Talk:How to Be an Antiracist

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a surge in sales following the killing of George Floyd led How to Be an Antiracist to top The New York Times Best Seller List in the Hardcover Nonfiction category? Source: NYT Bestseller week ending June 6 [1][2]; sales surged [3] "Since the death of George Floyd on May 25, sales of books on race and racism have skyrocketed ... Those titles include"

• Reviewed: Bail fund

Created by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

• ALT0a ... that How to Be an Antiracist topped The New York Times Best Seller List in the Hardcover Nonfiction category after a surge in sales following the killing of George Floyd?
• @Bilorv: New enough, long enough, no obvious close paraphrasing, QPQ done. I suggest shuffling the wording of the hook as in ALT0a which I think flows better and has the subject at the start of the hook, but this isn't essential. Could you add citations directly following the sentences where the hook facts are mentioned, as per DYK rules? I also suggest updating the sentence "It has spent a total of 14 weeks on the list" which is now out of date by a few weeks. 97198 (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I also prefer ALT0a. I've updated the bestsellers list and added more inline citations. — Bilorv (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks good. I've struck the original hook. 97198 (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed unreliable criticism

I removed Coleman Hughes' and Ben Shapiro's criticisms of the book as they don't appear to be relevant here. Shapiro is a right wing political pundit and Hughes has some kind of agenda against BLM, which indicates that their "criticism" is politically motivated and not at all connected to the merits of the book. What valid criticism Hughes has is also raised by Sullivan and Kennedy, so there's really no point in including them, and Shapiro's commentary is the usual right wing punditry, that wikipedia really should've larned to ignore at this point. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Stop adding your ideological preferences all over the website. Their criticism is just as much an opinion as is the opinions of the positive reviews you seek to keep. It is not up to you to decide whose opinion is okay and whose is not. I will revert this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.92.198 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributor. Since the default is that a source is unreliable until proven reliable, not that any opinion is equal (my opinion is worth nothing, for instance, because no editorial team has approved it), can you give a reason why this content would be included? It looks to me like both sources are reliable for opinion, and City Journal is a full-length review, so I'd include that one. The Post-Gazette piece is not a full-length review of How to Be an Antiracist, like the rest of the content, so I would favour exclusion and it's particularly wrong to quote almost all of the review it gives of the book (which is rather surface-level rather than an explained criticism like Hughes's) when we don't do that for other reviews (including the ones not yet present)—see WP:DUE. — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I would like to exclude Hughes is because the only thing his review adds to what the other critics already said is his anti-BLM rethoric, which is politically biased. Also, I'm not sure what makes you think the Post-Gasette of all sources is reliable. We're talking about a newspaper that (redacted). I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You clearly know more than me about this particular source (never heard of it before), but in general widely-distributed broadsheet newspapers are reliable. Everyone's opinion is politically biased. Does the paper have a history of factual fabrications? — Bilorv (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Everything I said about the Post Gazette can be found on it's own wikipedia page. As for everything else, you might want to read this very informative essay: User:JzG/The_politics_of_sourcing. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

IP, you were told not to revert without discussing. As per WP:FALSEBALANCE, not every opinion is equal. You are right, it is not up to me to decide. It's up to site policy. Ben Shapiro is not a critic, he's a right wing pundit, and the Post-Gazette is a pro-trump propaganda site, not a reliable source. As per site policy, they should not be included. The other critics offer a fair and balanced take on the book and potential issues it has, so your claim to want to make the reception section more balanced is a bold-faced lie. It is you who wants to skew the article to better reflect YOUR ideological preference. I'm just here to ensure the article is more in line with site policy. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your desire to not include the Hughes piece, as you quite literally said, is because "the only thing his review adds to what the other critics already said is his anti-BLM rethoric, which is politically biased". The problem is that support of this book is also politically biased, the mere support of the contents of this book would mean that you are biased to the left. please stop lying about your intentions, you clearly love to push your ideological opinions all over the site. The idea that you are just trying to improve content (by removing opinions you don't like) is laughable at best. The City Journal piece is a full review by someone who clearly read the book. Black Lives Matter is not mentioned once in that article, so the idea that it is "anti-blm" rhetoric is also laughable considering the lack of mentioning BLM. You are seeing things that aren't there because you just loveeeeee this book so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.92.198 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please end your comments with the code ~~~~ to sign them. Continued personal attacks towards other volunteers will not have any positive effect—for instance, they actively lower the chance that you will be taken seriously and that your preferred content will be included—and they can additionally lead to sanctions. — Bilorv (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The other editor has attacked Coleman Hughes as a "far right grifter", disparaging him while providing no evidence. The bias is blatant and editors here seem to be content to allow left-wing bias on this page to stifle any legitimate criticism of the book. 74.101.92.198 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Me? Or who? I argued in favour of including Hughes's piece. Either way, you will not get far by making unacceptable comments like please stop lying about your intentions, you clearly love to push your ideological opinions all over the site, not apologizing and then blaming other editors. — Bilorv (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I called Ben Shapiro (blp violation). Also, you've been told specifically to not revert. You got quite an audacity putting "I didn't revert, I re-added it manually". 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: City Journal is an outlet of the conservative think-tank The Manhattan Institute. I'm not aware that they publish general-interest book reviews. Nor does Hughes' profile indicate any focus in that area; he seems to be just another opinion columnist, and his essay a rather WP:FRINGE polemic ("openly totalitarian"?). Therefore I think it would be WP:UNDUE to cite it. At the very least we should avoid quoting such inflammatory rhetoric per WP:IMPARTIAL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC) edited 21:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I'm not aware that they publish general-interest book reviews. See the "Books and Culture" articles here. gnu57 21:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Genericusername57. I've struck that part of my comment. I still stand by the rest. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey @46.97.170.112, can you site your source for Shapiro being a “far-right grifter”? Sounds like an opinion. I do enjoy reading the silly reasoning the leftist mods here have found for not including real reviews of this book. I agree with the other IP user, all of that criticism should be in but we know the left always wins the edit wars on Wikipedia. Too bad the page is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:b0e1:6a75:9150:b04:f146:5f1a (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators"—the closest approximant might be admins, which none of us in this discussion are, and admins have no distinguished power over what content to include in articles (that is determined by community discussion). — Bilorv (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Weighing in pretty late here. Given that Hughes and Shapiro are both prominent public commentators, especially on race issues, it seems reasonable to include their critiques. If we start to have too many people commenting then I could see good reason to trim and focus more on more authoritative sources, but that does not appear to be the issue here. Excluding them because they are perceived to be right wing or are right wing is not correct. It is not clear to me that Hughes or Shapiro have any more or less expertise or prominence than the other people cited here--we can't just be excluding because we dislike the individuals or disagree with their evaluations. That's not what wikipedia does.-Pengortm (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What you can weigh in pretty late with is an opinion, not an edit war. We established a practical consensus from this discussion. It is pretty worrying that you think your opinion is more important than that. I've reverted your change, even though you'll notice that in discussion I argued in favor of part of it, because you have no consensus. What you can do is discuss further and if a new consensus is reached then somebody will make the edit to instate that. — Bilorv (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Coleman Hughes should be included, his views reflect the criticisms of academics such as John McWhorter. I cannot stress enough how negative the academic consensus is on this book; the exclusion of academic criticism for this page is a travesty. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither Hughes nor McWhorter are subject-matter experts in race, political science, anthropology, sociology, etc. Actual academics publish in academic journals, not in podcasts or on the websites of political think-tanks. It would be UNDUE to list every conservative mouthpiece who had an unfavorable reaction to the book. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I cannot stress enough how negative the academic consensus is on this book – Such is the exact opposite of the conclusion I came to when I created this article. I agree that if you're looking to show academic opinion then these types of sources are not the way to go. If you are able to make that claim about academic consensus then I expect you to have access to a (digital) library of academic journals and suchlike you could use to prove your point; it looks like you won't be eligible for WP:TWL yet. — Bilorv (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I do think I overstepped a bit. However, Sangdeboeuf's comment when he undid my edit was not valid. The claim that Coleman Hughes and John McWhorter are unreliable speakers is patently false; John McWhorter in particular has been a prominent heterodox voice on race for over 20 years (ever since he published "losing the race" in 2000), while Coleman Hughes' piece is one of the highest-profile examples of criticism of this book and should not be excluded. Where it was published is irrelevant as there is no evidence Colman wrote what he did not believe or is a grifter. I could also cite examples of Hughes reiterating the sentiment he expressed in the article on other occasions. Finally, though neither of the people I mentioned are conservative, it should be obvious that being a conservative does not and cannot make your perspective invalid. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson is also one of the highest-profile critics of anti-racism in the mass media; that doesn't mean we should include his views here. I never said Hughes was a grifter. But the publication matters a lot: The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. As far as I know City Journal and its website do not have these qualities in abundance. Its parent organization The Manhattan Institute exists to promote conservative ideology. That's what propaganda is. Furthermore I'm not seeing where Kelefa Sanneh (also not an expert on race) calls the book's ideas "simplistically dualistic or Manichaean". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A warning not directed at any specific individual, in regards to this anonymous edit. Risking an indefinite ban for sockpuppetry in order to edit war is not an intelligent decision, particularly as edit warring will have no effect. It could instead be meatpuppetry, which is similarly only going to put the individuals involved at risk of block. There are, however, explanations for the edit that would not fall afoul of any rule or Wikipedia norm. — Bilorv (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. Here is a quote for Kelefa Sanneh source ""One either endorses the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist or racial equality as an antiracist,” Kendi writes, adding that it isn’t possible to be simply “not racist.” He thinks that all of us must choose a side; in fact, he thinks that we are already choosing, all the time." This reflects the dualistic simplicity I mentioned. This source is from the New Yorker, which is a reliable source. As for Coleman Hughes, I will concede City Journal has a political bias, though his piece reflects his own perspective. If this is truly enough to disqualify the source per wikipedia rules you may remove it, but at the moment I included it because it corroborates other sources. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why should we care what Hughes' perspective is at all? And where does Sanneh characterize Kendi's position as simplistic? You may have interpreted the above quote as implying such a criticism; I interpret it as merely a summary of Kendi's argument. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it very concerning that commentary on this book are being removed based apparently on the political beliefs (or perceived political beliefs) of the commentators. This is highly irregularly for wikipedia. If someone is obscure writing on an obscure blog or something (regardless of their political perspectives) of course we would exclude them, but there seems to be a lot of hard work here to remove reviews from commentators that some editors don't like despite their prominence. Disturbing and not in the spirit of wikipedia. -Pengortm (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:DAILYMAIL is "prominent" but that doesn't mean we should cite it. What matters is prominence in the body of reliable sources on a topic. Blogs, podcasts and think-tanks alike are generally not reliable. Any source that exists to promote an ideology is going to be less reliable than sources that exist for the primary purpose of spreading knowledge. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We are using the sources in these sections to document reaction to the book which is not necessarily the same thing as fact checking all of the reactions. In any case someone being having some political opinions or another should not be equated in any simple way to them just arguing from their political opinions. -Pengortm (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying that. Nor should we document all published reactions to the book; due weight applies. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating critical reception

Under § Reception, we are told that the book received a mixed critical reception, but I'm not seeing any sources that evaluate the book's reception as a whole. Therefore, statements like this are original research and should be rewritten in a more factual style. I've tagged a couple of the more glaring ones, but we should also refrain from characterizing reviewers' work as criticism or praise either. Both are essentially subjective. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this, but it's just not true. See any of the Black Mirror articles I've been working on, or the recent FA "The 1975" (2019 song). Assessment of critical reception as simple inference from the reviews summarised are not considered original research. I wouldn't continue writing them if this was widely considered an issue at GA/FA/FL. Unless there's a deeper reason I'm not seeing why it's wrong to do specifically here, and not at other articles. — Bilorv (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That would seem to be a flaw in the GA/FA process, or maybe pop-culture topics are given more leeway. So what? Other stuff exists. Per the policy: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources (emphasis mine). We should not be making unsourced inferences at all; that's for published sources to do. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to me to be a reasonable explanation for the many years of experience I have working in this area. Your view may be a sensible one but I don't believe it's mainstream. Name an article you've written and I'm sure I could find something that could be argued to fail the letter of OR (or some other guideline). I'm telling you how OR is interpreted by the wider community in practice. — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In that case the policy needs to be clarified or updated. Till then I'll stick to what it actually says, which I think is just common sense given the need for NPOV. Adding descriptive language about source material based on one's own interpretation of it opens up a bunch of neutrality and verifiability issues. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think WP:OR needs to be clarified. I think it's fair to read some reviews and unambiguously label them as either criticism or praise. For this book in particular, though, I think following OR would mean not saying "mixed critical reception" without that specific label being sourced. Unlike a Black Mirror episode, we don't have a reliable review aggregator score to use, and unlike The 1975, the volume of coverage by critics is overwhelming. An earnest effort to compile all that's been written about HtBaA would be a massive undertaking and would, I think, be plainly original research. If there aren't already reliable sources discussing the overall reception, I'd bet good money on there being some in the next few years, and we can wait. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm making an assumption about the 1975 song. It looks like our article was able to land on "mostly positive" by covering all or most of the reviews. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the more specific reasoning, Firefangledfeathers. It seems local consensus will be against me here. For the record, "The 1975" includes every (English-language) review (that I could find), and some Black Mirror episodes do not have review aggregators quoted because the sample size is too low. — Bilorv (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in late here, but my experience is fully consistent with Bilorv, that summarizing the general points for clarity is not original research as widely practiced on wikipedia--especially in a case like this.-Pengortm (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Interpreting and labeling aren't the same as summarizing. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Mixed critical reception" would seem to indicate, as a synthesis, that there was an approximately equal balance of positive and negative reviews. However, the article body does not reflect this claim - particularly given the weight to be attributed to each source. Kirkus Reviews and Publishers' Weekly are respected, essentially-apolitical publications focused specifically on books; that both of their reviews were highly positive (starred review) would seem to deserve significantly more weight and prominence than, say, the negative opinion of Andrew Sullivan, a political commentator. That not all of the criticism was positive is clear; that the reception is fairly judged as "mixed" rather than, say, "primarily positive," is not. I therefore object to the phrasing, and have removed it until there's consensus for a particular summary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you gain a consensus for your view before reverting the established text? That is more the expected norm I think. I don't think mixed means roughly equal, but does mean some substantial positive and some substantial negative reviews. Just because some of the reviewers have other political opinions does not mean we can dismiss these. You also seem to be forgetting that Kennedy and Harden also have had negative things to say about the book. -Pengortm (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That's your own interpretation of what they said. Basing article contents on users' personal interpretation or evaluation is WP:OR. Harden gives Kendi's book a brief mention in a broader discussion of racial inequality, her main point being that "speculation about genetically based racial differences is not grounded in science" (2021, p. 89) Her argument with Kendi is that claims of "genetic sameness" are morally questionable as a motivation for anti-racist policies; that they are scientifically incorrect is a side issue. Elsewhere she cites Kendi in a passage about IQ testing, describing his "trenchant" concerns about the concept of intelligence itself being rooted in eugenics, while also citing his arguments to support seeing IQ tests as a valuable tool for "understanding the effects of discriminatory policies" (2021, p. 219). Is that positive or negative? The point is that Harden is not reviewing Kendi's book as a book; she is citing certain passages from it in service of her own arguments. Thus we shouldn't be citing Harden under § Critical reception, let alone as an example of "negative" criticism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC) edited 01:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

As for the Harden source: She does clearly call his scientific assertion about genetic sameness into question. I am fine with you trying to integrate in other things she has said and might get to it later myself if you don't. I have not read that far into the book to get to the passage you mention. Yes, Harden does not fully review his book, but given that she is a world expert on the topic of genetics which she critiques and this is a prominent book, her commentary in her area of expertise seems worth including. If we had too many sources than I could see trimming down, but this seems like just trying to cut out critical commentary.-Pengortm (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Harden does indeed seem to be a recognized expert, but not all reviewers agree with her stance here. A recent review of Harden's book in The Lancet by geneticist Joseph L. Graves Jr. mentions the dispute with Kendi, saying, "[Harden's] argument does not address what I believe is a central point: human populations do not differ substantially in the frequencies of genetic variants that determine their complex behaviour, including intelligence and personality." Given that her argument with Kendi is more an ethical one than a scientific one, it seems WP:UNDUE to cite Harden on this point. Especially when her main point is broadly the same as Kendi's: that "race is not a valid biological category". (2021, p. 91). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If outlined neutrally and meaningfully, rather than the misrepresentative "gotcha! A geneticist says the book is wrong" summary that was added to the article, I don't oppose incorporation of Harden's commentary—and if others dissented with Harden then include their views too. It would be good to include criticism of the book on anti-racist grounds, rather than just the, ahem, conservative criticism currently included. — Bilorv (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV does not require that "all reviewers agree with her stance", and if her views on Kendi's book have in turn received attention in additional reliable sources, that strengthens the argument for their notability and inclusion here.

To address yet another faulty argument put forth above against including Harden's view: I reviewed the full context of the quoted parts in the book, and it does not seem true at all "that her argument with Kendi is more an ethical one than a scientific one":

... while I am skeptical of [geneticist David Reich's and writer Sam Harris'] priors about what future analyses of genomic data ­will find, I do agree with them on one point: people’s moral commitments to racial equality are on shaky ground if they depend on exact ge­ne­tic sameness across ­human populations. Consider, for example, Ibram X. Kendi’s best-­selling book, How to Be an Antiracist.34 In his chapter “Biology,” Kendi insisted that a “biological antiracist” was “one who is expressing the idea that the races are meaningfully the same in their biology and ­there are no ge­ne­tic racial differences” (emphasis added).
As I discussed above, race is not a valid biological category. But to hold that here are no ge­ne­tic differences between groups of people who identify as dif­fer­ent races is simply incorrect: as I described previously in this chapter, racial groups differ in ge­ne­tic ancestry, and so differ in which ge­ne­tic variants are pre­sent and how common those variants are. Must our commitment to antiracism and racial equality be built on such tottering foundations?

In other words, Harden is not debating Kendi's ethical arguments, but rather debunking an erroneous empirical claim he promotes in his "Biology" chapter, while highlighting it as a prominent example of such fallacies. (Also, this is the only time she mentions Kendi in this context, which should make us regard Sangdeboeuf's claim that "her main point is broadly the same as Kendi's" with healthy skepticism.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've made this change based on your quotations there, and I think the edit summary fully justifies it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Source recommendation

Why use the Washington Post at all? They have a pay wall. It's almost as if folks don't want to read Randall Kennedy's review. Santa doesn't have to know.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@UncleKrampus: WP:PAYWALL says, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. The Washington Post (RSP entry) has a long and very strong track record for reliability and significance of opinion, and is to be preferred over mid-quality sources. — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilory: The same article appeared in another newspaper that has free access. This is therefore independent of considerations of reliability. Randall Kennedy is just as reliable in the Dallas News as in the Washington Post. The WP shouldn't be used for syndicated articles because most readers can't use the links. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't understand that was what you meant. Sure, you can replace it if you want. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

John McWhorter

Even if this source did mention McWhorter's take on the book, that doesn't mean we should include it. Many people have written essays for The New York Times, which purposely tries to publish a range of opinions. Professional opinion-havers, however, are not usually recognized experts or specialists in the topics they write about. And many scholars disagree with McWhorter on race issues. Even the Vox piece calls McWhorter's stance "intentionally provocative". Hence his opinions are probably WP:UNDUE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This strikes me as trying to get views you disagree with removed. What wikipedia based standard do you have for excluding someone's prominent views because many people disagree with them in this sort of context?-Pengortm (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I second this. The other sentiments listed in reception do not come from experts in the field so this reason for deletion is clearly bunk or horribly hypocritical.

John McWhorter is a "heterodox" voice on race, meaning he goes against mainstream thought, but Ibram X Kendi and his book form a central pillar he explicitly cites in his work, including but not limited to the book "Woke Racism." He has been so prolific in his critiques of this book I would think much stronger grounds would be required for exclusion. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Being prolific does not make one an expert. Many Facebook rants are "prolific" in their criticism of something or other. The fact that McWhorter goes against mainstream thought is exactly why it's WP:UNDUE to include him here. Due weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says specifically "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources," these ARE reliable sources and DO represent significant viewpoints. That is the salient point, and your argument is disingenuous and disturbing. Equating the book "Woke Racism" to a facebook rant is categorically unreasonable, and John McWhorter is qualified as a book critic; HE WAS ON THE NATIONAL BOOK CRITICS CIRCLE!!!!. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Being "qualified" as a book reviewer is meaningless. McWhorter would not be a reliable source for criticism of a technical work on nuclear physics, for example. Membership in the National Book Critics Circle does not mean one is a subject-matter expert. Just saying "these sources are reliable" or typing in all caps does not make them so. Context is key. Your source for McWhorter's arguments is his book Woke Racism, which is a polemic much like Kendi's own. Yet somehow I doubt you'd accept Kendi's book as a source for criticism of McWhorter's "avowal of a post-racial America" as "out of touch", for example (p. 117). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for using all caps, it was wrong and uncalled for. But I stand by what I said; let me add, I would support Kendi's criticisms of McWhorter being featured on the "woke Racism" page, I find that example apt. These are both published book by academics writing in their field; the subject of race McWhorter is qualified in and he has taught in. Neither book is a polemic; these are academic works, not partisan drivel as you so insist. Both use reasoning to support their arguments. Honestly, I'm frustrated by this impasse, and the lack of respect for my salient point; if you could call more editors to this issue I would much appreciate it. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

One World (Kendi) and Penguin Group (McWhorter) are not academic publishers. The quality of the authors' reasoning is (1) subjective and (2) irrelevant. We judge a source by its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not whether we personally find it reasonable. Both books are written to persuade a mass audience and are not subject to academic scrutiny, hence their reliability is poor. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with Sangdeboeuf in part; I don't think we can discount reviewers who are non-experts unless and until we have a large body of expert reviews, in which case WP:BESTSOURCES would apply. I don't think we're there yet. I do think the section is overstating the negative reception to the book. I also agree with Sangdebouef's comments on the accuracy of the proposed text's summary of Sanneh. I'm curious about McWhorter, as I only have access to that book via preview. Pernicious.Editor, could you provide a supporting quote or page number? Firefangledfeathers 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My problem with the McWhorter source is not his questionable expertise per se; it's his purportedly "heterodox" views which explicitly go against mainstream academic thinking on race and the fact that his commentary appears in low-reliability journals, op-eds, and polemical books. I've added several peer-reviewed sources via the {{Refideas}} template above; those could be used to expand the reception section. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC) edited 11:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Race is not a science. Academic consensus means little in this case. Being heterodox on race is very different than being heterodox on climate change, for example. I find this rebuke weak. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Race and racism are subject to academic study in many fields, from law to medicine to sociology. Where academic consensus exists in any field, then we should represent it per WP:BESTSOURCES. Likewise, heterodox ideas in any field are equally WP:UNDUE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There has been much obvious cherry-picking edits in this and similar articles of excessively negative reception to mostly well-received books. As there will be too many reviews to include them all, due weight applies, though the section could be much expanded with additional sources used to show an aggregate of the most mainstream professional opinions on the book. — Bilorv (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I have been looking for sources that comment on the reception. No shining examples so far. Firefangledfeathers 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

When there are sufficient scholarly experts and public commentary, it sometimes makes sense to separate out reviews from the public versus experts. However, this seems highly irregular based on my wikipedia editing experience to exclude people based on them being perceived as right-wing (as stated in some of the edit summaries). McWhorter clearly has the mainstream prominence and publication record (including a column in the NYT) that he should be included whether he is considered a scholarly expert or not. If we get to the point of too many reviews, than perhaps we should omit him, but let's get to that point first. I think there is also a good case to be made that he is an expert on race issues based on his publication record. -Pengortm (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I also note that there are multiple reviews from non-race experts currently in the article. I think they are appropriate to include for the above reasons, but if we are excluding all who are not scholarly experts on race, than for consistency we should remove all of these, not just ones that are critical. -Pengortm (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You removed the reviews by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews (the latter being by an anonymous author, so it's unclear how we would know if they're an expert on race). leaving the comments by Afua Hirsch, Ericka Taylor, Colin Grant, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Andrew Sullivan. This strikes me as extremely WP:POINTY, especially since Sullivan is nowhere near an expert on race issues either. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Textbook example of WP:POINT. PW and Kirkus are indisputable sources—I've used each dozens or hundreds of times and this is the first time I can ever recall either being removed/challenged. They are expert book reviewers. It seems Pengortm is insisting on misinterpreting what other people believe and then ironically enforcing this misinterpreted view as a way to try to prove the strawman beliefs wrong. — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

McWhorter's publication record on race issues is entirely within the popular press, not academia. Being popular does not make one's opinions WP:DUE; opinion essays are not generally reliable. Feel free to provide sources that support McWhorter's scholarly bona fides on race issues. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You could assume WP:POINT and ill will--but the fact is that I removed the first two that were clearly not race scholars since that seemed to be the reason for suggesting removing McWhorter as a source. I didn't get to the later sources yet because I did not have the time or energy at the time. Again, McWhorter is a very prominent commentator on these issues. We are documenting reaction to the book--not necessarily just scholarly reaction. Again, the way standards are being enforced in this article is highly irregular based on my experience editing wikipedia. Very concerning. -Pengortm (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

since that seemed to be the reason for suggesting removing McWhorter as a source – If you are confused then you should ask clarifying questions, not—as I described above—misinterpreting what other people believe and then trying to enforce this non-existent opinion. The latter is the definition of WP:POINT: "When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only". — Bilorv (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to indiscriminately document any and all published reactions to a book. See WP:WEIGHT. Among actual race scholars, McWhorter is prominent mainly for espousing a more polite form of anti-black racism, as the sources I linked above show. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)