Talk:Philosophical Gourmet Report

message: User Epeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Retaliation_by_Epeefleche_and_Stesmo
by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663725919&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663826565&oldid=663635214 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663712714&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABA_Journal&type=revision&diff=663728099&oldid=643625305 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis&type=revision&diff=663728236&oldid=652907416 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663725721&oldid=663714656 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Chicago&type=revision&diff=663727449&oldid=662822725
This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_repeated_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sour_grapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Retaliation Edits

message: There are far too many lists in this article!  It's like a list of lists!
Philosophers are good at expressing large sets of data in list form, I guess.Llamabr 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: This is quite an impressive article for a topic non-philosophers might call "obscure"! However, I'd like to see it get a major rewrite to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and the Wikipedia Manual of Style. My main concerns about the article are listed below.
*The article contains extensive "pro and con" lists, which are unacceptable for a variety of reasons, including some listed below. The information in these lists, if it is neutral and verifiable, needs to be incorporated into the main body of the article in descriptive, encyclopedic prose.
*In particular, the article seems to be devolving into open debate in the Suggested improvements and/or alternatives section. For example, one point in this section currently reads: "A more proportionally representative sample of the board in terms of geography and area of specialisation. (Response: but the board is already representative: what would be the relevant proportions?)" This discussion needs to be removed from the article and taken to a forum or blog.
*The article lacks inline citations. Adding these is necessary so that readers and editors can more easily determine whether the information comes from reliable sources. A guide to adding inline citations can be found here.
*Wikipedia is not an advice column. The "suggested advice" section is inappropriate both for that reason and also because:
:#It is an unreferenced synthesis of already unreferenced material.
:#As such, it probably qualifies as original research. "No original research" is one of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia.
:#It addresses the reader as "you", making substantial assumptions about his/her background, education, and career aspirations. Prospective philosophy graduate students are certainly not the only audience for this article.
:#It makes normative statements about how the report should be used. Encyclopedia articles are not in the business of telling people what they should do.
Since a rewrite of these proportions would involve massive changes to the article, I thought the best thing was just to add some templates highlighting what's going on in the article and post my concerns on the talk page. The editors who are already familiar with this article will probably have a much better idea than I of what can be done to improve it. I hope this has been helpful. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 07:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improving this article 

message: Redundant of what is there; and not much here at all in the first place, in terms of notability, anyway. Epeefleche (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support merger with the Brian Leiter article.24.63.65.72 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does this article exist at all?!  Epeefleche is correct, about lack of notability. I don't believe it should be merged with Brian Leiter article given that Leiter is no longer editor of PGR.--FeralOink (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing merge proposal given consensus not to merge; I'm neutral on the deletion question.Klbrain (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Brian Leiter]] 

message: As there has already in the past been concern about COI editing on this page, it is worth noting that a complete newbie editor seems to be editing in accord with the past suspected COI editor, and also even though completely new has somehow come to track this page and the page that is being asked to be merged into it. They were also created the same day as another editor with similarly focused edits. This bears watching. See that newbie editor's comments here, as well as his chest-beating as to the subject of this article being a respected person in his blog-like very long postings  here. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI editing 

message: I agree with the pruning of links, per our EL guideline, as reflected here. I caution the editor who restored them not to edit war, and not to edit against consensus. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  EL 

message: I'm aware of a more secondary source that might be helpful. It's a single-paragraph news writeup by Sue Robertson in Philosophy Now magazine (issue 105, Nov/Dec 2014 p. 5; ISSN 0961-5970). It says that the Philosophical Gourmet Report is "widely consulted", also says "invaluable reading...for philosophy graduate students and academics". Re-wording that in a single statement with an encyclopedic tone, this could say that the rankings do carry some weight with many in the field. I would suggest it as a replacement for the 'bible for philosophy students' quote (preferably while retaining the existing reference). 
I'm not opinionated on the article, but since I happened to have that magazine around I thought I would draw everyone's attention to it in case that remains a sticking point. Geogene (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine IMHO for an attributed opinion but it should have the year it was made added to the wp text entry. It's not fine if -- as Junkie kept on doing -- it is used to support a statement in WP's voice to that effect. As I read it, both are in effect seeking to say the same thing, so I don't see a difference on that score. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential source