|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I noticed a lot of the references are his articles and they are referenced throughout this wiki article. Just read a recent one from him and if anyone is up to it, feel free to add this ref in somewhere appropriate. 
Philebritite is enemy of the subject and destroy the entry very often
Philebritite always trying to insert things that make the subject look bad. I think that the "Philip Roth" part is a very marginal piece of material and should not be includd in a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinacina123 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Current state of article
The negative criticism component of the article seems very extremely unbalanced, and a lot of the editorial-surprised phrasing is pushing a POV; examples "credentialled academic philosophers", "what he understands as", "A longer, well-reasoned response", etc. Also, the sheer volume of negative quotes essentially makes the article a WP:COATRACK, a vehicle for bashing the subject. I actually know nothing about this guy; however, it's easy for me to see that this article is unbalanced. Studerby (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- This article has been raised at the BLP noticeboard here I've removed some blockquotes and blogs used as citations but a lot of work still needs to be done. Ludlom (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- The article clearly cites Brian Leiter's blog numerous times, when a cursory browse through that blog shows that there is some sort of personal spat between the two, which is more than merely "professional". Leiter's blog may be used as evidence that SOME philosophers disagree with Romano's assessments, but it may not be used to establish (as the citation claims) that Romano is "incompetent". That couldn't be more POV. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposed temporary removal of material
Under WP:BLP, I am proposing the temporary removal of the subsections related to the literary controversies surrounding Carlin Romano. In my opinion, the issues are framed in opposition to WP:NPOV; that is, they set a context for what are normal literary disputes that characterizes them as somehow unseemly, thereby calling into question the subject's integrity and judgment. For example, to say that Romano's work has "come under scrutiny" is closer to how you might express suspicions about someone being investigated for legal or ethical improprieties, rather than how you present matters that amount to routine intellectual disagreements. While there is a good faith effort to provide balance in giving the positions of both sides, the subject is on the defensive from the start.
Furthermore, while the text is supported by citations, several of these are blog comments, which are unacceptable as published sources. Also, none of the sources sum up the disputes to establish a larger controversy or set the context used in the article. All we have is one party saying this, and the other responding. In sum, it is my position that WP:VER is not being adhered to and also that issues related to WP:OR are raised.
I realize my positions are open to debate and that there are other ways in which the material given can be re-worked. However, resolution and cleanup will take time. Meanwhile, the issues at hand have been allowed to stand for well over a year, to the detriment of the subject, and no good faith efforts have been taken on the part of editors to resolve them. By the way, I encountered this article randomly through the Guild of Copy Editors May 2011 cleanup. I'm willing to participate in researching and re-writing the sections in question, in addition to cleaning up the rest of the article (in fact, I've already started). I will also attempt to contact the original editors of the material in question. Absent a response and feedback from other editors, I will remove the material as proposed within 3 days with the intention of restoring it in an edited form within a reasonable amount of time. Please feel free to contact me here or on my discussion page. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've just removed the material mentioned above, given no response from others. My BLP grounds for removal include the one-sided, POV presentation of several marginal controversies (Heidegger would be an exception and I left the section on this stand), as well as a reliance on blogs by those who disagree with Romano. I'll give a few examples that I suggest be removed from the Discussion page after others have time to comment:
- "Romano's performance as a reviewer of philosophy books and his understanding of the nature of philosophy taught in British and American universities has come under critical scrutiny by academic philosophers..." The words here are those of the author, a POV/OR summation of the sources.
- "In 2007, Heidi Julavits, referring to newspaper reviews, said, 'I think a 650-word review is bullshit... Reviews are not criticism. I see them as essentially Consumer Reports guides.'" Wonderful quote, except it appears to be directed at Romano's work, when in fact it's just a general statement. The rest of the paragraph includes other disconnected information that never quite captures the controversy, to the subject's detriment.
- The header "Dale Peck and Other High-Profile Targets" is pejorative, as if Romano "targets" others rather than just writes reviews or criticism. An incomplete treatment of various disputes follows, full of characterizations such as "editorialized against Romano's conclusions", "legal issues raised in Romano's two-part essay", "published assertions by Romano", etc., which shed little light on the issues and generate only negative impressions about the subject.
- There's more, but that should suffice. I believe BLP requires a fairer, more complete presentation and that the removed material needs considerable work to bring up to that standard. Allreet (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)