Talk:Jean-Yves Béziau

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: So this chap published a paper 2 years ago that some people are now offended by. 
I added some details on the controversy and removed some blog citations. Please help me by (a) adding better citations or (b) removing some of the remaining POV writing; it is hard to write details like this without "taking sides." 
CircularReason (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am adding a link to a blog entry written by a female expert in both philosophy and logic as per Wikipedia policy: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I posit that this is a reliable source on whether a scientific paper on philosophy of logic is sexist. 80.110.97.4 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beziau "political correctness" controversy 

message: User:Arthur blumfield continuously deletes well-documented and objective sources that state facts reflecting negatively on the subject of the article. For instance, three statements about the controversy by professors of philosophy from all over the world have been removed by him, after which he put a tag requesting more reliable sources about the controversy. Similarly, he removed the information about the reaction of the editors-in-chief of Synthese to these criticisms. Further, he removed a ranking of Logica Universalis by a well-respected and widely used ranking authority, one of only five such national authorities listed on the Journal ranking. 
These edits are typically made without explanation and are clearly biased towards the subject of the article and aim to remove all negative facts about him. Thus, they constitute sneaky vandalism as defined in WP:SNEAKY: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages".  
Arthur blumfield posted the photo :File:UNILOG2015.JPG, which
* is the official photo from a conference organised by the subject of the article and 
* is posted on the personal webpage of the subject [www.jyb-logic.org/lectures.html].
The fact that Arthur blumfield posted it as his own work means that this user is one of the organisers and, thus, close colleagues and collaborators of the subject (or, possibly, even the subject himself). This explains the source of the positive bias. 80.110.124.29 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by Arthur blumfield 

message: I've just removed a bunch of these, generally blogs are not considered a reliable source for a biography like this one, see WP:SPS. Sometimes we make an exception when the people writing the blog are acknowledged experts on the subject they're writing about, but I would like to see a case made for adding these sources here (and a consensus to include them) first.  Also, if you're adding blog sources please summarize and use short quotes rather than copy-pasting in the entire source.  See WP:COPYVIO.  Thanks. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This link seems like the closest to an RS on the controversy that I can find, it is a blog but it includes a statement by the editors of Synthese. Thoughts? Anything I'm missing? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree that the material in Daily Nous is the best we can hope for unless of course the story is picked up by a professional journalist. Note that Daily Nous was considered a good forum for discussing the issue not only by the editors of Synthese but also by the subject himself . IMHO, this controversy need only be covered by three statements: one from the critics, e.g., Daily Nous, one from the subject (I provided a short excerpt but it was deleted by Arthur blumfield ), and one from the editors (their most comprehensive response is on Daily Nous). While the other blogs can be omitted (as long as the text does not say there was only one critic), they are still RS because, as you say, they are written by experts in philosophy. All of them are personal blogs of professors of philosophy: Catarina Dutilh Novaes  from the Netherlands, Jonathan Ichikawa  from Canada, Eric Schliesser  from Belgium and Brian Leiter  from the US. The Wikipedia definition of experts requires peer-reviewed publications in the relevant field. Here are links to their peer-reviewed publications in philosophy: Dutilh Novaes , Ichikawa , Schliesser  and Leiter . In addition, the blog of Brian Leiter was cited in an article in New York Times regarding the previous big Synthese controversy. . Surely, what's good enough for NYT should be good enough for WPD. Charley86 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog sources