Talk:Cornel West
Script error: No such module "Message box".
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cornel West Script error: No such module "pagetype".. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
User:MiszaBot/config Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Message box".
why does the first line of this article describe him as "controversial"?
To my knowledge that is not common amongst public figures on Wikipedia, and I would be hard pressed to find any in politics like Cornel West who are not controversial. Why is he described this way? 195.194.50.6 (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve removed the descriptor. There was no consensus sought for this and it does not belong in the lead sentence. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 08:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added it to the end of the second paragraph in the lead. Is that a more appropriate place? Superb Owl (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but I still dunno if it’s really warranted. I’d assume there would be more sources than just two if he was this universally regarded as controversial. We do have a controversy section but it seems to be about his personal life, something entirely different from what the sources say he’s controversial for, and that to the best of my knowledge isn’t touched in in the article. (Also, as the first verb in the sentence is “is”, “been” does not make sense here. It’d either be “is” again or “has been described by XYZ as” with attribution to the sources and as to why he’s controversial at all, which imo is far better. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to move it to the controversies section and do more work to tease out exactly what those 2 RS and other RS are referring to before proposing a lead summary Superb Owl (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but I still dunno if it’s really warranted. I’d assume there would be more sources than just two if he was this universally regarded as controversial. We do have a controversy section but it seems to be about his personal life, something entirely different from what the sources say he’s controversial for, and that to the best of my knowledge isn’t touched in in the article. (Also, as the first verb in the sentence is “is”, “been” does not make sense here. It’d either be “is” again or “has been described by XYZ as” with attribution to the sources and as to why he’s controversial at all, which imo is far better. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added it to the end of the second paragraph in the lead. Is that a more appropriate place? Superb Owl (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Criticisms around 2024 campaign - proposed re-add
Proposed draft to re-add to article - feel free to mark-up or edit there if easier or comment here Superb Owl (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Criticism sections are bad style and the information in them should be placed in the relevant section of the article. For example, criticism of his candidacy as being a spoiler belongs in the section about his candidacy.
- Also, mentioning criticism without saying who it came from or how widespread it is violates WP:WEASEL. As far as the reader knows, the criticism could have come from a conspiracy theory website. TFD (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed - how does this look:
- His candidacy has been noted for its possible spoiler effect,[1][2][3] and for the extensive support his campaign gets from Republicans and Trump allies to get and stay on the ballot in swing states.[4][5][6] West expressed ambivalence about the support from Republicans[4] but does object to the spoiler label.[7]
David Masciotra criticized West for aligning himself with people and candidates who defend aggressive actions by Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and the Chinese Communist Party.[8]
Superb Owl (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)- The problem is that this is largely either partisan hyperbole or speculation. Notice the phrasing saying "could be" and "possible" and so on. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we write about what HAS happened, not what MIGHT happen.--User:Namiba 17:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- But this is the most notable part of the campaign that gets the most attention in WP:RS - why would we not mention it?
And do you not have any issues with the rest of the proposed addition other than the spoiler effect part? Superb Owl (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- But this is the most notable part of the campaign that gets the most attention in WP:RS - why would we not mention it?
- The problem is that this is largely either partisan hyperbole or speculation. Notice the phrasing saying "could be" and "possible" and so on. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we write about what HAS happened, not what MIGHT happen.--User:Namiba 17:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed - how does this look:
<templatestyles src="Reflist-talk/styles.css"/>
References
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
Non-primary sources needed?
This article, in its current state, uses what seems to me to be an excessive amount of "Non-primary sources needed" warnings. For a couple examples, Princeton's own website is not considered a valid source for the claim that Dr. West worked there, and the American Philosophical Society's own list of members is not considered a valid source for the claim that Dr. West was a member.
To my understanding of the rules, both at the top of the page and at the relevant template, this isn't how it works for non-controversial information about a living person, self-published or not. It seems to me that someone took issue with any primary source usage whatsoever, which is not the policy. Moreover, if the material were really objectionable, I believe the policy is to remove it, not apply this template. So I think the template should be, broadly speaking, removed from the article. The other two options (finding other sources, or removing the tagged statements) seem overly restrictive. Please advise. 76.115.208.115 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. I would add that there are some sentences in the article that cite to Democracy Matters and other works, which I think is totally legitimate. If he wrote a book, I think it's fair to cite that book when stating an opinion of his. Dauntbares (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)