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 http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

He's not Jewish at all. What Jews are there named Kotsko? All Polish Catholics or evangelicals. He's Catholic now, not that it matters. But your insistence that he's Jewish shows your true colors. And he's not a liberal leftist either but all over the map... obviously you have not read some of his greatest hits that go back years... Go do some real research instead of following the sheep. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Several sources regarding remarks by Kotsko

So even though several users here are stubbornly trying to censor my edits, even at the talk page, I now represent several more sources building upon the professor.

Source: The Washington Times - "White college professor: All whites ‘complicit’ in slavery" [1]

Source: The Daily Caller - "White Professor Informs White People They Are All Currently ‘COMPLICIT IN’ Slavery"

Source: The Daily Caller - "Education Let’s Get To Know America’s Stupidest College Professor"

Now if you intend to still use the same excuses, go ahead, but you'll just prove my point further. Jørgen88 (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There aren't links to the Daily Caller for me to read, but the WT article doesn't even contain the words "racist" or "racism". It goes on to discuss the concept of white privilege. Your analysis of that source is erroneous. Keri (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think youre confusing it with white guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.33.252 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link [2]. I forgot to add it. The article is written by Eric Owens, the Education Editor of the Daily Caller. He mentions the outbursts of Kotsko where Adam tweeted about Charlie Hebdo and how he labels them “a newspaper devoted to hate speech”. The article continues to mention that Kotsko later apologized. Further mentions of his tweets and framecaptures can be seen here [3]. Campus Reform also mentions it here [4] and also features an article about his mentions of slavery and suggestions of mass suicide of whites. With all these sources combined, I believe there is adequate material to add a mention of his controversial remarks on Wikipedia. Remember that NPOV is important and essential to a good article, and an article that leaves out any sort of criticism where such excists, is not seen as NPOV. Right now this article is borderline WP:SOAP. I don't think kotsko's remarks deserves it's own section, but should at least be mention to a certain degree. Cheers. Jørgen88 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying that all white people are complicit in slavery is not racist. It's provocative, for sure, but it's not racist, it's a defensible point of view. Our Prime Minister issued a formal apology on behalf of the entire country for it. You'd need a reliable independent source, in fact several given the gravity of the accusation, that explicitly called this racism. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's provocative then it makes sense to include it in a controversy section. He made the tweets, he generated controversy, and with regards to the Hebdo statement he even acknowledged the controversy. Why is including a section mentioning this unacceptable? Are we the wikipedia or his PR dept? And Guy, your opinion that "it's not racist" isn't the issue (and please don't say "Our Prime Minister", he's not my PM). My complaint is that there is a controversy involving Mr Kotsko, I mentioned it, and it's been completely wiped away for no reason other than what? No real reason is being given for not mentioning it other that saying "he was joking" which is just the interpretation of the other editors and the source for this "fact" is just a personal blog by an extremely biased party, the Prof himself. I certainly don't mind including his statement that he claims to have been joking but why remove the controversy? My original edits don't accuse him of anything other than making the tweets, why was that removed? Pmw2cc (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Pmw2cc and User:Jørgen88 have a point here. We have clear and obvious Secondary sources that have been used as WP:RSes elsewhere on Wiki numerous times. These sources quote the tweets directly. It's a notable occurrence. User:Keri, if you or others want to add commentary from other WP:RSes that disputes the tweets as facetious, then you should add that also to the article. But both the original tweets and the sarcasm claims deserve to be in the article. How is that not obvious?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is clearly not a suitable source for a BLP. WP:UNDUE is also pertinent here. Including right-wing bloggers' attempts to whistle up a storm in a teacup about "America's Stupidest College Professor", "the left-wing, liberal Jew", gives undue weight to the view of a biased minority,. Keri (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I will refer to my original edits, which consists of a whole 2 sentences in the body. Just two. The article as a whole has about 36 sentences, adding two for a controversy that, I suspect, has added more name recognition to him than anything else he has ever done does not violate WP:UNDUE, it's fine. Referencing my attempts to include such information as a part of an attempt to "whistle up a storm" violates WP:AGF . I'm not part of a conspiracy, I'm just a guy. The tone of the original article, which I did not in any way replicate in my edits, does not change the facts of the case which are clear, well-sourced, and not even questioned as having happened. I did in fact include his disavowal of his Hebdo tweet. Is it wikipedia policy that controversies disappear when people say, "oops, sorry I got caught!". I would also argue that Keri's argument is getting close to saying "there are evil right-wingers out to get him therefore no criticism of him will be allowed in the wikipedia!". Once again, is that wikipedia policy? As a final aside, the fact that he is a left-winger is in the main body of the article and has been for a while and so I don't see how it can be seen as a slur or character assasination. Pmw2cc (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And therein lies the issue: "...a controversy that, I suspect, has added more name recognition to him than anything else he has ever done." An impartial observer might assume that you'd never heard of Kotsko before the right-wing bloggers grabbed hold of his 2 tweets, if this is what you genuinely believe. He is, in fact, extremely well-known for his books and translations. So is this "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject"? I don't think so. You also misrepresent Kotsko by claiming he was saying "oops, sorry I got caught!" when he did no such thing - literally or metaphorically. It doesn't matter that the incident happened, that some bloggers reported it, or that Kotsko hasn't denied it happened. It is WP:UNDUE: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." As for your WP:AGF accusation, I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Keri (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Keri, at this point, reverting Pmw2cc's edits would be editing against consensus. 3v1 is a relatively clear delineation. I don't think this should be some huge part of the article, but a very casual mention in 1 or 2 sentences, adjusted for tone and style to be NPOV and just about the facts, is obviously fine. Your attempting to keep it out at this point seems kind of POV. It was a notable media occurrence, several independent sources covered it, TDC may be POV in your view(and in mine, to be honest), but BLP violating sources can be used for statements of fact. and The Washington Times can be used for statements of fact for what happened as well. Sorry. If you keep editing it out, I'll start reverting as well, following 3RR of course. But we have consensus. How it should appear is obviously up for debate, but come on. It deserves inclusion.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, you are ignoring the other editors who have contested this inclusion already; so where you get 3v1 from I don't know. Secondly, consensus is not determined by a numerical vote. Thirdly, BLP policy is quite clear about undue weight. Keri (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, "BLP violating sources can be used for statements of fact" is an oxymoron. Nothing trumps BLP. Keri (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And while we're here again, what's with the "Kotsko, who is Jewish..."? He was raised as an evangelical Christian and is now a practising Catholic. He's about as Jewish as a pork pie. Keri (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why I included the CN tag. I couldn't find anything, but maybe I'm wrong. Unfortunately for you, this isn't how Wikipedia works. If you bring out a source showing his religious background, then we can just remove that clause. But really, BLP policy is only about unfactual things and things that areobviously not NPOV or verifiable. This fails all three tests, it deserves inclusion. I'm not sure where you're getting WP:UNDUE in BLP. Perhaps from NPOV? Then if we include it in a very specific way, it should be fine. Also, as said above, this is an incredibly short inclusion.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's incredibly short because it is disproportionate. Read the damn policy. Keri (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Just did, for my seventeenth time probably. This seems like a very contentious issue for you. Please AGF.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you read this sentence 17 times and still failed to understand it: WP:UNDUE: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." BLP is not "only about unfactual things" and you are editing out of your depth if that is what you perceive it to be. CampusReform is also not a RS for a BLP, by the way, being as it is a right-wing blog started by a well-known right-wing activist. Keri (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So you're linking W:UNDUE, not BLP? SO you acknowledge that no such statement appears in BLP? I stated the main tenents of BLP clearly. And I also stated how including this statement doesn't violate them. It was all relatively clear, and you aren't dissecting those points. We provided more sources, We provided a WP:RS in Washington Times. What you're also missing is that sources such as CampusReform in conjunction with other much more reliable sources can be used for statements of fact. You cannot actually be disputing whether or not this happened. It happened. The tweets exist. Secondary sources covered it. Many many many of them. Including a WP:RS. How exactly does that fail BLP?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, "The Daily Caller is clearly not a suitable source for a BLP. WP:UNDUE is also pertinent here." NPOV is not a standalone policy separate from BLP: AS BLP states: "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)." NPOV — and UNDUE — is at the heart of BLP: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Even if those policies did not apply in this instance — which they do — you cannot just arrive and unilaterally decide and overturn consensus. @Wikimandia: @NeilN: Keri (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Twitter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(notifying interested parties who have previously been involved in this aspect of the article @Jørgen88:, @NeilN:, @Wikimandia:, @Pmw2cc:, @Shibbolethink:, @199.48.245.215:)
Following the original edit warring it appeared that there was consensus that the inclusion of Kotsko's twitter joke was undue. Pmw2cc and Shibbolethink now say that they disagree and it should be included. The relevant policies are clearly

1. WP:BLP (BLP's "must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)")
2. WP:UNDUE (as part of the a/m NPOV: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic") NPOV — and thus UNDUE — is part and parcel of BLP, not a completely separate policy that somehow does not apply to BLPs.

The twitter joke is a trifling incident. The majority of the reporting comes from right-wing blogs that are not remotely acceptable as WP:RS for a BLP. CampusReform, for example, is a social-networking site created by a right-wing activist. But even if there were multiple credible sources — the only mainstream outlet that mentioned this was the right-wing propaganda vehicle, The Washington Times — we have to go back to BLP where policy states "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." A twitter joke about white privilege / white guilt is not relevant in this instance. It may be verifiable... but it is still insignificant to the article topic. As this appeared to be the status quo — and the edit warring to insert the material stopped when Jorgen88 and his sockpuppet were blocked and the page semi-protected — we must defer back to policy, which states: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." The burden of proof is on editors to establish here that this is not UNDUE and that this is a significant, widely reported (in multiple, reliable 3rd party sources) incident which any high quality biography or encyclopaedia would contain. It isn't. Keri (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is undue. Kotsko posted two follow-up blogs in which he referred to the idea as "absurd" and very specifically stated he was being sarcastic, and mocked how quickly certain blogs ran with the story (I assume without contacting him). As far as I can tell, there is no evidence he actually believes this or is pushing this concept, nor is there even mainstream coverage of his tweet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In these types of cases I like to apply WP:10YT, shortened to two years. In two years, is this incident going to be relevant enough to include in the subject's biography? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree with Keri's summary of the applicable policy. The story has gotten a lot of uptake, but not (thus far) outside of the ideological outrage machine (the Daily Caller, Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh being the most notable). If it spreads further, the issue would definitely be worth revisiting. -- Visviva (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering how vocal Shibbolethink was prior to this discussion being opened, I'm surprised to see he/she hasn't yet commented. Perhaps they are out of town, so I am loathe to call consensus until at least after the weekend. Keri (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV

This looks like the sort of page that Adam himself would have written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.17.42 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Kotsko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120708055425/http://www.shimer.edu:80/aboutshimercollege/AdamKotsko.cfm to http://www.shimer.edu/aboutshimercollege/AdamKotsko.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does this person have a page?

After reading this page, I'm not at all clear why Adam Kotsko is any more noteworthy than any other professor at a mid-tier university. Since most of those professors don't have Wikipedia pages, I'm left wondering why he does. It also sounds very suspiciously like this person wrote this page up himself. I looks like there is only one author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C100:630B:2059:74A4:A7C:6A26 (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

After reading your comment, I'm not at all clear why you feel the need to go around shitting on other people's hard work, unless it's to apply some salve to your own disappointing and uninteresting non-accomplishments. Having read several of Kotsko's books, I use this page to keep tabs on his output. You should perhaps spend less time fretting about other's importance in comparison to your own and maybe more time studying their habits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.78.148 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. This professor may have a perfectly respectable academic career, but it takes more than that to qualify for a self-standing Wikipedia article. Neither is "keeping tabs on his output" sufficient justification; this isn't the place for fan pages. The Shimer-specific wiki already exists, no need to import this professor's bio into main Wiki. I'm proposing deletion. The sourcing alone is a dead giveaway. Those references that don't direct back to his personal blog are extremely minor citations inserted to give the appearance of notability where none exists. NB: This has nothing to do with the amount of effort put into the article or anyone's relative importance or self-worth. If that's unclear, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's deletion policies, specifically http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally. Grifter84 (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. There's no reason for the extensive discussion of an otherwise unremarkable academic (assistant prof.) at a little-known college other than to reward self-promotion via this channel.

Still not notable in 2024

2024 and this no-name assistant professor's page still exists, propped up by references to completely unknown blogspot websites. Not a single notable source outside of new articles about his tweet in 2015. Provide sources that confirm the subject's notability or nominate for deletion. You do not get special treatment on wikipedia for being an academic. 2404:4408:476B:4500:28ED:5455:8E90:5683 (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's likely not special treatment and more that people forgot the page exists. I'm going to try an AfD for it, now that I've looked him up and found nothing notable. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it was high time. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)