Jump to content

Talk:David Pearce (philosopher)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gjmulder (talk | contribs) at 17:48, 13 January 2014 (Bad refs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeDavid Pearce (philosopher) was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 14, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Dave also has a facebook page

I haven't visited this yet it seems plausible to note here also the phrase hedonic imperative is being used on youtube as a way others have of referring to Dave's ideas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.132.187 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in the past. See /deletion for the discussion archive.

  • It was repeatedly claimed that the article was a vanity page. That claim was subsequently used to justify the deletion attempt. This claim is manifestly false, as I wrote a substantial part of the article, and as I am neither David Pearce nor an "associate" of his. Since the claim is false, the deletion attempt was, and will remain, unjustified. Please consider this before taking further action. Sir Paul 14:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. He's notable enough for Hedweb and Herbweb to merit a wiki article. Rad Racer 17:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note that the article itself seems to state that Sir Paul (who's personal webpage says he is Pablo) is an associate of David Pearce. Also note with subject's 2000 self refrential websites which are essentially spamdexing, its more then unlikely that this page itself can become the target for further spamdexing by the person.
I wasn't an "associate" of his at the time the accusations where made, nor for that matter when I wrote the comments above. The key issue here is that claims to delete the article were made without anyone taking the trouble to verify them. If you are going to remove an entry, at least make sure you get the facts right. Sir Paul 16:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liar. "In 2002 Pearce co-founded the Abolitionist Society together with Pablo Stafforini" Neither Hedweb nor Herbweb - drug web pages which have no bearing on the legitimacy of a "philosopher" - existed in 2002.

Why is this man not being treated as the fraud he so obviously is? He claims to be a philosopher, yet has no philosophical training, has written no books on philosophy, a handful of articles about drugs notwithstanding has published no legitimate intellectual material of any kind, and is the head of a research institution which has a history of doing no actual research.

This is worse than a vanity page. This is a con man using Wikipedia to create validity for his con: Jan Henrik Schon without any of the grace or skill. What contributions to the real world do you imagine that this fauxlosopher has made? There's no actual philosophy in any of his published articles, he's never written a book, he's never gotten a degree, he has no training, no doctorate, and no stated stance on any philosophical topics. Cheech Marin is more legitimate of a philosopher than this guy is; at least Cheech has written his opinions down in concrete form. Please be less gullible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.0.189 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That point about not existing in 2002 is incorrect: Hedweb is in the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine from 1998. (And note that some earlier sites were simply not indexed by that so it may have begun even earlier. Indeed, Herbweb is listed from 1996, although at the time of writing the archive of that site is offline.) See: [1]. – Kieran T (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liar. "In 2002 Pearce co-founded the Abolitionist Society together with Pablo Stafforini" Neither Hedweb nor Herbweb - drug web pages which have no bearing on the legitimacy of a "philosopher" - existed in 2002.

The Abolitionist Society is not the websites called Hedweb or Herbeb, it is a society called the Abolitionist Society that was founded in 2002.

He claims to be a philosopher

-Where did he claim this?

yet has no philosophical training

-How do you know that? Also: Are you claiming that all those philosophers who have no academic degree should not be regarded as philosophers?

has written no books on philosophy

-He hasn't published any book on paper, but could if he chose to. If you can't stand the thought of someone writing but not printing on paper, you can go print off his work yourself.

has published no legitimate intellectual material of any kind

-Your opinion

and is the head of a research institution which has a history of doing no actual research.

-Make your own research about BTLC (if that's what you're talking about) before saying that they made "no research".

etc, this comment is childish. By the way I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure whether I should be replying to comments like this. Should I just be ignoring them? Or could someone like this commenter have the power to delete the article if no one replies? Another thing for those interested: I am planning to repair this article even further, if not tonight then during the following days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous commenter could not delete the article if his/her comments aren't responded to. Some edits made this year to the article were more in the realm of opinion than fact necessarily, so I reverted to an earlier version that was pretty well-sourced. Thank you for your work on the article and I will go back through your edits to see where you made improvements to the earlier material and put those back in. -- Gloriamarie (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am always amazed that when someone attempts to write an article about people who have contributed real culture to the world such as this brilliant one (doctors, writers, philosophers, scientists, etc) gets accused of being authors of a vanity page. Where as D list "celebs" pages like Jade Goody, Etc are fine and left alone. I do think Wiki editing and deleting policies should be looked at again. "Celeb" articles are after all written by associates too (usually PR agents) so why the snobbery directed at articles like this?

Good point, anonymous user. --Loremaster 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent point, I have noticed this as well. If you're on TV, even for five minutes, that's considered inherently notable as far as most deletion discussions go.--Gloriamarie 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent point, editorial anality abounds on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from BLTC Research

BLTC Research is not notable enough to stand on its own as an article, and should therefore be merged into this article. There's just not enough out there about it outside of the gazillion websites operated by this guy (and related people) which all have the same basic information which sounds like a press release. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since BLTC Research is a project of Pearce's, it does make sense that it be merged into his article. Pearce, his sites and his research are all very important as has previously been established (and can clearly be seen from reading the article) and should not be belittled. Google also operates a gazillion sites; this is not a bad thing. As can clearly be seen from visiting any of the sites in question, they are filled with helpful research and information and no advertising at all.

Adding BLTC Research strengthens the page. Gloriamarie 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources?

Could we find more in the way of reliable sources for this article? I certainly think it's worth having, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the extent to which it's sourced to material from Pearce or closely related entities. Thanks, William Pietri 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The German Vanity Fair did an article on Pearce last year. If I don't add it, perhaps someone who can read German could add information from that interview.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Pearce got any articles in peer reviewed journals? That should help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.141.4 (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a piece about him – in the capacity of a philosopher – in the March 2011 issue of Dazed & Confused (magazine). See [2] (images of pages from printed edition). 188.220.18.163 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?

I get the distinct feeling that this guy is editing his own article. I can't get any evidence for this, but given that he has sites like [3] (which I find particularly insulting, as this guy is creating the false impression that that site is an actual Canadian tourism site, and he's spreading such misinformation that is helping to destroy an industry that so many rely on to survive) and despite many many people editing this article, not one person has anything critical to say about him. 142.162.26.68 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should be having a critical say in that sense, because that would be original research. If there are verifiable criticisms out there which can be referenced from reliable secondary sources, then for balance they could be included. As for whether he's writing about himself; that needn't in itself be a conflict of interest. Besides, having had a look at some commentary about his friends and colleagues in various places online, it's very clear that he has some ardent supporters, and it's at least equally possible that it's they who're doing the editing. – Kieran T (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have had the most edits to this article of late and I am certainly not David Pearce-- my many edits in diverse subject areas he would most likely have no interest in are ample evidence to that fact. That would be akin to me saying the anonymous IP poster is a marketing representative of the Canadian Seal Hunting Association, although there would be more evidence for the latter than the former. :) --Gloriamarie (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split away BLTC Research?

I saw that in 2006, BLTC Research has been merged into this article. Now, David Pearce is more about BLTC Research than about David Pearce. Time for a split? - Dandv (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that BLTC Research is less an independent entity than something that represents this philosopher's work or career as a whole. David Pearce is notable, but BLTC Research as such is not. --Robert Daoust (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing (hopefully) of the article

Hi The article contained good information but its construction was a mess. I tried to fix it in many places, and I plan to continue as soon as I get the chance.

cool story bro Andrewtheart (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewtheart: You edited twice to write this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.161.182 (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not one secondary source, independent biography or reference to a peer reviewed journal. Weasel worded claims throughout.

I've updated the article documenting all the deficiencies. Has anyone ever peer reviewed his work? How do so many weasel words get into one Wikipedia article without complaint? If this article is not significantly cleaned up I propose it should be listed for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.30.23 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before you put so many tags on an article, you should discuss it on the talk page first. Some of the tags you put on the article don't even make sense, and I know as the primary contributor to this article - it is not an autobiography. There are secondary sources throughout, since there are several magazine, etc. articles that I've used as sources. If you want to talk specifics, that's fine, but until then, I'm removing your tags. -- Gloriamarie (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be improved along the remarks brought up by the anonymous user. It cannot be deleted because the subject has been acknowledged as notable more than one time here in Wikipedia discussions. It is certainly not an autobiography, but it does lack references to external secondary sources (which do not have to be 'peer reviewed'). --Robert Daoust (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined the article fully, but I noticed when I was going through it the other day that it had been extensively changed - for the worse- since I last edited it. I had more of a reliance on secondary sources that the succeeding edits did not have from my quick glance through. That's why I preferred my more neutral intro from a year or so ago and reverted back to it. I don't think there's a lack of references to external sources, but some of those external sources -- such as the interview from the print edition of the German Vanity Fair-- are just scanned and hosted on Pearce's own website. It's still a secondary source. Anonymous user still has not given specifics, and the reason I originally removed his tags is that many of them were clearly false, such as putting "dubious" after nearly every link from Pearce's own website. That just makes no sense.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Gloriamarie. Acting on the tags is not difficult but a bit long. It is an opportunity however to improve the article. I wish I had more time to deal with them. --Robert Daoust (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BLPSPS (Avoid self-published sources) issues all over this article

1) How is "David Pearce" notable exactly? Where are the required reliable third-party sources? Is he merely a self-proclaimed "philosopher" who purely self-publishes any old nonsense on websites that he owns? What are his academic credentials and qualifications exactly?

2) How is "BLTC Research" notable? Where are the required reliable third-party sources?

3) How is "The Abolitionist Society" notable? Where are the required reliable third-party sources?

4) WP:BLPEL clearly states that questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs.

5) WP:NPF states that for "People who are relatively unknown" include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources.

6) WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS clearly state that "Anyone can create a website... for that reason self-published media is largely not acceptable. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.
88.111.125.206 (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See past discussion here on notability. --Robert Daoust (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this article appears to solely exist for the purposes of personal vanity and spamdexing/link spamming of the subject's own extensive personal websites. Almost all of those editors here that are proponents of the article also appear to either be sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Sock puppetry), personal acquaintances of the subject, or have strong vested personal interests in this controversial subject matter.
There are major WP:CONFLICT (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) concerns here. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, the policy of WP:SELFPROMOTE clearly asserts that editors should not create articles which serve solely to promote their subject.
88.111.118.77 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument are not well founded at all, anonym user. Personally, for a serious discussion, I will wait for a better identified and articulated user. --Robert Daoust (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of David Pearce was discussed before, and the decision was to keep the article. He is notable as a very important philosopher (a good or a bad one, that's just opinions). There are third-party references to him all over the internet, in magazines, in journals (even peer-reviewed), and in books. Many references to him are also duplicated by David Pearce himself on his own webpages. Editors here did the mistake of citing those (Pearce's) pages too much - they should look deeper and find the original third-party sources. We should start adding back the bits of information when (and if, of course) we find those third-party references to cite. I have a few to add myself, but I'll need to wait to find some free time.Wawawemn (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Wawawemn. However, texts in the article that refer to Pearce's work are valuable as information on that work, and should be kept, I suggest. --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Searching for "David Pearce" "hedonistic imperative" results in dozens of results on Google Book search. I would like to ask the IP user why s/he has not attempted to improve the article rather than just deleting large portions of it? It would be much easier to add additional citations if the bulk of the text were retained. Keystroke (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of any irrelevant ad hominem attacks against unregistered users or rhetorical diversionary tactics employed to distract away from the issues at hand, Wikipedia's policies are very clear. All editors/sockpuppets here should read and familiarise themselves with WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPEL, WP:NPF, WP:SPS, WP:SOC, WP:CONFLICT, and WP:SELFPROMOTE instead of (intentionally?) ignoring them. 79.69.110.217 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policies referenced by anonymous user are about self-serving sources, but I fail to see how the information in this article could be self-serving. The papers Pearce has written are self-published but they are not even about himself. And it is only natural that an author have links to his works on his Wikipedia page. Additionally, as mentioned above by Robert Daoust, the notability of Pearce has been discussed on this page before. There are many third party sources citing him as a philosopher. His works are also clearly philosophy - we may as well need a third party source saying he is human. Let's work together to improve the page by linking to other sources rather than just deleting everything. What is wrong with having citation needed tags until the additional sources can be added? P.S. For the record, I am not a sockpuppet. Keystroke (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was Vladimir Lenin that once said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth". Multiple users on this page have claimed that "the notability of Pearce has been discussed on this page before", yet conveniently fail to provide any links to that original discussion. The only valid link that I can find is a link to a November 2004 discussion on the proposed deletion of this article here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pearce. Bizarrely, out of 14 user votes there, 10 wanted the article deleted, 4 wanted to keep it, yet the page claims that the "result of the debate was to keep the article". How the hell was that the consensus?? Something very strange is clearly going on with this article.
It would also serve Robert Daoust very well to comply with the Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Also, as the following points were previously ignored, I shall repeat them again here:
1) WP:BLPEL clearly states that questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs.

2) WP:NPF states that for "People who are relatively unknown" include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources.

3) WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS clearly state that "Anyone can create a website... for that reason self-published media is largely not acceptable. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.
Please comply with Wikipedia's policies irrespective of who the messenger might be. 79.69.105.46 (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you missed this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pearce (philosopher). It is more recent than the one you linked. It had 5 keeps and no deletes. There is also an older one than the one you listed Talk:David_Pearce/deletion which was a tie. You are cherry picking your arguments.
1) I believe this to be irrelevant. His writings are listed under bibliography not further reading or external links.
2) I believe this to be irrelevant. Irrelevant. WP:NPF states that for linking material relevant to their notability in regards to privacy. The text currently describes his philosophical views which are not related to "Presumption in favor of privacy". You are taking this argument out of context.
3) This is why I had added links to books, as well as university material (for instance showing a link on Haverford College) as well as an article in a widely read magazine - Popular Science. There are other books which speak about his writings in ways which can justify the information in the article with third party sources. This is why in order to comply with additional citation requirements it is most likely fair to retain the bulk of the article and add citation needed tags in my opinion. Deleting the article and adding things such as "self-proclaimed philosopher" is surprising to me if we are trying to make this article better. Do you really still maintain a question of notability when I have linked a talk several days ago at Stanford, as well as additional books and magazine articles? Keystroke (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith as long as behavior shows good faith. Why this IP user, who is so well informed on Wikipedia policies, does not have a user account? From his/her deletion of most of the article without discussing it beforehand, a capital sin against WP policies, I suspect that it is because he/she is hostile to David Pearce, and therefore he/she is here just to remove hard work done along the years, and he/she wants to avoid being responsible and sanctioned as a regular subscribing user. As to conflict of interest, I work like David Pearce on the phenomenon of suffering, so that we are colleagues and we sometimes exchange information, but we never have been associated together, professionally or otherwise, except that once I translated a text of his in French, and he translated a text from me in English. --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making completely unsustainable insinuations against an IP user simply for being an IP user detracts from your argument. If you're getting so upset you're lashing out, it's better to take a step back. Exok (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion Exok. I cannot share it without qualifications, but I think you are right about stepping back, and that's what I'll do. --Robert Daoust (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thing that is objectionable about the anonymous IP user is not that he/she is an anon IP user (we've all been there before), but that he/she is accusing various editors on this page of being sockpuppets and/or having some sort of conflict of interest. Coming from someone who doesn't even have an account or doesn't take the time to log in, this is hard to take and honestly, quite annoying. Sure, the article can get better. But repeating over and over again that using Pearce's own writings as a source for his own ideas is questionable accomplishes nothing and serves no purpose. Just as reading David Hume's own writings is probably the best source for what Hume believed, the modern-day equivalent, Pearce's websites, are also good sources for his own beliefs. In addition, there are multiple third-party sources, including the "Genomic Bodhissatva" article from H+ Magazine, that outline his ideas pretty well and could be used instead. If the IP user wants to improve Wikipedia and this article, the avenue is wide open and he/she can begin editing to accomplish this immediately. If he/she wants to continue baseless accusations, it should not be done on this talk page, which is to be used for improving the article. --Gloriamarie (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. . SPS sources can not establish notability.
  2. . Pearce appears sufficiently notable per [4] from The Guardian, a book review in The Hindu, (Google links blacklisted?) and mention in Sydney Morning Herald, and mentioned in a large bunch of books as well (news examples given to show world-wide coverage, and not just local coverage).
  3. . WP:BLPEL specifies . Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution. This is a case where the SPS clearly can be used.

I trust this lays this section to rest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Webography section removed?

User Cameron Scott deleted the Webography section, noting "No els in article text - this advert... sorry article needs a rewrite". What does this mean? I think it's quite appropriate to add a webography section on this page, but wanted to hear other peoples' opinions before reverting an editWawawemn (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for reverting it back. It's like a musician's discography. --Gloriamarie (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies on external links do not permit external links to be used in the text of an article - appropriate external links should be in the EL section - even then, it would be highly notable or informative articles not literally everything an individual has written. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron, the External Links that editors have added adhere to WP's rules. You added tags about "excessive and inappropriate external links" - can you please explain why (after you read the rules)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawawemn (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You added tags about "excessive and inappropriate external links" - no I didn't, that was another long-term editor - please read the edit history of the article more carefully. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLTC Research notability

This is the third time that Cameron's deletions could be avoided in the expense of a simple Google search. BLTC Research has been mentioned numerous times in [books] and right now I can find at least three citations of their work in peer-reviewed articles. (And I was only searching using "BLTC Research" as keywords - I didn't search for BLTC authors' names separately). What more should it take for something to become "notable" in your eyes? Wawawemn (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the problem in this specific case, verification is - "non-profit organisation" has a very particular meaning - is it listed as companies house or with the charities commission? Because I can find no evidence of either. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked also and could not find BLTC registered as a non-profit organization so I think that part is good now. Keystroke (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are highlighting a common misunderstanding of "non-profit organisation" in the UK. Neither companies house nor the Charity Commission necessarily register "non-profits". The Charities Commission, in fact, won't register charitable organisations with an annual predicted turnover of below £5000. Many bodies are simply "clubs" or more technically "unincorporated bodies" and there is no reason for such private entities to be registered anywhere. They may be known to the Revenue and Customs service (the taxman) but this information will be confidential. Lack of registration with the bodies mentioned is in no way evidence of the lack of existence of an organisation. 188.220.18.163 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same in America - there are many nonprofits that don't go through the formal IRS process to be certified as a nonprofit. --Gloriamarie (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLTC Research is a group of researchers (possibly not a very large one) that includes David Pearce and David Chalmers. They research and write about the biological bases of suffering and about ways it could be abolished, and they publish their writings on the BLTC website. I think saying that BLTC Research "is a website" sounds a bit underrating - if it doesn't go against WP rules I say we call it an organisation. If it does go against rules, I suggest we look for an alternative that is more appropriate than "a website". If we can't find one, then I agree to leave it as it currently is.Wawawemn (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A group of human beings is patently not a website. A "research group", though it sounds a bit grand, seems accurate. Definitely an organisation, unless there is a suggestion that they work together and communicate by random chance... ;) – Kieran T (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about club as suggested above? 'Research group' provides a misleading representation of authority. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read it as having been "suggested" ;) Club seems to me like it'd be original research unless they or a reference describe them as such. – Kieran T (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do we gave a solid RS rather than SPS that defines the organisation? I know at the top of this section, it's suggested that they it is mentioned in some PR papers but do any of those sources define the formation of this 'organisation'? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, all those three papers just cite essays published by BLTC Research as sources of information.Wawawemn (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google News search found a 2003 article from The Times that mentions BLTC as an organization focused on paradise engineering.--Gloriamarie (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gloriamarie, thanks for finding that, but when I click on your link, The Times asks me to subscribe. Is that article viewable only by The Times' subscribers? If so, would we still be allowed to use it as a reference in the article?Wawawemn (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as long as it's accessible by *someone* - what's the actual name of the article, you can often find them quicker by title search in google. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does show up in a Google News Archives search for "BLTC research" - the title is "Happy Pills: Instant Ecstasy" and it's from November 15, 2003. It must have shown up for me as full access since I was logged in through my university. Articles don't have to be freely available on the web to be used as references (or we wouldn't be able to use books), they just have to be accessible to someone somehow. But for those who can't see it, it says what I quoted above - BLTC is an organization focused on paradise engineering.--Gloriamarie (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't access it, so I'll leave it up to you to edit the article accordingly, if you want. Wawawemn (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:David Pearce (philosopher)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to fail this, and I will tell you why...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    It seems to follow the five portions of MOS required for a GA
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There seem to be some blogs among the sources. Please read WP:RS.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This article is not broad in its scope at all. We have a decent summary of his philosophical positions in the lead, and then nothing about his philosophy in the body. It's also not focused. The body of the article only talks about his affiliations, and not his scholarly work. Meanwhile, there's a throwaway line about how he runs a web hosting company. Is this a major part of his work? Does it fit in with his philosophical ideals? I don't know.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    This is a very brief look at the subject, which doesn't allow me to know if his views are considered controversial by anybody. It seems to be a bit on the side of being biased towards him, but I can't be sure with so little information
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    It's probably nothing, but at least one claim of a 3RR violation a few days ago.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One image, no caption
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This article needs a significant amount of expansion and attention to detail (references inside periods, non-uniform referencing in regards to dates, etc.). Please feel free to renominate this article when ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on how to improve the article! Did you just decide to review it or did someone request it? - Gloriamarie (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing needed

Over the last few months, I've marked inappropriately cited primary sources, namely those that the subject controls and hosts, and publications by his associates. I marked them because such sources cannot establish the significance or notability of the facts they support (see WP:BLPSPS and WP:PRIMARY). Reliable third party sources are required. No improvements have been made to these sources, so I removed them and the claims they supported — they did not look objectively noteworthy in the least. Before posting this, I went through the history of edits here and deletion discussions, and saw they tended to ride on the multitude of domains and groups this subject has spawned. They're neither notable themselves, nor significant, nor reliable when it comes to reporting on the subject. Below are some links that might lead to better sourcing:

I intend to nominate for deletion relatively soon if nothing is found. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several times I have made improvements to sourcing in this article, but it often later gets removed, and I don't have the time to babysit the article to make sure this doesn't happen. If you look at the article from a few years ago, I had a perfectly sourced article that was well-written. David Pearce has appeared at many conferences, in magazines, albeit often in different languages which makes it difficult for showing up in English on Google and for English-speaking Wikipedia editors like myself. His work is in books and on college syllabuses. I have no clue why you would announce your intentions to delete an article that is noteworthy rather than improving it, but please don't imply that there are not primary sources for most of the information in the article. Information should also not be deleted wholesale from the article without first marking it with tags and attempting to find sources yourself, so I've restored the entire section you deleted.--Gloriamarie (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion on Deletion.

This page is a candidate for deletion. The man is not known in philosophical communities, is not an academic, and has not made contributions to philosophy of any substance. My concern is that if this page is to be maintained, then it will justify the inclusion of several other pages of people of equally low stature. This will reduce the credibility, integrity and quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. The page should therefore be deleted, and if you have objections please state them here. I have proposed deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceLion (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PROD, PROD should not be used on articles that have previously been sent to AFD. The previous AFD for this article is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Pearce_(philosopher). Do not replace the PROD template on this article. Send the article back to AFD to obtain further discussion and consensus. Thanks --Illia Connell (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, instructions for AFD are here: Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion Illia Connell (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for deletion cont.

I've cleaned up some irrelevant and incorrect biographical detail that seems to have sat around for over six months without anyone noticing or caring. I also corrected the summary to directly reflect his included quotations. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed bad reference to David being on the board of Medical Hypotheses, again. Please carefully read WP:RS and check your citations for accuracy. There are additional claims that have been recently added that need citing as well. -- flyingkiwiguy (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Pearce_(philosopher)&oldid=590537776"