Talk:Brian Leiter

Archives
February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 - March 2008

Older discussions have been archived

It is asserted that some comments were left by the subject. If so, we would appreciate it if you could please identify yourself. You are most welcome to comment on the contents of the article, and to raise constructive suggestions for its improvement, with reliable sources to satisfy our policies on verifiability and neutrality. I would also remind everybody here, in passing, that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages, and any violations may be dealt with by blocking or other sanctions. Please keep calm. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 20:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

New Rankings

Just wondering if anyone on here can tell me when the newest edition of the philosophy rankings will come out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.22.102 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The current rankings are for 2006–2008, so one would image the new rankings would be out in 2009. Skomorokh 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-Anonymous Editing and Posting by the subect

Having been exposed to the subject personally, and having followed some of his online activities, it is plainly obvious to me that the subject makes anonymous edits to his own wikipedia article and then argues as if he is a disinterested contributor to WP. I doubt even this comment will stand. :( I would ask those engaged in vigorous upkeep of WP, and philosophy pages in general, to please strongly discourage his editing of the page. Thank you for paying attention to my prayer. 69.154.8.37 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Concerned UT Alum

Hey, I am also an anonymous person who claims to have been exposed to the subject personally, and to have followed some of his online activities, and so I too would like to make allegations based on no evidence in order to disparage the subject. My prayer is that Wikipedia might serve a higher purpose, but I doubt it. A Concerned UT Student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.212.98 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspiciously, any potentially negative (no matter how factually accurate) information is routinely removed from this Wiki article by an anonymous University of Texas IP, during which time Leiter is known to reside in Texas. Then Leiter moves to Chicago, at which point, the article is "corrected" by an anonymous IP from Chicago. User talk:98.206.162.185 made a rev, the syntax and word-choice of the edit summary of which seems eerily similar to Leiter's writing. Seems worth considering particularly whether that IP is Leiter's. 75.73.232.84 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Another rev from a U Chicago IP address. [1]. It seems obvious that Dr. Leiter is editing his own wiki entry. Curiously, there were no such revs from the University of Chicago area prior to Leiter's moving there. But plenty of flattering edits from UT Austin, while he was residing there. 75.73.232.84 (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you suppose there might be some other reason why people in Chicago might be more likely to pay attention to the entry after Leiter moved to Chicago? I can think of a few obvious ones, and I'm sure you could, too, if you'd only try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.215.154 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And astonishingly the people of Austin completely forgot about him. Funny how he carries a sea of good will wherever he goes, while the rest of the world seems quite vocal in their criticism of his rhetorical seriousness. And I'm sure the cloying rhetorical question that ends your anonymous response is eerily reminiscent of Leiter's written style simply due to coincidence?Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"And I'm sure the cloying rhetorical question that ends your anonymous response is eerily reminiscent of Leiter's written style simply due to coincidence?"

I'm not sure what would make it "eerily reminiscent" to use a common form of discourse, but I do find your paranoia eerily discomforting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.215.154 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything about this weird "Save the Leiter" campaign that isn't eerie?Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

Leiter has frequently been accused of using his law and philosophy department ranking lists to inflate his status in academia and intimidate those who express criticism of him. In a biographical article, the Boston Globe remarked,

Those whom Leiter finds wanting are deemed "morons" or "zombies" or "demonstrably incompetent." Peers then treat him in kind: University of Wisconsin legal blogger Ann Althouse called Brian Leiter a 'jackass,' to take a famous example. [...] By increasing competition in the profession, by promoting envy or Schadenfreude, by writing a blog that alternates philosophy with verbal soccer hooliganism, Leiter runs a great risk: He may be demeaning the very profession he rightly wants to democratize.

On his blog, he has famously attacked Keith Burgess-Jackson, Tyler Cowen, Carlin Romano, Rick Hill, Thomas Nagel, Paul Campos, and Ann Althouse. He is also engaged in waging a long-running feud with the users of the message board Autoadmit.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

---

This is less obviously biased and outrageous than the original intervention (which cited Urban Dictionary), but it still isn't NPOV. Any refernece to the Boston Globe article would have to include refernece to Leiter's reply: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/04/mark-oppenheime.html

Althouse appears to have retracted or disowned ('transgression') her rude remark here:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/04/university-of-michigan-legal-blogger.html

There is no citation for Keith Burgess-Jackson, not surprising since he attacked Leiter, not vice versa. Unclear what the other sources are--are they still blogs? What is evidence that these attacks are 'famous'? That a freelance writer for the Globe reference them? But he has a conflict of interest according to Leiter.

The Boston Globe piece might warrnat a reference under 'Other Projects' as a reference to the fact that Leiter is a controversial blogger. Just a suggestion.98.206.162.185 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, these Chicago IP addresses and the desire for the anonymous Chicagoan poster for Leiter to "have the last word" in response to the Globe article are, I think, quite suspicious. Regardless, I do not think it is worth mentioning Leiter's response to the Globe article, or to expand this to attempt to suss out the truth of the matter. It is plain to see that Leiter has a response to any criticism of him. A side note: I find it quite humorous that Leiter's response to the (mildly) critical Globe article is (surprise!) to attack the personal qualifications and character of its author. It is surely a strange coincidence that anyone writing about Leiter in a non-flattering way must surely be stupid, insane, or "biased". Back to the topic however, there is no link to Burgess-Jackson because he doesn't have a wikipedia entry. There is surely no shortage of documentation that the two have a history. And I really could not care less who "started it". The point is that he has a history of personal attacks against his "enemies". The fact that Althouse and Leiter have had lunch at some point to talk out their differences (she has never said she "apologized" or "disowned" the remark) does not erase the fact that that was a fine example of Leiter's feuding, regardless of whether the feud is currently "alive". The Boston Globe article itself calls that one of his "famous" feuds.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember all the episodes referenced above, but the ribbing of Rick Hills I do remember, and it can hardly be called an "attack" by anyone who is an adult. Campos was (rightly, to my mind) criticized in strong terms for arguing, without any legal or moral support, that a tenured faculty member should be fired for obviously constitutionally protected speech. It was, and is, a crazy thing for a law professor to argue, and was rightly criticized. The impression I get is that someone here has a personal beef they are trying to work out by linking to garbage and nonsense. He or she should grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.215.154 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal beef? I have a beef with bullies, but I had no idea what Leiter even looked like, before I chanced upon the Globe article (which includes an unflattering photo). I don't know the guy from Jack, but I know his reputation for bullying. The other anonymous Chicagoan might note that the issue was not whether Professor Campos deserved the criticism, but the fact that Leiter has a long history of taking it upon himself to mete out such criticism with a fistful of irrelevant personal insults. The man is well-known for this stuff. Perhaps more well-known for it than anyone else in the academic legal profession. It seems bizarre for his encyclopedia entry to be whitewashed of his well-publicized behavior.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of a 'personal beef' is suggested by the amount of energy you have invested in trying to insert clearly improper materials into the bio over the last 24 hours. The hyperbole of your claims about Leiter also suggests a personal vendetta. So I concur with 68.80.215.154.98.206.162.185 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah! Sorry, I'm not a big fan of personal vendettas. Which is to say, I'm not Leiter. I just like fairness in reporting the facts. Is it so inconceivable to you that a disinterested observer, involved in roughly the same field as Dr. Leiter, who knows his reputation, wants to see his misdeeds fairly and accurately reported in a major reference? It's not personal. It's about fairness. But it's good to know that you agree with yourself, Dr. Leiter.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Inserting links to the Urban Dictionary does not demonstrate a strong committment to "fairnes" and "accuracy." The user with whom I agreed has a Philadelphia IP. See his/her observation about your paranoia above.98.206.162.185 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the urban dictionary was considered "unfair". Seems to me that 367 people think that Leiter is a slang term, whereas only 24 disagree. I myself have heard the term "Leiter Lips" uttered at a faculty luncheon, and the term was thoroughly understood by all.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is a very unreliable source. We are most definitely not going to use it on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 02:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I came up with a further refined draft, and placed it at Talk:Brian Leiter/temp. What do you two think? NW (Talk) 02:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Unreliable" and "unfair" are certainly different, but the point is moot. The poster was digging up old news to take a dig at me personally. My revision made no reference to urbandictionary. In any case, I find your draft entirely acceptable. Gives a pretty good characterization of his online persona, and maybe the compliment of "most powerful man in academic philosophy" will flatter him enough that he's willing to allow it.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement, but is "famously attacked" NPOV? "Criticize" seems more apt. Reference to keith burgess-jackson should be removed, unless the criticism is linked to. My impresion is that in this case, the attack was launched and pursued with a vengeance by burgess-jackson, so this one esp. does not make sense. Entry still links to blogs other than author's.98.206.162.185 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Famously" because it was high profile. Multiple other blogs reported the incidents. They are well known throughout the academic community. "Attacked" is appropriate because they were personal attacks. If it were criticism of their ideas, then Leiter's behavior would be no different than that of any other academic, and it would hardly be worth mentioning. The issue, unequivocally stated in blogs, NR, and Globe, is that he personally attacks his opponents. There is certainly no justification for limiting the citations to the subject's own blog. This is clearly a case of the subject wanting to frame everything on his own terms. Citations of his blog are well represented as-is. Finally, it doesn't matter who "started it". Leiter's ongoing feud with Burgess-Jackson is probably his most heated and longest running feud. A quick google search verifies that it is known universally throughout the academic philosophy community. Regardless, I have provided a link.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Famously attacked" is, IMO, clearly not NPOV. "Attacked" is a characterization, it's not a fact. It's inherently one-sided: nobody ever says "I attacked so-and-so." It's a term only used for by the side of the recipients of the alleged attack. (I can't think of a single case where the person who did the attacking described it as attacking.) People routinely disagree about whether any particular dispute constitutes an "attack," or not, and even if some reputable source (like a journalist) happens to think it's an attack, it's still an opinion, and violates NPOV when just asserted. I'm modifying that phrase to make it more neutral.--Paultopia (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in finding a mutually acceptable rewording, then I'm open to discussing it. However, "criticized" rather dramatically undersells what Dr. Leiter does on his blog. Furthermore, if you think that "attacked" is NPOV, you of course realize that there are probably thousands of articles in wikipedia that use the word in precisely the same way, which are not considered controversial. Would you call, "Monetarists have attacked the Keynesian thesis, writing..." to be NPOV? It is a description of what is being done. If you want to reword it, then the rewording must reflect the salient fact that Leiter attacks people, not ideas. At least, not exclusively ideas.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Leiter attacks people, not ideas." This is obviously false, to anyone who has bothered to read the material in question. Leiter often puts his criticism in a very direct way and he certainly doesn't pull punches. Whether that's the best rhetorical style or not I can't say and don't really care. But the posts in question are quite obviously criticism of the content and competency of remarks by people like Campos, Romano, etc. To think otherwise is, I'll submit, more than a little off-based. It's obviously wrong. That "Jeanbaptistemuiron" cannot see this strongly suggests, I think, that he's not really competent to be contributing to this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.215.154 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, saying so would simply be original research, as no outside reliable source has stated such. We cannot include something like that in a biography of a living person. NW (Talk) 17:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll add to the criticism of that phrase. It is excessively general! How can you claim that a person generally attacks his opponents rather than their ideas without rightly being accused of imprecision? My objection is that "has had disputes with" is not accurate. I did not specifically suggest the phrase, "Leiter attacks people, not ideas" for inclusion in the article. I was (and remain) quite amenable to finding a neutral phrasing, which captures the notion that he has used his blog to attack these people personally. Incidentally, I find it curious that 68.80.215.154 is grasping to attack me personally. No doubt if I had divulged my identity, I'd be reading something about myself on Leiter's blog shortly. I find this more than slightly ironic. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Rick Hills is not a notable person? Being a law professor at an institution higher ranked on Leiter's own list makes him considerably more notable than the subject of the article himself! I don't object to including Leiter's response in the references, but including it in the article proper smacks of giving Leiter the "last word", which seems odd. Indeed, you will find no criticism of Leiter, which he has not responded to in his blog, and usually by attacking the motivations or competency of the critic (ditto Oppenheimer). It does not seem fair in the least bit to include every one of Leiter's rebuttals in the article proper. And I continue to object to the grammatically odious "has had disputes with". Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick Hills may indeed be a notable person. I'm not terribly familiar with the field, so I wouldn't call myself qualified to say. However, he does not currently have a Wikipedia article about himself, which I was judging notability on. If you feel that he meets the notability criteria for academics, I would certainly reconsider removing his name. NW (Talk) 19:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick Hills holds a named chair at NYU Law [2]. You should re-include his name. But would appreciate if you'd explain why you felt the need to make further changes. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

NW: Am not really okay with your changes. It was largely agreed that your initial edit was satisfactory. Why change the bulk of that? The issue was the use of "has had disputes with" and "attacked". The Globe article (at least the final part) accuses him of considerably more than "verbal soccer hooliganism". And I'm not sure why you think the Frances Beckwith incident is any more notable than the others. What is motivating these changes? Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The original Globe quote took up about a third of the entire section, which was really giving it a bit too much of an undue weight. I reduced it down to the bare essentials; what would you suggest it be? The Beckwith incident even has its own section of an article on Wikipedia, which is why I figured it should have a little more prominence. NW (Talk) 23:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was your suggestion that I revise to include more of the Globe article. The Beckwith incident may have its own section, but you removed my reference to Autoadmit.com, the wiki entry of which also specifically mentions Leiter. Look, I don't want to be a pain here, but I'm looking for a little consistency. You initially said that the blogs were not sufficient evidence that Leiter's behavior was high profile. You wanted something on the level of a Chicago Sun-Times or Trib. So, I gave you National Review and Boston Globe. And you will note that most of what I have claimed is common-knowledge about Leiter is reported in both of those articles as such. Furthermore, if you want to invest the time, you can fish around Leiter's own blog to verify his long history of ranting against those he deems "enemies". You told me to revise my edit to center principally around the Globe article and possibly National Review for support. I did precisely that. We reached a compromise, which I found tolerable, and but for a single phrase, was acceptable to all concerned. If Leiter has called upon friends and allies to log on here in support of him, rest assured, I can easily alert others as to what's happening here, and the place will quickly be flooded by support for inclusion of far more negative material than I have proposed. I'm just looking to be fair here. A significant part of this subject's reputation is bound up in his pugilistic rhetorical style, and I have provided (I think) more than sufficient documentation that this is a part of his reputation. I have also met your requirements for establishing that with sources. I don't see why you now feel compelled to backpedal on the language. Let us determine a fair and consistent standard for what counts as salient and significant biographical information. I appreciate the work you've put into trying to resolve this equitably, but would strongly urge you to change it back to what was in place previously. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no sense at all in which 'jeanbaptistemuiron' (whoever he really is) has tried to be fair. His original intervention cited Urban Dictionary and any blog, no matter how obscure or suspicious, he could find. The current version of the article is now quite balanced, reporting the critique of his blogging style, citing examples, linking to the critics, and linking to the replies. That is fair. What 'jeanbaptistemuiron' wants is something else. Why?98.206.162.185 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)