Misplaced Pages

Talk:How to Be an Antiracist

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bilorv (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 30 April 2021 (→Removed unreliable criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:15, 30 April 2021 by Bilorv (talk | contribs) (→Removed unreliable criticism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAfrican diaspora
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBooks
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHuman rights
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States History
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States History To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Black Lives Matter's June 2020 edit-a-thon.
A fact from How to Be an Antiracist appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2020/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/How to Be an Antiracist.
Misplaced Pages

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

( )

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)

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 FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Misplaced Pages'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)
Categories: