Talk:Michael Rectenwald/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Article is poorly sourced with 8 refs to his own work

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Possible sources include

I will leave it to others to contribute, as I am being attacked for editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Theroadislong that editor is now blocked so hopefully you'll be willing to continue this work. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I would rather not, I value my safety. Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit is problematic

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is problematic to include discussion of a year-old lawsuit for which we have no follow-up from reliable sources; a previous version stated that the suit was dismissed but I can't find a source for it. Including the mere fact of the lawsuit without responses from those he sued amounts to publishing one-sided accusations. If there has not been any reliably-sourced followup in a year, it is reasonable to conclude that the suit went nowhere and is not notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous number of references

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Laughingpillow - I just reverted the references you added to the lead - the sheer number of them took up most of a line of text on screen, and from a quick spot check there were some seriously unreliable sources amongst them. (For future reference, the Daily Caller is unreliable for more or less any assertion about any subject - certainly not a BLP - see this recent RfC for more on that.

As I said in my edit summary, the lead generally doesn't need references, as it should be a summary of the sourced content in the body of the article; having said that, leads are sometimes referenced, and if you want to choose one really good reference I wouldn't object - but it should support the assertion as stated. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear GirthSummit _(blether) Ah, I see. My apologies! I thought I was just adding evidence that the guy has become notorious, for ill or otherwise, for his views. I apologize for the mistakes of a neophyte. What if I added just a handful of credible sources, which I'll ask you to vet here to save anyone else or you more time and trouble. I found these to be rather solid sources and evidentiary of the assertion:

“NYU Professor Criticized Trigger Warnings. Now He’s on Leave for the Semester.” Reason. 1 November 2016.

“NYU Says Leave Was Voluntary for Professor Who Criticized Political Correctness.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 1 November 2016.

“Here’s what happened when I challenged the PC campus culture at NYU.” The Washington Post. 3 November 2016.

“NYU professor says he was encouraged to go on leave because of his tweeting and his newspaper interview." The Washington Post. 3 November 2016.

“Cast Out for Criticizing PC: The 21st-Century Inquisition: The punishment of NYU’s Michael Rectenwald should worry us all.” Spiked. 2 November 2016.

“The Opioid Epidemic Is This Generation’s AIDS Crisis.” New York Magazine. 16 March 2017.

“Why Political Correctness Is Incorrect,” by Michael Rectenwald. International Business Times. 25 January 2018.

If this is still too much, would you mind terribly sharing which, in your better judgment (better than mine that is) might be added? Thank you!

Cheers, --Laughingpillow (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Laughingpillow I can't review those references easily, because you didn't provide links to them. However, I'm happy to explain how to review them yourself. The assertion you appended them to was he is best known as a critic of the contemporary social justice movement and its effects in the academy - so, what you are looking for is a source that directly supports that assertion, in a publication that is widely respected. Don't leave the reader to join the dots - see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR for more info. I hope that's clear; if you'd like to propose sources below, please provide the links of the ones that you think are best and I'll be happy to help. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 23:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi _(blether) My apologies once more. I'll get the hang of things. I appreciate your patience. Here are the sctual urls for the articles above:

Cheers, --Laughingpillow (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)--Laughingpillow (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please check them for yourself to see whether they support that specific assertion, and tell me which one you think it the best. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note to say I refactored your last edit slightly to make the page easier to read - I didn't change anything you wrote, just removed some asterisks and carriage returns, I hope that's alright. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Rectenwald opinion about the 2016-2020 US president and the 2020 US election (Trump VS Biden basically)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

I was just looking for who this guy was and didn't saw anything about his opinion on Donald Trump (does he approves his job, does he support him or not, etc)

I think his twitter shows what he thinks about Trump and Biden but I don't know if wiki find this as a very good source and Twitter can be very messy to have actual data because of the misinformation.

Here is a tweet that shows what he thinks about Biden but that's only one tweet, so we may need more than that to put informations.

Here is a video (the video starts when he enters in the debate) where he says what he thinks about Trump and Obama. It's very messy, I warn you.

I mostly use wiki to understand who someone is and his page didn't show what Michael Rectenwald thought about all of this stuff going on with the 2020 presidential election.

I don't know if this is a good start or no, but maybe it is a start.

2A02:A03F:C92F:3F00:E489:856:458E:CE57 (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement for a professor

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know how else to say it. It doesn't have a neutral tone. It's almost like just a list of accomplishments. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote it himself. 2601:88:8201:60A0:35E9:4769:3BCE:6BCF (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's similar to any other biographical item I can find on Wikipedia. 163.47.236.27 (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)