Talk:Walter Mignolo

Original Research

There have been continuous edits made in the controversy section of the page that includes material which violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Please view the guidlines for information on inappropriate material. Thanks. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection request: Better to block IPs

I request an indefinite semi-protection of the article about Walter Mignolo, because of persistent vandalism: Years of vandalism, with OR and BLP violations, from IPs; related to the Duke lacrosse team and an associated alleged rape controversy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Looking back over the history, it looks like each fairly rare case of BLP problems could have been solved by blocking the one or two people involved. I don't see enough actual violation to justify protection. I did warn the IP in question against re-adding the info; if they do, let me know on my talk page and I'll block for edit warring and BLP violations. Should the problem start appearing from a variety of IPs or unconfirmed users, let me know that to and I'll protect. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that blocking would solve the problem, also. You are a better judge of whether semi-protecting one page or blocking 1-2 editors be preferable. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator Qwyrxian served the warning at User_talk:76.29.42.120.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I do have both this page and the IP user's talk page on my watchlist, but I have a lot of pages on my watchlist, so if I don't notice continued bad behavior, tell me on my talk page (or take it to a noticeboard if it requires fast activity) and I'll come handle it. Qrwyrxian (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyxian! I left these notes here because it's so hard for me to remember noticeboards, etc. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Duke lacrosse case

I started this because there is no section actually addressing the content. I see that there have been IPs coming through and tagging the page, which lead to a request. The few sentences I added was regarding significant news that left a lasting footprint. There are sources for Mignolo signing both letters as well. As all can see, I didn't give it a new section like the IPs that had come through did. DietFoodstamp (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a section about the fact that he was one of 88 academics to make a rash decision. It doesn't give any useful or relevant information about him or his scholarship which is the topic of this article. This is the kind of event that would be unlikely to be mentioned with more than a line of someone where to write a biography of Mignolo. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was in agreement that the content didn't need a section, which is why I didn't include it in a section. But he is involved with the open letter AND its clarification... both received massive media coverage (more for the first obviously). This is huge. The article is about Walter Mignolo and not limited to his "scholarship" (which remained the focus of the page). DietFoodstamp (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue received media coverage - Mignolo's signature in particular did not.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is denying that he was part of the letter--what we are saying is that merely signing one letter, when there are 87 other signatories, doesn't make his particular signing important enough to include. Was he one of the main authors? Was he interviewed by the media on the issue? Was he later involved in lawsuits related to the issue? If not, including the information here is a violation of WP:UNDUE, which is basically saying that it's blowing the issue out of proportion. To put it in the terms of what you said above, the 'letter got a fair amount (massive is overblown) of coverage, but Walter Mignolo did not. Thus, including the info here is inappropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting someone's signature/endorsement is meaningless? He did endorse both of these letters. I would say if there were a lawsuit, then it would necessitate a section...but there is none, so no need to speak hypothetically. There were 88 people, and they were the minority (with a greater percentage of faculty not signing), which adds to the significance. A majority view saying a faculty member did not sign it would be different. So something that he endorsed earning huge media attention deserves a mention on the page. DietFoodstamp (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is specific coverage of the letter that attributes specific meaning to the relation between the signature and Walter Mignolo as person or as a scholar then yes it is meaningless. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A signature on a document such as the one in question is a direct link to and about Walter Mignolo as a person and a scholar, especially when said signature is in the minority on a highly-covered topic.

A similar situation would be if a politician were to take a dissenting or minority stance on an issue such as the Taxpayer Protection Pledge--that would be covered. For example: Ben Nelson, Ben Chandler, Robert Andrews all are noted for taking a minority view relative to their respective parties and signing the pledge. You also have examples like Scott Brown, Richard Burr, and John Ensign with special notations because they were in the minority of their party for signing to repeal DADT. I would argue that something as significant as the open letter is noteworthy due to the national media attention and the fact that it his signature on this document is a significant statement on the event from the man himself and also puts him in the minority viewpoint of his peers (other Duke professors) thus making it worth noting. DietFoodstamp (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you are attributing significance to the signature - supposing that it says something important about Mignolo that he signed the document. Unless that is specifically mentioned in a source that is simply Original Research or Synthesis. If it is noteworthy that Mignolo signed the paper then some other source will have been piblushed that specifically mentions his signature and what that it means that he signed. If there is no such source then also the signature is not significant to this topic. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The signature on the document in question is important--signing a pledge or an open letter (whether politician, professor, or celebrity) is a statement from the signatory, there is no debating that. As noted earlier, endorsing something where someone is in the minority and there was as much press around it has been widely accepted as something to include on a person's page (like the Taxpayer Protection Pledge or DADT). This isn't original research or synthesis. We are talking about simply stating that it is noteworthy that he signed the document and Wikipedia policies support that statement so long as there are no unsourced interpretations and it includes descriptive statements of facts. DietFoodstamp (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We are just contradicting eachother here. But it is basic policy: including a fact in an article requires at least one source that discusses the fact in relation to the topic of the article. To include a discussion of what a act means requires and even better source. You have provided a source that the fact occurred - you have not provided any source showing that Mignolo's signature was noteworthy - and you especially haven't provided a source suggesting that it had any specific meaning (in the way you include the edit you clearly invite the editor to think that Mignolo did something wrong in signing - i.e. you are leading toards a POV synthesis). Your inclusion falls short of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP. You will need much better sources if you want to argue that the signature has any relevance to the description of Mignolo as a person and Scholar. Just contradicting here saying its noteworthy doesn't accomplish anything.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, DietFoodstamp, you've made an error common among new users, in that you're misunderstanding what our verifiability policy means. That is, WP:V says that verifiability is a requirement to be included. However, the same policy does not say that simply because something is verifiable that it must be included in that article. All sorts of other policies (to the list Maunus gave, I would add that I still think that WP:NPOV is the most relevant here) that determine article content. As an analogy, it is certainly the case that for, say, a book, we could easily verify every single plot point in the book; however, we do not include them, because our job is not to provide those details--rather, it is to provide an encyclopedic overview. The same thing is true for someone's life. You have not established that signing this document is somehow important to Mignolo's life--to do that, you need reliable sources that talk about his signing/supporting the case. You have verified the fact, but not the importance.

At this point, I think it's clear that Maunus and I think you're wrong not just for writing a good article, but violating fundamental policies. If you wish to pursue this further, please see the dispute resolution process. The two easiest approaches at this point would be to discuss at the neutral POV noticeboard or to start an Request for comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Maunus - did you have some other way that you think it should be included? Last I checked, we were discussing the inclusion of the fact that he was part of this group, and nobody has brought up how it should be worded until now. I am obviously very open to discussion about anything, as that is what this is all about. I have not made a mistake and am comfortable with all the policies. In regards to Maunus' list, none of them actually seem to apply to this situation. There is no analysis or Mignolo made from his endorsement, ruling out WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. We know how significant the letter is and that he was an endorser of both that and the clarification letter, so it wouldn't be a nominal subject for the WP:COATRACK policy. As noted earlier, endorsing something where someone is in the minority and there was as much press around it has been widely accepted as something to include on a person's page. WP:PRIMARY (and the general WP:BLP) go along with this, and shouldn't be involved because it isn't criticism or praise. You have already acknowledged that he did sign and we have his name on a list. I can't understand why you would want to keep this significant event off of Mignolo's page. If a plot point in a book happened to receive as much press as this case and the group of signatories, then it would certainly merit inclusion (alas, small plot points almost never do!). I think you are for some reason under the impression that I think this deserves its own section -- even though I have said time and time again no. When it comes down to it, you have acknowledged everything except for the importance of a signature. Endorsing something has always signified intent and has linked a person to something. This is why there are many laws covering signatures and what they entail. Other high-profile articles on Wikipedia have already established how this is acknowledged and something that was endorsed - then receiving so much press - being included -- especially when it doesn't include analysis or unsourced claims. I've been familiar with policies (I've been using this for a long time and pick things up pretty well), so I wanted to be sure what I was adding was important. I'll look into other means of resolution and contact you both on your userpages when I act on it. DietFoodstamp (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am sure Walter Mignolo has signed a lot of important documents in his life (his books for example). If this particular signature is important for his life then there will be a source stating what makes his signature important. Find that source that discusses the signature in relation to Mignolo and not just in relation to the court case and then it can be included here. What makes this synth is that you argue that the signature is significant but you are not willing to state what its significance is or support it with a source. That means that you are inviting the reader to draw their own conclusion based on a primary source which is not in that source and that is Synthesis. Since it is furthermore quite obvious that there is a particular reason that you think his signature is significant that makes it a likely case of Coatrack.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. And if something about the books that he signed, linking him to them, received this much press, then it would deserve a mention as well. It simply stands to reason that nothing he has signed has received this amount of press. There have been no comments regarding the undeniable similarities between this and the mention on the users against the majority for the Tax Reform pledge for some reason. It's not synthesis because he actually DID commit this action, and I don't know why that should now somehow be made invisible. I don't plan on "coatracking" anything and would gladly patrol the page with you to monitor if someone else were to attempt to add anything else on. Now that we have a discussion opened it seems unnecessary to talk here further, but I do appreciate you replying. DietFoodstamp (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

DietFoodstamp, I'm really not understanding why you are not getting this. You keep saying, "has received this much press". But you have not presented even a single example of this "press" you allege his signature is receiving. Let me draw another example: there is little doubt that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare, Healthcare Reform, etc.) has received an extraordinary amount of press--I imagine its several thousand times more than this Duke issue. Furthermore, 219 members of the House of Representatives, along with 60 members of the Senate, voted for (the equivalent of "signing") the law. And yet, if you look at the articles for each individual legislator, you will not find this information listed on their articles. You will find the information on some of their pages; for instance, since Nancy Pelosi was a key legislator who got the bill passed, it is mentioned on her page. The same exact issue hold here--yes, Mignolo signed the letter. No, there is no evidence (at least, none that you have presented) that any reliable source actually cares that Mignolo (specifically) signed it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Information regarding Walter Mignolo being connected to the Duke lacrosse case letter does not belong in the article. It is not a major fact or detail, and it does not reflect a representative survey of the relevant literature. In fact, none of the reliable source articles on the "Group of 88" mention Walter Mignolo. DietFoodstamp's arguments are based on original research, which is not a basis to include information in the article. Since there is consensus on this issue, we can consider it closed. Information regarding Walter Mignolo being connected to the Duke lacrosse case letter is not going to be in the Walter Mignolo article-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Uzma Gamal thanks for joining in! We have actually opened up a dispute resolution regarding this. We are discussing the inclusion of this and not how it is worded at this point or the sources. If it is sourced that he signed, then it would not constitute original research.

Qwyrxian I have tried to be very clear, and confirmed this while reviewing what I have said, that his signature is an endorsement of what the open letter stands for and the letter received a lot of press. (I believe we are in agreement on this. I know that I think you and Maunus are in agreement that it at least received a lot for Wiki-standards). I took a look at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There were 34 Democrats who voted "no", going against the rest of their party.[1] Some examples of no votes were Rick Boucher, Ben Chandler, and Tim Holden. On their pages, it merely mentions that they voted no...because that is significant. Yes, there were some members that were more involved, and they have more on their pages (for instance - Stephen Lynch (politician), Jim Matheson, and Dan Boren). So 34 of the 241 Democratic representatives in Congress voted no (so 14%). 88 of the (I don't actually have the number one me, so I'll give a range) 700-750 faculty members signed this letter, making them a similar minority (12-13%). DietFoodstamp (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wmignolo.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)