|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.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Suggestions on improving the article
First, I would like to add special recognition here for BondiArt's additions to the article. As only one member of community interested in this article, I think the additions are fantastic and suggest ways to further the article. This is only from me, but well done! Perhaps those who are interested could follow the three sections that are now mentioned in the article: (1) 'analysis of the philosophy, politics, and economic thought of the Hegelian School'; (2) 'the historical development of German idealism from Leibniz to Hegel'; (3) 'aesthetics and politics'. How does that sound?
As for swdgray's lengthy comment of June 23rd (directed to me), I'm quite hesitant to write anything in his direction now. I think it will be best that I abstain, since I seem to bring out the worst in him (or maybe her). I will note however (and with the best of intentions) that I think his or her comment of having more sources and references is a priority somewhere in there. (Canadian1982 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC))
I have reviewed this page as I have an avid interest in keeping biographies about current academics in the social sciences relevant. This page should be flagged for deletion, as it does not meet the peer reviewed criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. The entire page is questionably cited (especially the bit about most original, though peripheral academic) and reads more like a shameless self-promotion article than a serious report on someone who - to be honest - no one in the field of political science or philosophy has heard of. The publication list (one book cited in three different languages?) says it all. This is an encyclopedia not a department website. If we were to keep the article I propose several deletions, starting with the dubious association with Charles Taylor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swdgray (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If no one has any objections and this page cannot be reasonably brought into line with Wikipedia standards (i.e. become an encyclopedic article) I am going to propose deletion. The Chair appointment meets WP:ACADEMIC but that is only one cited fact out of many. There are many academic chairs, most of whom do not warrant articles - this falls nicely into that category and is in clear violation of the editorial guide's five pillars.
Please see the WP:PROF guidelines before assessing the merit of this deletion request. I do not believe that there is a case to be made to have this article in Wikipedia.
Replies by Canadian1982
I appreciate the comments by swdgray, and I shall reply by making four comments. First, I have taken swdgray's comments seriously by re-writing and re-editing some of the article. However, I take some of his comments as total guess work and perhaps even viciously written. I doubt very much swdgray's comment that 'no one' in the field has heard of Douglas Moggach. I may have spoken too generally with what I had originally written, but my intentions were not to paint douglas moggach as a widely known author in the field of political science and philosophy as swdgray suggests. While douglas moggahc is definitely known, he is not I think widely known. I agree here and I corrected this by specifying the field of german idealism, and this is what I had intended and has the sources listed in the bibliography suggested. Secondly, while we might disagree on what makes a person historically reputable enough for an encyclopaedia article, swdgray's comments fail to propose any way that the article can be improved. I for one believe that when someone discovers lost texts of huge magnitude and widely known such as Bauer's that that justifies a encyclopedia article on historical grounds. If this is not enough, then i'll work hard to find a reason to justify my efforts. Thirdly, swdgray lays ill-intentioned charges of accusing dougla smoggach of 'shamefull self-promotion'. This is complete guess work. As an author, I have the right to remain anonymous, however, I can say for sure that I am not the subject of this encyclopedia article. I'm only a student in idealism, and this is merely one of the articles that I am in the process of writing. Finally, I don't understand what swdgray's is getting at with Chaarles Taylor and his dubious position that there is one book cited three times. This is obviously false. I revised the list and there are no problems in that area. And if one reads the books listed in the bibliography and with the suggessted interlocutors, one would have understood the reference. I appreciate the comment nonetheless, and i'll work to improve the article in the future in that direction. (Canadian1982 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Reply by swdgray
I appreciate that Canadian1982 has taken my editorial remarks to heart, but feel that some feelings might have been unintentionally hurt in the process.
The first thing I will say is that I think you need to calm down. This is a multi-user editing process and while what I wrote was certainly impersonal but it was not 'vicious'. As Wikipedia itself hastens to mention in its guidelines, when a deletion proposal is raised there is nothing personal about it - just an editorial opinion being raised for communal discussion. I would also warn you against false accusations of vandalism (made in the history section). This is a serious charge. For the record, I did not touch the article and clearly stated several grounds (according to Wikipedia policies) for possible deletion prior to actually making the proposal. Neither action constitutes vandalism. Looking at the history of this stub, I also note that a 'speedy deletion' request was made by another user. I can understand that both requests must be frustrating as you try to get information up and make it conform to Wikipedia standards. While it does not justify the rather strange rant you've unleashed in my direction, I do sympathize with that. In the future, I would suggest using Wikipedia's 'incubator' section while you are constructing an article in order to prevent fly-by editors from coming in an assessing half-complete work.
I will take the fact that you re-edited the article in response to my comments as confirmation that I did indeed offer proposals "about how the article could be improved" - despite your saying otherwise. As for your insinuations that I engaged in guess-work about the suggestion of self-promotion I will refer you (as I tried to do before) to the Wikipedia guidelines on assessing notability WP:NOTE. I did not say that 'no one' has heard of Douglas Moggach (existentially speaking) but I did take issue with the suggestion that he was well known (as you claimed without citation). In the future, I would suggest retrieving independent or 'third party' sources (preferably book reviews, or a list of 'major' APSR, JP, etc. that have reviewed his work). Citing his webpage as the only confirming source only invites the kinds of objections I have raised. I would also hasten to mention that as a scholar familiar with 'Saint Bruno' (mostly as young Marx's punching bag) I would consider my general knowledge of political theory substantial enough to not have to rely on 'guessing' when editing articles.
I will not address your strange remarks about 'anonymity' as nowhere did I question the identity of you, Canadian1982. Nor did I raise the possibility that Douglas Moggach wrote this - ironically, you raised that possibility. What I said was that it reads like self-promotion instead of academic and, on those grounds, is a candidate for deletion. As for your labeling of my 'vicious' objection to listing the same book in different languages, I will take the fact that you changed this to indicate that you grudgingly took the point to heart. In the future, you could include a mention of translations, but typically one bibliographic citation per book is standard.
Finally, I will restate my point about the 'dubious' association with Charles Taylor. Typically encyclopedic articles of this kind use the 'interlocutors' section to list other scholars with whom the subject has had significant (published) debates with (ie. Tully-Skinner, Rawls-Habermas, etc.). As you have questioned my integrity as an editor I am now well familiar with Douglas Moggach's CV and note that none of the scholars you previously listed (Skinner, Taylor, etc.) have had any published debates with Moggach. As such, this section should be (and was by you) removed. This fact - so we are clear - is what prompted me to call the association with Taylor dubious. I stand by it.
I would again point out that you could have avoided all of this complaints by incubating the article. As is, it is very unfair to suggest that my intentions, comments, and (yes) suggestions were anything but collegial. This is Wikipedia not a graduate seminar. I appreciate that you have an interest in German Idealism and look forward to your continued contributions. I trust that, in the future, you will be much more careful in your additions to this article and (hopefully) you will be less frustrated if (as is likely) any further objections are raised by other users. As a last remark I will say that the article still suffers from a lack of independent sources - which, I hope, you will correct before make substantial additions to the article content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swdgray (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Reply by BondiArt 23 March 2011:
Material was accidentally inserted here. Deleting.
I have modified the text to better fit the guidelines of neutrality. This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article, and I hope it reads better now. I posted this comment yesterday but it ended up at the end of someone else's post instead of in a new section. I'm sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BondiArt (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)