminati appropriates the module by its leader of the discussion by denying the arguments that are not going in his direction. To have searched the talk page I demand punishment under Misplaced Pages: Harassment and its disorganization of the encyclopedia I also demand a punishment for WP:POINT. Panam2014 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

why Al Masirah not be credible? let us not forget famous mainstream news media due to lack of journalist on yemen working their own news quoted al-masirah's reports (even al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya). what's wrong with using GPC website? not clear? for what reason the using salih, ansarullah and houthis resources are forbidden but using al-Jazeera, al-arabiya & al-Akhbariyah and all of arabic coalition sources that are starters of war on yemen is obligatory? that's comical analogy! it's clear they misrepresent truth and nutrify misinformation as flipped to audiences, and by this manner put community minds in aberration and brainwash public opinions easy peasy lemon squeezy!!! now at here the two sophistries prevent from being display battlefields realities. in previous some time the two reverted anything they deem to wrong. all of them be there here . with this action, the map instead of be indicative of reality is propagator of errors!

Stretches this sealed ring endangers the main objectives of Misplaced Pages that's surely “public access to correct information”. The this point to be taken seriously otherwise will have troubling consequences. K!lluminati (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This individual has lost all credibility. Sabanew (pro Hadi) or Sabanews (pro Houthis) and Al Masirah (pro Houthi) do not have to be used since these are the officials media of the belligerents. And their information is never taken up by the mainstream media. If they were credible, the information should have been included. I am proud of the confession of this POV pusher. The media like Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya are international sources and their information is taken over by large groups such as NY Times. Put the same level as the propaganda war is the POV pushing. Finally, Al jazeera contradicts Kiluminati but its information is recognized. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please lock the map module for 1 week? I'm sick and fed up with all the POV-pushing and edit warring that I'm still witnessing there. Despite the discussion here and the repeated attempt to discuss with User:Kiluminati, he is still using unreliable or seriously biased sources to reshape the map to his own views. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News which is the official agency of the Houthis. , https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Module:Yemeni_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=711946791&oldid=711926198], and . --Panam2014 (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Prada gender discrimination case

Prada gender discrimination case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about the way this article addresses matters that may currently be under litigation, particularly insofar as the background section appears to solely present the side of one of the litigants; from a BLP standpoint at least, I think it may need to be edited... but I'm not sure how to address it fairly without simply gutting the article. I've already made a number of changes to some of the sections, but I'm just not sure what more to do here and would like some more eyes to look at this article. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw this also. It is a total abuse page and does not adhere to anything about what Misplaced Pages stands for. I would encourage these editors to use WP:ALTOUT but we all know there is major abuse going on with editors using Misplaced Pages because of Google's algorithmic favoring. This page should be a subset of the plaintiff's page, which I would even question notability for. If the subject matter was of another issue, the entry would be torn down by Admins in nanosecond.--WatchingContent (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Astra-the personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity and their purview

There is edit-warring going on in the article "Astra" ]. I seek consensus from those who have studied/interested in hindu mythology,on the neutrality of one of the weapons mentioned-Sudarshana chakra. The personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity-Brahma,Vishnu and Shiva are considered to act,or desist at will of their owners only.1.Please look into the weapons Trishula and Pashupatastra,where the description reads "cannot be stopped by anyone" and "cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Shiva" respectively.This is in stark contrast to the description of Sudarshana Chakra,the personal weapon of Lord Vishnu,where it reads "Cannot be stopped by anyone, except Lord Vishnu himself & Lord Shiva".I seriously doubted the authenticity and neutrality of this information.The editor,who added the part "&Lord Shiva" in describing Sudarshana Chakra hasn't provided any source or link to verify it.2.Also,the Misplaced Pages article "Ambarisha" relates the story how Lord Brahma and lord Shiva "pleaded their inability to save him(durvasa)" from Sudarshana.] 3.Since authoritative sources on Hindu mythology are hard to come by over the internet,I am forced to provide the following sources on ambarisha-durvasa story,all of which conform to the view that Sudarshana cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Vishnu.] ] ] and so forth.I hope the administrators look into this,deliberate and strive to make this article neutral again. Ankisur2 (talk)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) The editor User talk:Ankisur2 has been WP:FORUMSHOPPING; cf. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Adamstraw99 is making personal attacks,and user space harassment. _Fortuna 16:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• The minor edit referred to here does not effect the neutrality of the article; the content added was referenced with obviously unreliable sources. Please close this. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not familiar with WP:FORUMSHOPPING,but I looked up and it says "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards".To be clear,I raised two separate issues.With the administrators noticeboard,I raised the issue of personal attack by Adamstraw99,and didnot discuss the content of the article.With Neutral point of view discussion board,I questioned the content of this article,and refrained from mentioning anything about Adamstraw99,which seemingly Fortuna.. failed to notice.Hope this clears things up.

Drmies If the edit is "minor",and does not affect the neutrality,why not make it accurate and correct as well?Have you checked out the page "Ambarisha"?

Detention and search of Indian VIPs at US airports

This article is very one-sided, not exploring reasons for stops and searches!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Surely such a veteren edtor as Petebutt knows how to lodge a notice here by now-! _Fortuna 16:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: section lede at Ford Pinto

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. The neutrality of the lede of section Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation of article Ford Pinto is disputed. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48

Inclusion of fringe theories

Please see Talk:Entropic force#Fringe theories. (AFAIU, WP:FRINGE is part of WP:NPOV series.) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange controversy over Whirling

I created a page on a notable dance genre, Whirling. Part of the motivation was to distinguish it from particular styles of religious-rooted movement traditions, i.e., Sufi spinning. The page was bumped, inexplicably, to list of Islam-related deletion discussions by Everymorning. Since then, a veritable war has developed, with User:Ibadibam and several others arguing for a merge, but on grounds that show extreme systemic bias and Orientalism. There is a strong need for neutrals to intervene in the debate, because the AfD debate has gotten to the point where it is detracting from substantive edits.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I will response to what has been said about me--namely that it was "inexplicable" that I delsorted the AFD for Whirling under Islam. This was a mistake on my part, I didn't read the article closely enough and so thought it was a form of Sufi spinning rather than being very different from it as the article says in the lead. Sorry. Everymorning (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you immmensely to Everymorning. In light of your view now, could you please help by intervening to restore the whirling page. User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker nonetheless merged the articles despite the clear weight of the opinions on the AfD page (including Magoo's and User:Ibadibam's being that more clarity was needed. I asked for a tiny bit of time to clear up the confusion that was on the pages, and was creating several tools to do that (all very time consuming). The merger was pushed forward nonetheless, against the clear weight of the voting results. This is very disappointing and I can't devote additional time to editing wars and comments, when all I wanted to do was work on the pages. I'd respectfully ask for you or anyone else neutral to help us undo the whirling / sufi spinning / tanoura merger, which only made things less clear.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Correction -- merger was done by User:Sandstein, whom I will contact to try to understand exactly what happened prior to initiating a DRV.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't merge anything. I just closed an AfD, to which you may want to link. I fail to see how any of this relates to NPOV.  Sandstein  19:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the AfD page: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Whirling. NPOV because the edits that were being made, and the resulting merger shows a very clear Orientalist view on several clearly distinct practices/traditions/customs. There were multiple alerts to this in the original discussion, with zero acknowledgement. End result is a redirect/merger that is incoherent and suffers from non-neutral conceptual slippage.Viapastrengo (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thought the merger/redirect was User:Sandstein's -- oops -- turns out was Magoo's -- was too busy trying to understand User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker and ] apparent socks, while defending self from same.Viapastrengo (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Same account. You can edit your visible name at settings. Everyone called me Mr. Magoo so I just changed my name to it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• The AfD was actually over a lack of sources, so I didn't respond to charges of bias there. But if anything is Orientalist, it's the view that there should be a separate article for this. That a few Americans and Europeans have appropriated a Middle Eastern tradition does not make it separate and original. It would be disingenuous to document it as though it were parallel to and equally notable as a centuries-old practice, and not a recent derivative thereof. I think the new organization of these topics, as represented by the current state of Sufi whirling, does a much better job of putting this in its proper historical and cultural context. Ibadibam (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Ibadibam, I thanked you before, sincerely, in the context of the AfD before the merger whirled everything together in one big pile of incomprehensible goo. I'll thank you, again, for now answering User:Sandstein's question of what NPOV's got to do with it.Viapastrengo (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is the link to the Deletion review (DRV) discussion for anyone eager to jump in: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Whirling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viapastrengo (talk • contribs) 06:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• To put some clarity here, Sandstein closed as redirect which he then performed and wrote that mergers can happen posthumously. Closing as redirect and then suggesting a merger can/may happen afterwards seems to be a common closure at AfD, even from other closers. It has even happened in cases where nigh everyone voted for merge. In this redirect case there was obviously concensus for a merger as well since the article creator least of all wants his or her work going to absolute waste. So I added a section for Whirling as a dance form at Sufi whirling. I also did a merger of Tanoura as a section as well, since it seemed to be a pretty dead article with only a small amount of text. At this point the two sections looked near identical to the original articles they had had. Now, Ibadibam came and edited the two sections quite a bit so it's not as apparent anymore. But look at the original shape. The two sections at the bottom are pretty much 1:1 with their original articles. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I also think Ibadibam should be complimented for apparently going through all of the sources and reviewing their connection to the text. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto on gratitude to User:Ibadibam and Mr. Magoo and many others for the time spent developing, cite-checking and critiquing. This doesn't ameliorate the concerns regarding a particular dance technique being "put in its place" ("in its proper historical and cultural context") when that place is hostile to the very thing that's being put in it! Sufi spinning = male practitioners seeking a transcendental connection with selves, others and the G character. Whirling = dance technique that's not a secular version of Sufi whirling practiced by female dancers but a standalone set of practices and recognized movement techniques. Let me try to illustrate this a slightly different way. There's curling and then there's curling. One is a sport played by Canadians, and a sport is a kind of physical movement ritual in a way; the other is a weightlifting movement technique. Let's repeat. One is a sport played by Canadians (i.e., physical movement ritual done by Sufis); the other is a weightlifting (i.e., dancedance) movement technique. Both are movement practices, and both have some conceptual overlaps (i.e., both can be thought of as group or physical practices), but the fact that both are called CURLING doesn't mean they are homologues. Because one type of curling is an Olympic sport and the other is a mere weightlifting technique doesn't mean that biceps curling should be merged with whatever the heck "Canadian" curling is. It'd be inappropriate to put biceps curling "in its place" by lumping it with Canadian curling. So too with Sufi whirling, and whirling. Now, let's go one step further. Let's imagine there are Olympians out there who don't want curling the sport to be an Olympic sport because ... well ... it's not Olympic enough. Curlers are apostates to a great number of Olympians. And because they are Olympians, they can resort to physical assaults on curlers, because ... hey ... they're Canadian and they're ... curlers, and it's not true to the originalist Olympic vision. And there're more of the Olympians than curlers; ergo, the Olympians have numbers on their side. And the Olympians are ruthless and inventive. If they can find any way to discredit the sport of curling, they'll resort to it. And, voila, here comes WP. "Look, ye fellow Olympians!" says one of the more audacious of the athletes, "check out what the world thinks of curling ... it's incoherent, and structureless. At least in the "good ol' days" curling was only a man's sport, but look on, ye Olympians ... and despair. Curling isn't a sport! It's lifting stuff with your arms, and the article says even women can do that!" "Blasphemy!" screams an Olympian from the sidelines. "Let's kill them!" says a fellow Olympian. "Hear! Hear!" the Olympic chorus rises. "But wait, kill who?" says a late arriving Olympian. "Oh, Jesus Christ, tardypants, ... the curlers, of course!!" responds the Olympian who started the curl-bashing. "But how will I know what the hell is a curler?" asks Tardypants. "Oh, for crying out loud, just look it up on Misplaced Pages!" So, yeah, while we're on the topic of thank you notes, thanks for putting curling in its place. I mean, they're both called curling, and they're both movement techniques that require flexing of arm muscles and stuff. And hell, ain't no possible way an epistemic battle on WP could ever translate into real world recrimination or violence. Oh, wait ... Viapastrengo (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Use of "simple islanders" in Nuckelavee

Editors at this noticeboard may be interested in the discussion happening at Talk:Nuckelavee#RfC regarding the use of the term "simple islanders". —Nizolan 07:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Leary

An IP editor (it could be one person or multiple people using IP addresses) is currently pushing the idea that Timothy Leary is a philosopher (see here, for instance). I think this is pretty obviously outrageous, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Leary has absolutely no recognition as a philosopher: his name is not mentioned in works of reference dealing with philosophy, and not one professional philosopher would recognize him as one. An IP has added a citation for the philosopher claim here, but in my view the source used is in no way reliable enough for this kind of extraordinary claim. I think the IP's edits need to be reverted, and if need be the article should be protected. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I was patrolling recent changes when I noticed that you had disputed that Leary is a philosopher. I easily found and added ref currently number one, a bibliography of Leary where I also added a quote stating that he is a philosopher, and btw "philosophy was found 29 times in that page that I ref'ed. He has been repeatedly "recognized as such".2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And-FKC--why did you bring this here? How would this be NPOV-related? You make no sense here. Why not on the Talk Page? Here is something that may help you understand, List of Dewey Decimal classes#Class 100 – Philosophy and psychology2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I repeat my points: Timothy Leary is not regarded as a philosopher by any professional philosopher, and he is not mentioned in any work of reference dealing with philosophy. Ergo, he is not a philosopher. It destroys Misplaced Pages's credibility for it to include the inane suggestion that this promoter of drugs somehow qualifies as a philosopher, and simply increases the level of ignorance and misunderstanding of philosophy in this world. The fact that you can find somewhere a source calling Leary a philosopher doesn't change this; the source (written by Leary's admirers, I'm sure) is insufficiently reliable to support the claim being made. Maybe if you looked, you could find a source calling Lyndon LaRouche a philosopher; that wouldn't justify slapping the "philosopher" label on LaRouche either. Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." One dubiously-reliable source calling Leary a philosopher isn't good enough. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I am the ip who added the ref to the bibliography. You did not see who authored that-or did you just not look at it? Still not seeing why you didn't go to the article TP-although you are clearly the one with an agenda here. There is no "takes one to know one" policy on WP as far as I know? Or must have a degree in philosophy to be considered a philosopher? He AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy, how many refs do you need? Maybe in climate change scientists or something,but for this I thought that something said in a reliable reference is acceptable. 2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Is the view that Timothy Leary is a philosopher a significant view in reliable sources? You have provided no proof of this, and I see no reason to believe it's true. Your assertions that Leary is a philosopher ("He AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy") are irrelevant and unsupported. Consequently, I shall revert your edits at the article. Per WP:BRD, you should have discussed your proposed changes on the talk page after I reverted you, instead of edit warring. I've taken the issue here to draw your destructive behavior to the attention of a larger number of editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No evidence has been provided that he AUTHORED and TAUGHT, and LECTURED philosophy. The source provided says he was an "activist philosopher," whatever that is. So I would take it out. TFD (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How is this? http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-22/entertainment/ca-30476_1_timothy-leary2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A single reference in a newspaper? Please. If that were enough, nearly anyone could become a philosopher. It doesn't even call Leary a philosopher; rather, it says that he did "his stand-up philosopher act", not quite the same thing. As I said, we need high-quality references: works of reference dealing with philosophy, and other sources written by people who have a legitimate claim to know what they're talking about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

AND- FKC-you didn't rv me-I added a ref because you rv some other IP editor. I will rv you if you do that just so you know2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Doing a google search (yes, not exhaustive) clearly shows that if the word "philosopher" is used with Leary's name, its a self-ascribed label that he called himself and not a professor that we could call him as such. The LA Times article above, for example, shows how he used "Stand-up Philosopher" to describe a stage act. He had a specific philosophy, but that's not same as being a philosopher by profession. --MASEM (t) 04:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, there are a few legit sources out there that do describe Leary as a philosopher (among other things). The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes him as "a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens." So the IP isn't completely off-base, although I'm skeptical that there are enough sources like this out there to justify using the "philosopher" label. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The ref that I added mentioned philosophy more than 20 times-(the bibliography). LA times calls Leary a philosopher, you don't like that. How about this? https://books.google.com/books?id=-zsuAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Fugitive+Philosopher&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj49r2byN3LAhVE6CYKHTuhBlQQ6AEIHTAA (his book The Fugitive Philosopher) on Google Books listed as :"Biography & Autobiography / Philosophers"? 2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's irrelevant how many times it mentions the word "philosophy". The claim that Leary is a philosopher is made just once, by the document's editors, who include Michael Horowitz, a former associate of Leary who is not a professional philosopher. Not being a philosopher, his view is hardly relevant. What the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences says is admittedly much more significant (and I thank Fyddlestix for mentioning it), but the bottom line for me remains that it is inappropriate to call Leary a philosopher given that he isn't seen as such by most philosophers and that it is not what he is primarily known for. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You brought this to the wrong drama-board. Maybe RS would be reasonable, but I still don't get why you did not put this on the TP. I'm not so sure that the standard that you are asking-for is required here. I think it was you who said that if we didn't have these standards, (paraphrase), "anyone could be a philosopher". Um yeah-so what. But Leary has actually written books, been quoted on, and been referenced-as a philosopher in other classifying bodies. Even-if it is self-referenced, (and that is not the only ref for Leary), again, so what? And please show me where WP Policy backs you up with this? So, by your standards, only another bona-fide philosopher can say that Leary is one too? I need to see where WP requires this please.2601:80:4003:7416:5812:70AA:330D:D068 (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I brought this issue to precisely the right noticeboard, as shown by the helpful comments made by other users. You may believe that virtually anyone should be called a philosopher; I certainly do not, as I believe that Misplaced Pages should aim to become a high-quality and trustworthy work of reference. I do not think that there is going to be general sympathy for edits such as yours, which frustrate that goal, as well as destroying the meaning of philosophy and contributing to public ignorance and misunderstanding of the subject. Leary calling himself a philosopher is not good enough, his non-philosopher buddies calling him a philosopher is not good enough, and some vague reference to him as a philosopher in a newspaper (which doesn't really call him a philosopher) is not good enough. Find high-quality sources calling Leary a philosopher, or else just drop the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A similar point came up a while back in respect of more contemporary activist. As I noted in that debate, and as the RFC concluded, we need surely to be quite strict and consistent about what we mean when we describe someone as a "philosopher". The term is often used quite loosely in the real world for anyone who has opinions or theories about life and the wider world, as well as in a more formal academic or historical sense, and it should be latter that we focus on. Sources that may well be "reliable" in the broadest sense can often be found that say X or Y is a "philosopher", but we shouldn't blindly follow one or two randomly selected ones, especially when there's no guarantee they mean the same thing as others. This isn't a matter of sourcing per se but, as noted, a matter of what sources and what is meant by the term. N-HH talk/edits 12:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

OK-well ty for that other closed discussion. But this one is tricky in that I am trying to apply a pretty strict criteria to this, asking questions like, "Was Leary a philosopher in the professional sense?-was he employed as such, gaining income?"--and the answer is yes. Also, although I have not seen him published in philosophy trade journals and publications, (did not look everywhere), he has published works of philosophy, which are categorized as philosophy, and it looks to me like some of his published material is filed in libraries with the Dewey Decimal classification in the 200 division, which is philosophy.

With that being said, I still think that this discussion belongs elsewhere, BUT--I don't have an objection to qualifying Leary if that is appropriate. Rand, for instance is noted as an, "outsider"-in the WP philosophy article. Could we include Leary there? And although I am being accused here of (Npov?), or it looks like I am trying to defend the category for Leary, I'm just trying to apply the encyclopedic WP standards that are usually applied, namely, reliable sources call Leary a philosopher, and he called himself one, and he was employed as one at times. Maybe degree-holding philosophers are the ones who need the qualifier? 2601:80:4003:7416:D424:BA86:FF7D:2779 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Same IP here--and jftr, I'm starting to lean-towards undoing the revert that I did. The category deletion. I would just like to see if it is appropriate and if WP has any policy in particular that would support it.I think that I found some pretty strong ties to Philosophy for Leary, so it would not be completely out of line to keep the cat. but then again, if there are strict parameters, such-as contributing to the field of philosophy, for instance, then it s/b removed maybe? I guess I just didn't like the original reverting editor's tone there in the edit remarks. It is worth discussing and not being pissy about it like we are all supposed to agree that someone who calls themselves a philosopher, has published, (not in philosophy journals afaik) on the subject, has reliable sources naming Leary as a philosopher, has lectured as one...BUT, not being accepted-or united-with peers of Philosophy who are members of professional groups, contributing to the field.....2601:80:4003:7416:344F:5128:5864:74A9 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Posted to Talk Page- Talk:Timothy Leary#Bringing it over here. Philosopher? 2601:80:4003:7416:5430:24E8:873B:31D9 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

John Dye article

The final section header in the biographical entry for actor John Dye#After Life contains 11 inline cites, but those are not about the actor, but about the Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare. Because of such overabundance of irrelevant cites, the deletion of this controversial, as well as misplaced, section should have some form of consensus/support/agreement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, this matter is revealed to be not a legitimate POV issue, but a continuing revert and reinsertion of the same inapplicable text. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution