Talk:Rupert Read

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. University of Oxford Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Green Politics (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Philosophers / Science / Analytic / Contemporary Low‑importance 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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Philosophy of science Analytic philosophy Contemporary philosophy

I believe that the following links indicate that Dr Rupert Read deserves a wiki page:

His regular column in the eastern daily press: http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/commentary/OneWorld.aspx

His candidacy for the European Elections: http://www.easterngreenparty.org.uk/euro-elections2009.html

His work as a City Councillor: http://www.norwichgreenparty.org/default.aspx?url=http://www.norwichgreenparty.org/home.html

His work for the University of East Anglia: http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/hum/philosophy/People/Academic+Staff/Rupert+Read

His recent book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-Life-Applying-Politics-Culture/dp/0826495605/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195514214&sr=8-1

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A local councillor who never even held a cabinet position on a council, and a few failed candidacies alongside being a minor academic does not meet any of the notability requirements. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one. The main contributor to the page has a blatant COI and as a result overestimates Read's notability above. The trans incident definitely received significant coverage, but WP:BLP1E, but it's hard to say that matters would be improved by turning a page about Read into one about that single incident which would then have to explain who Read is. As you say neither his political career nor his academic career really scrapes over the line, but comes close (in particular Reader is only "one down" from a named chair, and he was head of the School of Philosophy for over 3 years). He's been a series of Associate Editors and on editorial boards of journals, but not quite "the head or chief editor". Arguably coming close on a number of counts (including being a long-published journo in a major regional paper) would add up to notability.

You may have to AFD it yourself. I have no idea which way it might go. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that tag was put. User:Pinkbeast states (see above) that the "main contributor to the page has a blatant COI". Diffs please? Wakari07 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through the article history. The main contributors have edited almost exclusively on this article. He's a minor academic who does not pass WP:PROF, a local politician that would not pass WP:NPOL. While it's likely he is now notable for his work with Extinction Rebellion, that has been in the last year. The bulk of the article was written long before that by what looks like a single individual whose only purpose in being here is to let the world know about Rupert Read? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie02, Roomester and Ar117wiki have only edited this article and have made edits that appear to be by someone close to or very in favour of Read. Obarzanka and James Patrick Conway, who created the page, have also only edited this article. Bondegezou (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Five SPA's that "appear very close to or very in favour" of the subject is quite unlike a "blatant COI" account. Unless these 5 accounts are sock puppetry by Rupert Read or his henchmen, this is clearly not autobiography. As for stating in the tag that these accounts are "someone connected to the subject", I don't see a single diff as even remote evidence. This guy co-wrote The New Wittgenstein, he is cited thousands of times by his academic peers and he is a central figure of lauded and loathed Extinction Rebellion. Wakari07 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what those accounts are. Extinction Rebellion is less than two years old... the edits were made by these accounts prior to this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for diffs, multiple accounts that spring up focused entirely on this subject, the more recent ones using characteristic a c&p citation style [1], [2], [3], [4] (this one clearly by someone with a COI [5], [6] (this one refers to one of Read's campaign groups in the first person), [7] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would the coi tag be more appropriate than the autobiography tag? Bondegezou (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]