Jump to content

Talk:Peter Ludlow

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.65.233.175 (talk) at 04:36, 14 October 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rutgers

His job offer at Rutgers was rescinded. Please delete this sentence: "He has just[when?] accepted a position at Rutgers University's Center for Cognitive Science (RUCCS)." http://dailynorthwestern.com/2014/07/02/campus/ludlow-will-not-join-rutgers-faculty/

Removed

I took the following out:

"In addition to his "formal" education, Ludlow has received extensive philosophical instruction from University of Michigan graduate student, Dustin Locke. He also owes his macking skills, what little there be, to Mr. Locke's teachings."

Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off

Jason, knock off the prank postings. It's beneath you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.25.106 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2006

Source

MC Allers. [source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mcallers/cv.html] stop editing out the non-pranks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.52.126 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2006

Also, by unpopular, I mean relative to the popular books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.52.126 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2006

Delete

Also, who the hell is this guy, and why would I just happen to read about him one day if I choose a random page? He is an average circle-jerker who thinks SL is SRS BSNS. Get rid of this waste of space, I beg you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.98.85 (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2007

Unknown

One of the most 10 influential? Give me a break, no one has ever heard of him outside his local home town. What he does do, on Second Life Herald, is encourage drama, defamation and libel, from right wing fascist rabid mouth foaming bigots, which is the next thing Reporters Sans Frontières should look at. He is one sick puppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.101.99 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Delete Why does this article exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.232.90 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

This has become a glaring omission. As the Chicago Tribune reported, Northwestern found that Peter Ludlow "engaged in unwelcome and inappropriate advances" with a 17 year old student. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-23/news/ct-northwestern-lawsuit-met-20140223_1_student-northwestern-professor-university-administrators. [BLP violation redacted] More serious allegations are currently controversial, as are allegations from the other women who have come forward, but these facts are not. (HOW!?)69.125.57.217 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Before an edit was ensues I suggest that interested editors first discuss any editions concerning the sexual assault allegations against Ludlow on this page. As it stands I don't see why these allegations require the comparatively detailed account currently in the article. I think it's most appropriate to mention that he currently faces allegations but no legal charges. Anything else risks being speculative, prurient, or uncited. Catfax 04:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph from the lead for two reasons. Firstly, the allegations are not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and therefore should not be in the lead. Secondly, the sources describe a lawsuit against the school - not the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a fair move to me. The allegations however are important to Ludlow's current status as a professional academic philosopher and are currently the subject of a lot of conversation about Ludlow. This seems like enough to warrant a mention in the article, even if it's not in the lead. Do you think a new section ought to be made for this? I'm inclined to say 'no,' because (as you say) Ludlow faces no pending legal investigation or censure. Perhaps it could be included in another section? My chief worries about adding this material are that (a) Wikipedia remains current and doesn't avoid controversial topics and (b) Wikipedia does not promote a stance on the ongoing legal proceedings. These are important but delicate issues. Catfax 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfactory (talk • contribs)
As per WP:BLPCRIME I do not believe it should be included. You say there is a lot of conversation about the issue, but reliable sources do not support that position. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I added the paragraph Flatout deleted. He had good points. I don't want to add it back to avoid a cycle, but the issue of Ludlow's sexual harassment of a student is becoming national news. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/education/2014/02/northwestern_university_found_professor_peter_ludlow_violated_the_sexual.html This article was published last night. Sasmon (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we need to be very very careful here not to breach WP:BLP. Slate.com doesn't seem to be "national news" and I can't find anything in the link above to support the allegation made in the above comment. The article only says that the university found that the professor had breach a code and that he was disciplined. We can not read more into the story than what is written in the article. I think we are close to the line and some edit summaries and might need to be redacted. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His allegations are very relevant to the field of philosophy, where he teaches and works. It's been covered extensively by philosophy blogs followed by many professors, and both northwestern and rutgers have begun to comment on it. I think you're doing wikipedia a diservice by not mentioning the punishments the university gave to him. He may not have been convicted of a crime, but the university did rule that he had breached their ethical standards/title IX and punished him accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.149.89 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to say only what reliable sources actually say- do not add words, terms, inferences that mean something else. Blogs are not reliable sources. Slate.com may be a reliable source but it does not support your claims. See you talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted redundant duplicate of text above, at least part of which was an infringement of WP:BLP.]
The information has so far been excluded because the clams made were not supported by reliable sources and were in breach of WP:BLP. The Chicago Tribune source is helpful and my response and proposal for a pragraph to be added to the article are at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Ludlow_BLP_Violation for discussion. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some reference to this issue is needed. Our article loses credibility by omitting it. People who want to know about it will go elsewhere when they find nothing here, and the other places they go might be rather sensationalist. Better to have a restrained, careful entry here; no particular details are needed, just a brief outline. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my propsed entry has been removed, and correctly so, for breaching WP:BLP. There are no charges, no convictions and as per WP:BLPCRIME I agree that this is an area best left out at present. No other editors bothered to enter into the discussion at WP:BLPN so I have proposed the discussion be closed. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care

I have reverted the last 3 edits and will ask an admin to redact edit summaries. As per WP:BLP "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."

Please note that it is not sufficient that someone has made allegations in a lawsuit, and quite rightly so, since in most countries anyone can start a law suit and allege anything they like, with or without good evidence. Please read the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Ludlow_BLP_Violation before seeking to reinstate controversial information about a living person. Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 23:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

The Rutgers offer mentioned in the article has been called into question: http://articles.philly.com/2014-02-15/news/47339462_1_rutgers-spokesman-rutgers-university-rutgers-offer 188.22.179.124 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 02:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Ludlow&oldid=629534194"