Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OpenFuture (talk | contribs) at 06:25, 9 April 2016 (→Sources to support claim that Timothy Leary was a philosopher). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORN WP:NOR/N WP:ORN WP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Misplaced Pages. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Defining child neglect in relation to child abuse

(Note: this post was moved here from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Disputed interpretation of review article in Psychiatric Quarterly—relevant diff here). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Does the article "Unintentional Child Neglect: Literature Review and Observational Study", by E. Friedman and S.B. Billick (2014), actually support the wording added here to Child abuse § Definitions, specifically the following statement?

Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not; this is because the harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child.

This has been discussed at Talk:Child abuse § Unintentional neglect not considered "abuse"?, with no agreement reached. Several sources appear to support the first part ("Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not"), but Friedman and Billick's article appears to offer a quite different reason for this:

In a study done by Putman-Hornstein, Cleves, Licht. and Needell (2013), they broadly defined neglect as 'acts of parental omission that endanger children.' In this study, they compared instances of fatal injuries for children referred to child protective services for allegations of physical abuse compared with those referred for neglect. It was determined that children referred for physical abuse sustained fatal injuries at a rate 1.7 times more frequently than those referred for neglect. Because of this, Putnam-Hornstein et al. suggest that there is a conceptual difference between abuse and neglect. Others disagree. In an article published by Single Parent Advocate, Cedrick Tardy (2012) writes, 'abuse and neglect are one in the same.' He defines unintentional neglect as an instance when a parent decided to put a priority of lower value over the ultimate well being of his or her child. Parents may even believe, he says, they are are acting in the child's best interest.

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I'm the other person involved in the dispute (thus far). Basically, I've argued that the source supports that child neglect may be distinguished from child abuse, which it clearly does. See the abstract. And I've also argued that the source supports that the reasons child neglect may be distinguished from child abuse are because "harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child." This link shows how the source is currently used in the article. The source repeatedly talks about how child neglect can be unintentional, which is a given considering the title of the reference, and it talks about the need for a consistent definition of child neglect. From what I'm seeing of the source, it is citing studies or authors that are defining child neglect as different than child abuse (meaning how child abuse is more so often defined), and the intentionality aspect is included as a part of that. In addition to the passage that Coconutporkpie cited, another passage from the source is the following: "Because neglect is multiply determined, it has both the immediate and gradual effects, and covers a wide range of behaviors, it is a more intractable form of maltreatment than physical abuse. In fact, child and family services supervisor Michelle Selinger, with Carver County Community Social Services in Minnesota, said, 'Being able to wrap a safety plan around physical abuse is almost easier than wrapping a plan around chronic neglect'. According to Selinger, cases of neglect are more complicated and often more fatal than cases of clear-cut abuse."

And another passage is this: "According to Schnizter and Ewigman (2008), family composition is also an independent risk factor on the occurrence of child neglect. Their study looked at data from the Missouri Child Fatality Review Program from 1992 to 1999. Children who died under the age of five were eligible for the study, and controls were selected from children who died of natural causes. Cases were defined as children who died of unintentional injury when the caregiver (1) was not present), (2) present but not capable of protecting the child, (3) placed the child in an unsafe sleeping environment, or (4) failed to use legally mandated safety devices." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question about the review article supporting the wording provided, the answer is "Mostly, yes". The abstract clearly supports the concepts explaining why some researchers find defining child abuse "difficult". So I propose that the passage be changed to:

Some health professionals and authors consider neglect as part of the definition of abuse, while others do not. Child neglect is difficult to define because harm may have been unintentional, or because the caregivers did not understand the severity of the problem, which may have been the result of cultural beliefs about how to raise a child.

Scoobydunk (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's what this source is saying; according to the paper's abstract, it's more accurate to say that child neglect is difficult to define mostly because of factors that include: cultural beliefs that lead parents to believe they are acting in children's best interest; the delayed effects of child abuse and neglect, especially emotional neglect; and the diversity of acts that qualify as child abuse. Unintentionality and unawareness per se are not named as factors in the literature review portion. The authors also do not state how "unintentionality" is assessed in the papers being reviewed, except for the one instance quoted above. So I don't think that this paper is a good source for discussing how child abuse is defined in relation to unintentional neglect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconutporkpie (talk • contribs) 22 March 2016

From the introduction of that paper: "In an article published by Single Parent Advocate, Cedrick Tary (2012) writes, "abuse and neglect are one in the same". He defines unintentional neglect as an instance when a parent decides to put a priority of lower value over the ultimate well being of his or her child. Parents may even believe, he says, that they are acting in the child's best interest." So this source does cover unintentional neglect compared to child abuse and the quotes the author uses show that "unintentional neglect" bares multiple factors described in why defining child abuse is difficult. I don't see what the problem is here.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That definition is attributed to C Tary; it isn't the authors' definition. As noted here, in saying that neglect is simply the same as abuse, the mention of Tary's paper in fact suggests the opposite of child neglect being "difficult to define". I don't know what "bares multiple factors described in why defining" is supposed to mean; please explain. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I know who that definition is attributed too because I included his name in the comment. However, the author of this article included that definition to show that child abuse is "difficult to define" by contrasting Tary's definition with other sources and then conducts and entire experiment analyzing unintentional neglect. I think you should address my concern first, and explain precisely the issue you have with this source.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What the authors intended to show is not the issue, only what their statements explicitly say. I have already mentioned why I believe this source to be mis-interpreted based on its actual contents. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The source is specifically titled Unintentional Child Neglect: Literature Review and Observational Study, and, from I've read of it (I've read the entire source), it is analyzing unintentional child neglect. So how is it not "a good source for discussing how child abuse is defined in relation to unintentional neglect"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The source's title does not make any claims or state any facts—so it is not a sufficient basis for making a factual claim. The authors do not explicitly state that unintentional harm or parents' unawareness affect the definition of neglect. The closest they come is in stating, "Cultural differences and motives must be taken into account when determining if an action is neglectful"—not the same thing. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• yes the source supports the content as do several others. (active) Abuse and (passive) neglect are distinguishable. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Distinguishing 'active' abuse and 'passive' neglect is not really the issue—the dispute is over why they may be considered distinct by some authors. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Compelling cause of 1977 NHTSA investigation of the Ford Pinto

Article: Ford Pinto

Section: Ford Pinto#NHTSA_investigation

Article content:

Lee and Ermann said that the Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" and accusations that the NHTSA was buckling to industry pressure as well as the public interest created by sensationalized new stories "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration."

Source:

Dowie's (1977) article had labeled the Pinto a "firetrap" and accused the agency of buckling to auto-industry pressure. Public interest generated by the article forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that NHTSA would be under a microscope for its duration.

• Lee, Matthew T; Ermann, M. David (Feb 1999). "Pinto "Madness" as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis". Social Problems. 46 (1): 30–47. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Not directly related to the sourcing of this content, but for interest "Dowie's (1977) article" is:

• Dowie, Mark (September 1977). "Pinto Madness". Mother Jones. Retrieved January 17, 2014.

Discussion

The source clearly says that public interest "forced" the second (1977) NHTSA investigation of the Ford Pinto. The contended content is a claim about what a source said about the motivation of actors in historical events, specifically the causes that compelled the NHTSA to investigate. The paraphrase of the source strays into original research by exceeding the claim of the source when it collapses two separate sentences. Yes, the Mother Jones (magazine) article called the Ford Pinto a "firetrap" (and this is covered in earlier article content); and yes, the Mother Jones article claimed the NHTSA was too lenient on the auto industry, but Lee and Ermann did not say that Mother Jones saying those things was what "forced" the investigation.

Does the article content constitute original research? Comments? Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not OR HughD has engaged in an edit war associated with this article. He is now WP:FORUMSHOPing in an attempt to get some of his rejected ideas to stick. He has also failed to notify involved editors (myself), Greglocock in particular. The material in question is a reasonable paraphrase of approximately one page of the journal article. It is also important to note that HughD doesn't likely have a copy of the article he mentioning here. I would ask that he quote the opening paragraph of the section titled NHTSA's Role In The Landmark Narrative on page 40. That paragraph ends with "While NHTSA's actions appear "rational" from a distance, like Ford's they were the product of compromise, conflicting organizational interests and routines, and environmental pressures and constraints." Perhaps if HughD could provide the full quote of pages 40 and 41 he could then make is case. In the mean time, this is more battleground mentality by HughD related to this article. Springee (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• The current description does entail a bit of synthesis and POV. It took me a while to see exactly what the problem was, but after rereading HughD's post and rereading the passage on page 41, I now understand HughD's complaint. The quoted passage from page 41 says "Public interest generated by the article forced a second Pinto investigation..." it does not say that "Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" forced a second Pinto investigation". The way the article is currently written is trying to blame Mother Jones' "labeling" as part of what forced the investigation, but the source only explicitly says that "public interest generated by the article" is what forced the second investigation. The source makes it a point to distinguish between these two statements, so we should also preserve that distinction in the article. I think this is a relatively minor quibble, but one that's merited. The bigger issue is the violation of WP:NPOV with the description "sensationalized news stories" because the word "sensationalized" doesn't appear in the context of the source that's provided for this claim. I think the easiest and most fair approach is to simply quote the article directly, so there's no risk of OR or POV concerns.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

First, there is no NPOV violation here. It is quite reasonable to say that new stories which exaggerated the claimed issues with the car have sensationalized the story. Certainly using terms like "firetrap" is sensationalizing. Lee specifically notes that a number of stories that carried claims consistent with "Pinto Madness" readily gained public acceptance while credible contradictory claims did not. In reading accounts of the case from many sources its very clear that the public interest came in large part from the Mother Jones article. I think you are splitting very thin hairs to claim this is a NPOV issue. When the article lock resulting from HughD's edit warring is lifted I will change it to a direct quote.

Disclaimer: Based on previous interactions Scoobydunk cannot be considered an impartial editor with respect to edits by HughD or myself. Springee (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, Thank you for your careful read, concise summary of the issue, and helpful comments. Any other comments? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD: Yes, I have a question. Why did you fail to notify the Ford Pinto talk page regarding this discussion? Your edit warring on the page has twice resulted in a page lock. Failing to notify the page of this discussion is another example of WP:TEND editing. Springee (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If this isn't WP:FORUMSHOPPING it's something close. Please stop. Please notify folks on the relevant talk page that you're coming here. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The instructions above at the top of this page in bold and red are very clear: "If you mention specific editors, please notify them." No specific editors were mentioned in this WP:ORN request. The noticeboard is available to editors seeking to broaden comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments from uninvolved colleagues on the possibility of original research in the above excerpted article content would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

*Notice added to article talk page . HughD deleted this message twice. Springee (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments here from uninvolved colleagues on the possibility of original research in the above excerpted article content would be appreciated. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Restating, the current article content claims that three things "forced" the NHTSA to investigate the Pinto:

1. The Mother Jones article saying the Pinto was a firetrap;
2. The Mother Jones article saying the NHTSA was lenient on automkers; and
3. public interest created by sensationalized new stories

None of which statements are supported by the source. The source says only that "public interest generated by the article forced..." The current article content is original research. Comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates

In the infobox at 2016 Brussels bombings there are coordinates of the locations where the events took place which (AFAIK) have not been published in any reliable source. Is this original research? Firebrace (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We know the general locations, but I see the number of degrees of precision used there far exceeds what we would normally include. Eg Maalbeek/Maelbeek metro station normally has degree, minute and second to two digits, but the bombing has it far too precise to 2-3 extra digits. If the precision was taken back to 2 digits on the seconds, then they are fine. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this original reseach using the Bible?

At Tabernacle

==Importanceof the Tabernacle== Exodus 25:8 states that if we want God dwell among us, we must build him a sanctuary. Interestingly, in the Written Torah(The Law of Moses) there is no commandment to build the Temple. Jerusalem or the Temple are never mentioned in the Written Torah. Instead, all rituals in the Written Torah are centered around the Tabernacle and not Temple. Levitical tithes, for example, were given to the Levites specifically in exchange for service in the Tent of Appointment (Tabernacle, see (Numbers 18:31)). Tabernacle and its rituals is also explicitly commanded to be forever. See Exodus 27:20-21, Leviticus 16:32-34, Leviticus 24:2-4, Numbers 18:20-24, Numbers 18:31 and Leviticus 26:11. Tabernacle is also said to be a blessing. See (Leviticus 26:11)

The editor, Aleksig6 (talk · contribs) has made similar edits today, and insists they are not OR. I'm off to bed now but would like other eyes. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

And I have explained to the crazy dude over here, that this is what Torah states. This is not what I say. I just quote the verses. You are welcome to check it. It is not OR. Aleksig6 (talk)

And also, you are all welcome to edit it to your liking. But I want it there, at least partially. Aleksig6 (talk)

Woke up this morning to find that he had edit-warred (despite an earlier block for same), swore at people and made other personal attacks, and was blocked. Continued through email and his talk page and lost access to both. Why do people do that? Of course he also socked. Doug Weller talk 07:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And now I've looked at my watch list and he's gone even wilder editing through proxies now using all caps, etc. Several articles have had to be protected by other Admins. Doug Weller talk 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO religious texts are not proper sources except when using it to back up a claim about the same religion. Davidbuddy9 Talk  16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Religious texts are primary sources at best and should not be used when numerous reliable secondary sources are available. Yes, by listing multiple verses from religious texts to make some point, this is called original research. The editor is arguing their own point and trying to cherry pick quotes from those texts to support their viewpoint. It's no different than if I said "Homosexuality is a sin according to X,Y, and Z verses in the Bible" <-- That's original research. I am interpreting a primary source and using multiple interpretations from that source to put forth my own argument. If his point of view is legitimate, it shouldn't be hard for him to find some reliable secondary sources that make that argument for him. If what you're saying about the rest of the behavior is true, then administrators should be addressing that bigger problem first.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ancient religious texts aren't reliable primary sources either. Not only is their history too vague, but whatever respect they have has been influenced too much by faith over the years. What these are is historical artifacts like pottery shards to be analyzed by experts and reported on by primary sources. If an article says, "David killed Goliath", citing only the Torah, that is an unsourced fact. If it says, "the Torah says David killed Goliath" with no further citation, that is original research. If it says "the Torah says David killed Goliath" and cites a modern book about Judaism, that's proper Misplaced Pages material, though not as good as something with a secondary source. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Flydubai Flight 981

• The question is about the similar air accidents and involves possible unpublished analysis of published material that serves to advance one's position. It is also discussed in this section of the article's talk page. My opponent, User:Petebutt, suggested me there to contact the administrator to resolve our dispute and I am thus following his advice.

So, here is the story: User:Petebutt added a paragraph to this article with information about English Electric Canberra bomber crash in 1983, claiming that this crash was similar to Flight 981. He provided two sources with the description of this bomber crash, but none of them mentioned any similarity between the bomber crash and Boeing 737 Flight 981 crash. I removed this paragraph, with the explanations that the suggested similarity between these two cases is an original research for the reasons I just mentioned. He reverted my edit, insisting that documented references could not be original research and asked me to provide my reasoning on the talk page. I provided my reasoning on the article's talk page. User:Petebutt replied, suggesting me to contact the administrator to resolve our dispute. - Daniel (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources to support claim that Timothy Leary was a philosopher

At issue in Timothy Leary is a claim that he was a philosopher, with several editors insisting he was not. One source was already cited and I have added 6 more. FreeKnowledgeCreator and Skyerise object, arguing that this is impermissable WP:OR. , , . Further discussion may be found on the article talk page, especially at Talk:Timothy Leary#Protected edit request on 1 April 2016. Guidance is requested. Msnicki (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear about it, the issue is not whether Leary was a philosopher, but whether the article should describe him as one. I realize that this may seem like an overly subtle distinction to some people, but it is important to be clear what has actually been under discussion. Msnicki is incorrect in asserting that I have insisted that Leary was not a philosopher; Misplaced Pages is not a debating site, and this is in any case a matter I have no interest in discussing. Msnicki has likewise misrepresented my position regarding the citations she added. I stated that in two cases using them to try to show that Leary was a philosopher constituted original research; that's all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So you agree that the other four sources state that he was a philosopher, and that the article therefore should describe him as a philosopher. Good, that was quick. We're done here then. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they state that Leary was a philosopher - I can read, OpenFuture. I do not necessarily agree that this means that the article should describe Leary as a philosopher, but that's for reasons not connected to the ban on original research, which it would therefore be pointless to discuss here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you are going to try to push your opinion through by different kinds of hairsplitting and wiki-lawyering for each source. OK. Then we DO need to discuss these two sources in detail here, since you are wrong about at least one of them. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary, so that the people here doesn't have to read through very long discussions. The sources under debate are:

1. Isralowitz, Richard (May 14, 2004). Drug Use: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1576077085. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Leary explored the cultural and philosophical implications of psychedelic drugs
2. Donaldson, Robert H. (2015). Modern America: A Documentary History of the Nation Since 1945. Routledge. ISBN 978-0765615374. Retrieved April 1, 2016. Leary not only used and distributed the drug, he founded a sort of LSD philosophy of use that involved aspects of mind expansion and the revelation of personal truth through "dropping acid."

And the question then is:

1. Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "explored cultural and philosophical implications"?
2. Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "founded a sort of philosophy"?

--OpenFuture (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That drastically over-simplifies the issue. The question should be whether an encyclopedic article on Timothy Leary should state that his occupation included philosopher. If the information is WP:DUE, it is fine to give some attributed opinions to the effect that Leary's comic acts and drug explorations involved "philosophy", but that is not the same as having the infobox or the article text baldly state that Leary was a philosopher. I can often work out how much change I'm due when buying a few things. If an article described me, should it say that I am a mathematician? Should Hillary Clinton include fighter in her occupation (Hillary Clinton is known as absolutely tenacious, a dogged fighter and many more similar sources). Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources don't say that his acts "involved philosophy", the sources state he was a philosopher. If reliable sources for you state you are a mathematician, then the Misplaced Pages article on you should reasonably state that you are a mathematician, no matter if you can count your change or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

While I think the sources are sufficient to describe him as a philosopher in the lede paragraph, I don't think the philosopher label belongs under "occupation" in the infobox. OhNoitsJamie 13:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this captures the point. There's "philosopher" as a recognized occupation, and then there's "philosopher" implying a great thinker but not necessarily their day job. (This MW definition gives the latter implication as the first one, and the more formal role as the second). I would agree sources consider Leary as a great thinker, but I do also don't think the sources identify him as a professional "student of philosophy" to be considered as a career role. The word can be used to described want people thought of him, but should be avoided as if he were factually one. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be an acceptable compromise for FreeKnowledgeCreator, et al? We keep it in the lead, but remove it from "Occupation" in the side-bar? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That seems a good route. Leary was a philosopher, but it wasn't his main occupation or commonly-accepted priority profession. Randy Kryn 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Philosopher" is not verified simply because there's public use of that term to describe him in some popular sense of the word. Such descriptions are not sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the article. If there were secondary sources which describe a controversy as to whether the term applies and the pros and cons, yeas and nays, that controversy might be noteworthy. Otherwise not. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate. If a person is given a certain label (regardless if it is possible or negative, as long as it does not introduce direct BLP problems) and it widely used about that person, then stating, with sources, that that person is labeled that is generally acceptable practice. So I would readily agree that calling Leary as a "great thinking" philosopher is reasonably okay here with sources presented so far; we just can't say his professions included being a philosopher. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure how anyone could conclude philosopher wasn't his main occupation. Never mind that we even have the news report that he testified that this was his occupation. From Timothy Leary bibliography and from examination of his citations on Google scholar , it's clear that around 1964, he abandoned what appears to have been a successful academic career as a psychologist, judging by the 2817 citations received by his 1958 paper, Interpersonal diagnosis of personality.. From then on, his entire life work for the next 36 years appears to have been focused solely on his philosophy, which numerous sources describe as "think for yourself and question authority" and advocating LSD for "mind expansion and revelation of personal truth".

At this point, permit me digression on citation counts in academia. This is a huge deal for those on tenure track, c.f., . It's how academics judge impact. In engineering, where I teach, it takes a PhD and about 1000 citations to earn tenure. That's the number you'll see in my earlier citation and it appears to match what I observe. A top paper in engineering is one that gets over 1000 citations on its own. But in faculty meetings, I hear all the time from colleagues in other (slower changing) departments that even a few hundred citations is remarkable.

That appeared to be true as I somewhat randomly (H/L/M?) spot-checked a few full professors of philosophy (whom I assume we can all accept as full-time philosophers, whatever that means) at Harvard, , , , UC Santa Barbara, , , and University of Washington, , , this morning. Skipping over the obvious false hits for same-named people in obviously different fields, what you'll notice is that only a few of them appear to hit 1000 citations total even by full professorship, never mind just for tenure as associates and that it's a rare paper that got over 100. The highest I happened to find this morning was Korsgaard's amazing 2246 and Wylie's 559 .

So that's the background, now here is a table of citation counts for Leary's top publications in philosophy also taken from Google scholar.

Publication	Citations
The psychedelic experience	295
The politics of ecstacy	211
Chaos and cyber culture	139
The religious experence: Its production and interpretation	83
High priest	77
The Cyber-punk: The individual as reality pilot	56
Design for dying	31
The interpersonal, interactive, interdimensional interface	42
Turn on, tune in, drop out	33
The psychedelic reader	32
Religious implications of consciousness expanding drugs	31
The politics of conscienousness expansion	15
Psychedelic Prayers: And other Meditations	14
Foucaut and the Art of Ethics	258
Your Brain is God	13
The politics, ethics and meaning of marijuana	11
Start your own religion	12
Total	1353

It looks to me like Leary was a philosopher no matter how you slice it. Numerous WP:RS call him that. He testified that was his occupation. He spent his entire life from about 1964 on writing thousands of pages on his philosophy, which sources have no trouble describing in specific terms. He's reported to have had trouble generating income and what he did generate appears to have come from writing and speaking about his philosophy. His publications on philosophy had significant impact as most academics might measure it by citation count. Were it not for the fact that his philosophy included taking LSD, he compiled a publication record that might have earned him tenure in the philosophy department almost anywhere in the country.

I just don't know how anyone argues he wasn't a philosopher except by vague hand-waving claims that amount to little more than, "I know one when I see one and he's not it." We should be able to do better than that. Our objective here should be verifiability, not truth. I understand that some of you believe that, in truth, he wasn't really a philosopher. But what we can verify is that he was. Msnicki (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd simply like to note that if any one reliable source were enough to call Leary a philosopher, then that reference should be the only reference that need be added. Adding multiple references to support the claim that Leary was a philosopher, when one reference might suffice if it really proved the point, is unnecessary, bad editing, and disruptive. According to Fyddlestix, the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes Leary 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." I am not suggesting that any source should be added to show that Leary was a philosopher (I think the merits of doing so are questionable at best) but if one did want to add one, the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences would be much better than any of the sources added by Msnicki and would not involve original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Too many WP:RS is disruptive? Wow. Just wow. Msnicki (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not a meaningful response to my comment above. Common sense should suggest that if one citation is enough adding half a dozen is pointless or disruptive; I think other editors would agree. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Common sense would have been to agree he was a philosopher a week and several drama boards ago. If your concern was merely that we needed better sources and you knew how to find them, common sense would have been to add them then rather fight tooth and nail. I'm still struggling to understand your hairsplitting claim about WP:OR. That also deserves a wow. Msnicki (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only do others agree with FKC, but they wrote a respected essay: WP:OVERCITE. The he's a philospher supporters only need one reliable source that asserts Leary was a philosopher in the standard encyclopedic meaning of that term. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that there might be a point that FKC is presenting in that if one is trying to justify a contentious point by throwing lots of weak RS, disparate sources at it rather than one or two high quality sources, that might be a bit of SYNTH and POV pushing, particularly if those main sources are completely mum on the point or present a counterpoint. I cannot speak to this being the case for this specific situation with Leary, but it is a valid possible concern. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We had one WP:RS and that was obviously NOT enough as demonstrated by the edit warring and numerous trips to drama boards.

I think it would helpful if we could nail down this possible overciting/synthesis concern. Is that a genuine concern here or just a hypothetical concern in some hypothetical articles? None of these sources are "mum" on the question of whether Leary was a philosopher. They ALL call him a philosopher and/or describe his philosophy in similar terms. Are we now agreed that Leary really was a philosopher and that that was his occupation? These latest responses sound a lot like yes, but that FKC would prefer we use his source. Is that all it takes? Are we close to done here? Msnicki (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, the concern is that listing him with philosopher as a lede sentence or as an occupation does not jive with how WP defines a "professional" philosopher (see Contemporary philosophy), compared to someone who simply promotes a given philosophy but is not a professional philosopher. I see some of the uses in text, and I don't see much to support the first version (nothing much to support the idea that Leary was professionalized), but plenty that go along with the second case, and its the issue of understanding the nuance of that difference in how the sources present it as to apply to our article. It is comparable to understanding that you have people that are called out as philanthropists like John D. Rockefeller III, but while the act of donating money to a cause would make a random person a philanthropist by definition too because they gave $5 to charity, clearly one would not properly apply that label to that person. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course this is overciting. Of course the one source was enough. But this overciting is a direct effect of FreeKnowledgeCreators refusal to accept the sources that existed, forcing Msnicki to show that this wan not just one source that demonstrated that Leary was a philosopher, but there was many. The overciting is therefore an effect of FreeKnowledgeCreator's usual stonewall argument style. That he comes here and now *complains* about it shows that he is not interested WP:NPOV and WP:RS, he is here to push a POV, as is always the case, everytime he shows up an ad administrator noticeboard. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources call him a philosopher. He testified that was his occupation. It appears that he devoted the last 36 years of his life to writing and speaking on philosophy and that that was primary source of income. His philosophy works accumulated an impressive citation count. He had the PhD, the critical qualification mentioned in that Contemporary philosophy article as part of the "professionalization". This doesn't seem comparable to someone giving $5 to charity and wanting to be called a philanthropist. It looks to me like he was a philosopher who met every qualification anyone has suggested should be necessary. Msnicki (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Will this edit satisfy the last of any concerns? Msnicki (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the term philosopher has several meanings. In its broadest sense it means someone who has opinions about the world and expresses them, which is what Leary did. We also use the term psychologist to describe people who have some understanding of people. In that sense, Donald Trump is a great psychologist. But philosophy is also an academic discipline with a defined subject matter and a body of literature. Since Leary did not write about that subject, it would be misleading to describe him as a philosopher. What was his reply to Hume's theory of causation or Kant's categories of human understanding? How did he respond to the logical positivist argument against meaningful a priori knowledge? TFD (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So your position is that you can only be a philosopher if you write essays about Kant or Hume? Are you aware that very few full professors in philosophy do that? Most of their research is in other areas, e.g., contemporary issues in law and ethics.

More to point, I'm curious to explore your argument that Leary never wrote about philosophy. Can you kindly identify which of the publications I listed in my table above, where I've tallied Leary's citation counts, are, in fact, not works in philosophy? And can you tell us what they are instead? It would be especially helpful if you could a provide an WP:RS stating that they are not works in philosophy. To avoid any problems with all that pesky WP:OR stuff, it would be helpful if you could find quotes stating that in pretty nearly those exact words. Msnicki (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Philosophers do not necessarily have to write about Hume or Kant, but they need to write about the issues that they did and even if they do not reference Hume or Kant by name, it would be rare indeed for a paper on philosophy not to mention at least one of the philosopers associated with the empiricist or rationalist traditions of which Hume and Kant were the leading proponents. I do not know if there are sources that say these books are not about philosophy any more than there are sources that say they are not about differential calculus. Do you have any books about philosophy that include sections on Leary? TFD (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Among those 1300+ citations Google reports on scholar, it seems pretty likely some of those are in scholarly articles on philosophy, since that's the kind of stuff Google reports as citations on scholar. Do you need me to find a few of them for you? How many would you need to disprove a claim of never? If this seems likes an interesting question and you'd like to know what the sources state, not just work a POV, do you think you might be able to take a stab at the research on your own? Do you see any difference between what I've been doing and what you're doing? Msnicki (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

TFD; you have a rather antiquated view of philosophy and philosophers. The topics that you mention and think philosophers discuss are topics that has already been discussed to death and is today not mentioned outside textbooks. Although Alain de Botton surely has mentioned both Kant and Hume in his TV series, made for lay people, I can't find a paper where he mentions them. And philosophers are no longer just professors on a college with a beard. Sweden's most interesting and controversial philosopher is also a judge on the Swedish version of American Idol. This is all just a version of "I don't like it" or claiming to hold WP:THETRUTH. Misplaced Pages doesn't work like that. What we need it not The Truth, but reliable sources. The question here is if the two sources above are reliable sources for the claim that Leary is a philospher, and since not one single person has argued that they are not, the conclusion must reasonably be that they are.

Case closed. For other arguments, please discuss that on the article talk page, this is the notice board for original research, which by the way is a good label for your claims that a philosopher has to conform to your specific prejudices about old men in beards. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I absolutely stand by my position that Msnicki is guilty of original research in using the sources by Isralowitz and Donaldson to claim that Leary was a philosopher. The whole point of WP:NOR is that you do not use sources to try to show things that the sources do not directly, unambiguously, or uncontroversially state, and neither Isralowitz nor Donaldson states that Leary was a philosopher. Msnicki is simply using her personal assumptions and beliefs about what a philosopher is to try to deny that she is engaged in original research; she should not be encouraged in this. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "explored cultural and philosophical implications"? Yes, because there is no agreed upon definition of "philosopher" according to which it means that someone "explored cultural and philosophical implications" of LSD or anything else. You ask, "Is it original research to call somebody a philosopher, if the source says that they "founded a sort of philosophy"". Again, yes because founding a "sort of philosophy", whatever that means, and it may mean anything or nothing, is also not a recognized definition of "philosopher." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Further to that, it is preposterous to say that Leary should be called a philosopher because he testified that "philosopher" was his occupation. Obviously that is a self-serving claim; a reliable source needs to be found independent of Leary. Msnicki, I again suggest that if you want the article to state that Leary was a philosopher, you should use the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences rather than any other source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note my edit cited above (once again: ) in which I moved those two citations to further down in the article. You're complaining about something that's no longer there. Msnicki (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. You would do well to remove all the current citations for "philosopher" from the lead and replace them with something better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We are all volunteers, FKC. I have a FT job as an academic in an area that has nothing to do with this. This is the amount of hobby research I can contribute this week. Earlier, you indicated you thought you had a better source, but you never gave the citation or a quote. If you think you have a better source, please propose it. Depending on what you offer, I might surprise you by agreeing. But let's see it first, please, before deleting more stuff. Msnicki (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a further original research issue: Msnicki restored the "philosophers of mind" category, despite the absence of any source identifying Leary as a philosopher of mind. I've raised the issue on the talk page, and Msnicki's edit has no support there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That claim is both false, and original research. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution