Talk:Thomas Pogge

message: This article reads like an advertisement for Pogge's books. It needs to be shortened and made neutral with more citations. It makes him seem more notable than he actually is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.24.47 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible NPOV 

message: The sexual misconduct accusations now have a reasonably credible source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yale-professor-sexual-harassment_us_573df25be4b0646cbeec673fHow about now?  https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/yale-ethics-professor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MennoMan (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, removing the buzzfield article is little more than vandalism by Davidcpearce.71.174.138.144 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not vandalism, a sentence like that should have been supported by a high quality article or two.WP:PUBLICFIGURE He should have cited a better reason though. The Buzzfeed article should probably be looked at in the Reliable Source Noticeboard WP:RSN When dealing with a BLP it is better to air on the side of caution and seek consensus. If anybody chooses to post there then they should link to that discussion from this talk page  Jadeslair (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the reliability of buzzed article up to discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Thomas_Pogge141.2.134.77 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Someone's questioned here whether Buzzfeed is a reliable source. I think it is, in this context. They publish a lot of silly clickbait stuff, but also some serious journalism, and this piece falls into the latter category. I think it's enough to at least serve as evidence of the existence of these allegations; of course we have to be neutral on the subject, but it doesn't seem to violate BLP to mention them, as the article does at the moment. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly this is time to take the reporting more slowly and carefully, and request semi protection? Fanyavizuri (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

text: By all means discuss sources and whether there is a sufficient number of high-quality sources to add material to the article. But please don't discuss your view of the issues. All discussion should be geared toward making decisions about article content. SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I've semi-protected the article because the material was restored again. Whatever is added has to be based on reliable secondary sources, such as high-quality newspapers. It can't include blogs and similar. SarahSV (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Over 160 academics have signed an open letter regarding the allegations of sexual harassment and professional misconduct of Thomas Pogge, Leitner Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Political Science at Yale University, including at least 16 of his colleagues at Yale. http://dailynous.com/2016/06/20/open-letter-regarding-thomas-pogge/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/open-letter-pogge|62.143.111.208]] (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I have made an edit to the article. Fanyavizuri (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I see that my edit was reverted.  I thought the Chronicle of Higher Education was reputable.  Did others disagree? Fanyavizuri (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual misconduct allegations

message: There are scores of sources documenting this and the paragraph was added by 3 different individuals against  1 bad faith editor who provided no reason and broke 3rr. Outrageous and shameful behavior. A sad day for Wikipedia. Did you even bother to look at the sources before taking your absurdly obtuse and unaccountble action? Just truly an outrage. If the following isn't enough for you to restore the mild paragraph imdicating a controversy, you are fundamentally intellectually corrupt. Is Pogge's own 36 page response not worthy of note? I've given you scads of primary sources. What have you done? Nothing but hollow, risible argumentsEminent Jurist (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are all news reports, and in history (which a biography is, by definition) news reports are primary sources.  Biographies must depend on what the secondary sources say, if for no other reason than determining what's significant in the long run.  Proven charges of sexual harassment may be long-run significant, and a long trial concluding in exoneration just might be significant, but we have no business deciding that mere accusations are going to be significant in the long run.  Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As a point of clarification:  Not everything in a newspaper is a primary source.  Newspapers do sometimes run articles that contain significant evaluation or critical thinking, rather than reporting facts.  Reporting facts is the mainstay of news sources, but an analytical piece is still secondary even when it happens to be published in the news media.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Current newspapers are secondary sources about current events while old newspapers become primary sources about historical events.  To provide an example, if one were writing an encyclopedia article about the Second World War, one would use modern scholarship, since they have had decades to determine what happened.  Contemporaneous newspapers would be full of details that have since been found to be inaccurate, and would have missed much that was not known at the time.  Their real value would be for researchers to determine how the war was reported.  But if one were writing an article about the Brexit referendum today, one would rely on news coverage.  TFD (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an outrageous abuse of your administrative powers 

message: I've briefly semi-protected this talk page to stop User:Eminent Jurist continuing with their aggressive personal attacks while logged out. Hopefully the protection will be able to be lifted soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: Just in case editors here reach consensus before protection ends, you can ask that it be lifted by pinging me or asking at WP:RfPP. Or you can ask that an admin make the edit for you by posting  on this page and posting the proposed edit below it, with sources. SarahSV (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting edits

message: Pogge is facing allegations of misconduct, from very reliable sources.  If the allegations of financial misconduct with a Huffington Post source can be included, then the ongoing sexual harassment allegations which have been around for years and are now reaching high levels of attention, including from the 100 philosophers, is worth including.  You can quibble about the meaning of reliable source but in this case, by failing to mention the harassment suite even in a sentence, you're being disingenuous and failing the victims of this abhorrent behaviour.  Add me to the growing consensus in favour of changing the article. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been active POV editing regarding this issue, along with sockpuppetry and polemics. If there are solid reliable sources regarding this issue, that would help. The HuffPo reference is about a project, not claiming that the BLP in question committed a crime. That's a big difference. But again, if you got some good sources, this is the right time and place to raise them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  04:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: People have already provided good news sources, news articles are not ruled out by anything in the wikimedia policy on reliable sources for the biographies of living persons.  You can read through the entire policy: it's short, and nowhere does it rule out sources like Daily Nous written specifically by academic philosophers for academic philosophers. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  One person (a sockpuppeter) was adding stuff to the best of my knowledge. That material was removed in part per WP:EVADE. Can you please point me to which sources you think should be used? If Daily Nous is an academic newsletter, that would be okay (like "Footnotes" is for sociology).  EvergreenFir (talk) Please  21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up, at least half of the sources listed by Eminent Jurist are reliable.  The Daily Nous primarily quotes the open letter sent to him and the original article, but there's also sources with the Huffington Post and Yale News among others.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to concur with the preceding.  There are reliable sources, this is notable, and it should be in the article, reported neutrally and factually.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur as well.  The New York Times has a detailed article today.  After a Professor Is Cleared of Sexual Harassment, Critics Fear ‘Cultural Silence’ at Yale Fanyavizuri (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Pinging  who made edits related to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi EvergreenFir. I'm unclear how this article in the New York Times is not a notable source. I've been trying to add a summary of the allegations against Pogge and keep getting reverted by Davidcpearce, who is directing me to random pages that don't back up his point - first WP:BLP, which actually says here that allegations can be added so long as they are written in a neutral tone (check) and have a good source (check). On his second revert, he directed me to the WP:BLP talk page, which doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but it seems pretty silly to try and keep out a significant story like this.--Bernie44 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell is going on? 

message: http://thomaspogge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Response-to-the-Allegations-by-Fernanda-Lopez-Aguilar.pdf  is clearly SPS, but does not appear to state on his part that he engaged in improper sexual behaviour or admits to any such behaviour. Collect (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPS