Talk:Denis Dutton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Why is there a Denis Dutton entry?[edit]

What has the fellow done, other than annoy Professor Butler? Has he made a contribution to Philosophy? Does he have a CV? Is this entry and related ones anything other than exercises in self promotion? Should Wikipedia assist? Sokal should, obviously, be in Wikipedia because he did something significant. He wrote nonsense in a particular style and got it published in an 'academic' journal. Dutton criticised other's writing. So what. His own writing is rather tortured. Rather than here, shouldn't his entry be in Facebook? Or is Wikipedia to become the new Facebook? Re: the bookshop, the reason was relevance. His family may also have a dog named Chip. Even if they do, the validity of the information is not a sufficient reason for inclusion even if a DD entry is, itself, justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Several points. (1) I'd suggest you sign up for a user name. Editing under an IP address, while entirely accepted, carries with it a negative connotation. You keep eliminating material that is true but unsourced (e.g. the Dutton bookstore). Generally, it is better accepted practice to challenge such material by adding the template [citation needed] after the sentence or assertion you find troubling. This way you are inviting wider review without making emphatic editorial decisions that not everyone may agree with. All that said, however, I won't bother reverting you again because, upon review, your question is a good one: it is not clear to me at all why Dutton has his own entry. I suggest, therefore, this be merged to Arts & Letters Daily, which is principally what he is known for, while the bad writing contest be added to Butler's page (although I thin kit's there already). Eusebeus (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As much as I respect him and found him an inspiring teacher the point here is that at the end of the day he's an academic, and every other academic with a wikipedia page does so because of the influence and respect of their published works. While he does have a whole heap of articles and reviews at www.denisdutton.com I don't think that quite qualifies a page about him. Which leaves www.aldaily.com and the bad writing contest. Therefore I second the above suggestion for this page to be merged. Kansaikiwi (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Though Dutton has not made any significant contributions in philosophy (or any other field for that matter), his dabblings in journalism, his spat with Butler, and his founding of A&L Daily qualify him for an entry. One must not be an expert to have an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh878787 (talkcontribs) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My god. This entry is now a cornycopia of trivia. We have the poor man's last email; the lump on his shoulder;what next? Shouldn't you simply let him rest in peace, and do the charitable thing and finally delete this meritless entry? He will live on eternally on facebook anyway, and amongst his cult following - the duttonites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.41.168 (talk)

Legal Woes[edit]

The section on his legal woes uses inflammatory language. This should either be contextualised (what was the outcome?) or else removed forthwith. Eusebeus 11:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The referenced outcome of the case is already included in the entry. Hay4 11:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, there was some kind of out of court settlement. As it is, I still think the language is inappropriate. It is POV pushing, even if the POV is ostensibly coming from a WP:V third party. The paragraphs should detail the substance of the dispute, not the inflammatory language used to characterise the defendants. Eusebeus 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Libertarian[edit]

Mr Dutton once mentioned that he is a libertarian, I was about to add it to the first line of this page but I'm not 100% sure I should. Any thoughts? Kansaikiwi 06:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

He is a libertarian. Babajobu 22:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere he is also a librarian? Is this right? Is he both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.166.122 (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Umm, no, he's just a libertarian. it seems to be a popular vandalism practice on this page to switch the two words.Kansaikiwi (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, please[edit]

I absolutely agree with Eusebeus, the article has become tainted by POV evaluations (describing a contest that ran for four years as "short-lived"; how does one determine the normative length of a contest of that sort? And how do you determine that being a co-defendant in a single lawsuit five years ago constitute "legal woes" for Dutton). Sources are also used very sloppily. For example, the plaintiff's law firm claims on its website that the case was "brought to a favorable result"; the article not only credits the claims of that side's lawyer as factual, but actually takes them further by saying that "the result was unfavorable to Dutton," when the law firm itself hasn't even claimed that. Even if the plaintiff was content with the outcome, Dutton himself may have been delighted by it, or content with it, or miserable about it. We can't know without reference to further sources.

But all this is really beside the point; I notice that the contributor who added this info had also reproduced in this article claims that Dutton is a "conman", "vicious", and other slurs. Sir, please note that this is a biographical article of a living person, and that potentially defamatory material is subject to high standards of verifiability and notability, as per Jimbo's fiat. And as it stands now, the "Legal Woes" section is based on a single article on a website that doesn't meet Wikipedia's basic requirements for WP:reliable sources. Nor does the existence of one article in a very minor source do much to prove that this information is notable. For those reasons, I'm removing that section until someone can cite better sources or make a better case for notability. Babajobu 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You make good points and I admit that I hadn't put much thought or work into my contributions. That being said, I think that because Dutton decided to promote himself by starting an academic journal, starting and running an academic website, starting a "bad writing contest," and working in radio, he became a public figure. How do you feel about this? Hay4 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RIP[edit]

RIP, Mr Dutton. Thank you for giving us the "Bad Writing Contest" to show that the arrogant academics who dominate critical thinking today are nothing more than shallow, intellectually vacuous obscurantists. The emperors (and empresses) indeed have no clothes. 210.50.56.20 (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Life details[edit]

Is it worth adding some details of his life before they're forgotten?

  • His education (PhD, etc.), Peace Corp time in India, research trips to Papua New Guinea & subsequent primitive art collection, and his sitar study come to mind. Anything else? Kansaikiwi (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Love of Tim Tams, perhaps? Surely, SURELY, no entry would be complete without recording for posterity his love of Tim Tams?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.40.8 (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Such details need to be cited to reliable sources. It is possible that some newspapers or magazines will have published accounts of his life but do not keep online archives long-term. Using webcite on such resources so they can be easily access in future would be valuable.-gadfium 00:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Citation/evidence... Would empty packets of Tim Tams suffice? How would said packets be referenced? Then there would be the matter of archiving? Somehow I don't think Webcite archives such physical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.40.8 (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Gadfium already answered your question. You need to find a reliable source (those blue words are a link, click on them to find out more information) which says that. If you can't find it in a reliable source, then it probably doesn't belong here.Daveosaurus (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Denis Dutton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denis Dutton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)