Talk:Adam Kotsko

April 2015

Although I am not at liberty to remove the tag, this appears to be an entirely frivolous nomination, even by our steadily-decaying standards. How many fields would one have to be a published authority in to satisfy A7 by this interpretation? And A7 can scarcely trump the GNG in any case. -- Visviva (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not. The article is almost completely self-sourced (from Kotsko himself), others are not allowed blogs of the non-journalistic nature, or more about his book being reviews. There isn't a single significant coverage of him in a major reliable source per [[WP:GNG]. Spshu (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear to me whether this article meets WP:PROF; but I'm of the mind to run it through AfD instead. Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• It most certainly does not qualify for speedy deletion. Article needs plenty of attention, but an acceptable claim of importance is made. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone has any problem relating to sourced and verified content, yet controversial, discuss it here instead of engaging in an edit war

Just as a reminder, there are certain rules that needs to be followed. Don't break these rules. Jørgen88 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Jørgen88: Please review WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. You should also bother to review the link about identifying reliable sources: blogs are not reliable sources. The man was being facetious and he said as such; you cannot insert information that purports he was serious when you know that is false. This is deliberate misrepresentation. You've also violated WP:3RR. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He was being serious and I have seen no indication of his tweets being sarcastic or jokes. Any sources of them being such, has not been given by you, and even if he claimed he was joking, it would be seen as damage control and not actual opinions. This is simply censorship, and I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Jørgen88 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring until consensus agreed here. Keri (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Read his blog. He very specifically states he was being sarcastic and then laughs at the people who took him seriously. Considering everything else the man has written/trolled, this is hardly "damage control." You not being allowed to put misleading, maligning info in someone's bio is not censorship. Additionally, once possibly contentious material has been removed, the WP:BURDEN is on the people who want to restore it to gain consensus to do so. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to let it go if you can give me a source where he tells that he is being sarcastic or not being serious about these specific tweets. That said, it still looks like damage control as he has a serious position as a professor and has a legacy to worry about. Though that just makes it more essential to be included in the article. Jørgen88 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I said already it's on his blog. His blog is linked on his article right under his photo. Hint: Look for the words SARCASTIC and ABSURD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And see WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." The subject has over 40,000 tweets. We're not cherry picking a few of them to include in the article. To be added, they need to have received widespread coverage from good quality secondary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It was several tweets, one dating from back in early 2015. Regarding how extremely racist these tweets are, and that they're from a professor, I think they should definitely be included in this article. And I don't think the major damage control from his own blog can be used as a reliable source for keeping it away from his Wikipedia article, though I'm sure that what he would personally prefer. But seeing how much opposition I have (students of his maybe?), I'm just gonna rest this one. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: opposition - Or, vastly more likely, Wikipedia editors who actually follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah such as blocking well sourced content. This is why Wikipedia will always be biased. A bunch of users and admins scratching each others backs and silencing anyone with other opinions. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CONSPIRACY: "editors who accuse another editor of acting on behalf of a conspiracy to whitewash an article should either make a report in the appropriate place (likely arbcom) or back away from the accusation." Keri (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to bring in content on self-published blogs (one that is on blogspot and another whose motto is "cataloging frenzied social evolution, one trigger warning at a time.") This is not "well-sourced" in any way. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So that means that his statements on twitter never happened? I can understand how blogs and tweets can be seen as too thin to be added as sources, but I don't think that should stop criticism of professors spewing out vile racism. But I guess since he's a liberal, leftist Jew this incident can just be swept under the rug as if it never happened. Imagine if this guy switched out "white people" with blacks or Jews or any other minority, it would be all over the news! Then it would certainly be easier to get some reliable sources ;-) Jørgen88 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat OT, but since you bring it up, I'd be curious to see any reliable sources on Kotsko's alleged Jewishness. "Although I am no longer affiliated with the church of my upbringing, I was raised in a conservative evangelical environment and graduated from a conservative evangelical school, Olivet Nazarene University." -- Visviva (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Assimilated Jew maybe? Not that it's that important what he is, as opposed to what he says or does. Jørgen88 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)