Talk:Cornel West

What is the problem with mentioning his financial problems?

I´m alluding to the part I added that was sourced by Forbes Magazine on the 11th of Decemeber this year and was reverted. StrongALPHA (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

For one, Forbes contributors generally have no editorial oversight whatsoever, and it's been agreed that an article they've contributed to should never be used for claims about living people, see WP:FORBESCON. Remsense留 19:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It is public factual verified and well known Cornel West is broke, poor, has no savings, and owes a lot to his ex wives and children he neglected. He wrote about this himself in his memoir and has said so in interviews. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Then it should be trivial to provide a reliable source to that effect. Remsense诉 22:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No personal life section?

I checked through the talk page archives and found that some editors noticed the lack of a personal life section back in 2007. 13 years later, in 2020, an editor replied agreeing that a personal life section should be in the article. 4 years later, I just happened to notice that no such section exists and I'm surprised that there seemingly has never been one, despite this being a normal part of many biography articles.

I think such a section ought to exist, but I'm curious if any editors have any ideas as to what should be in it. I think it would make sense to mention where he resides, any family members worth mentioning (e.g. spouse(s), children, sibling(s), etc), maybe more details about his religious views and how he practices his faith, and (only if quality sources report on it), potentially controversial information like financial struggles.

Any suggestions or objections?

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The content of articles is driven by the degree of coverage in reliable sources. Generally personal life is covered less for academics than for entertainers, such as Paris HIlton or Lindsay Lohan. TFD (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It is public factual verified and well known Cornel West is broke, poor, has no savings, and owes a lot to his ex wives and children he neglected. He wrote about this himself in his memoir and has said so in interviews. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

As "philosopher" and "theologian"

There is no basis of which I am aware for identifying him as a philosopher or theologian. He has made virtually no intellectual contributions to these domains. His academic publication record consists of 20 or fewer works. He has no Google Scholar profile. His highest Scopus H index is 4 with twelve documents published with Princeton and five with Harvard. The latest Harvard one is his 1993 book 'Race Matters,' whose publisher categorizes it under "social science." His most recent Princeton publication is the foreword to someone else's book. His well publicized run-in with former Harvard President Summers over 20 years ago entailed West's almost total lack of academic intellectual work. Publication of non-peer-reviewed tomes that he identifies as "philosophy" or "theology" is not evidence for self-professed expertise. Affiliation per se with such domains does not afford one this designation. Nor does merely meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability predicated on provocative media coverage sought by the Wikipedia subject. If there are substantive reasons for these labels, then please provide citations consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines for assigning this designation. CeilingFan2Sea (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

he's published in more academic sources than aquinas ever did. plato didn't write anything at all. your standard for the labels is arbitrary. 814jjs (talk) 814jjs (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit source availability

What's going on with source editing? - Joaquin89uy (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Hip Hop 50

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rembrant the GOAT (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KING162 (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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, and for the extensive support his campaign gets from Republicans and Trump allies to get and stay on the ballot in swing states. West expressed ambivalence about the support from Republicans but does object to the spoiler label.
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.
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)