Talk:Kim Lane Scheppele

Must be deleted

It is just a propaganda piece, soapbox, which must be deleted. The only aim is to smear the Orbán-government. --Ltbuni (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ltbuni: If you feel this doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, feel free to take it to Articles for Deletion. She is a critic of Orban, sure, so it's not surprising that many WP:RS refer to her work/statements in that context. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, in the article, it is noted that a member of the Orban government criticized her saying that her critiques were more political than scholarly, so that viewpoint is covered. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank You for Your response. I have already asked "third opinion" on this issue. My problems/concerns can be read here. Please read it, it is very - well, let's just say - illuminating. Then we can open a discussion here on the possible modification. And Mr Schöpflin WAS NEVER a member of the Orbán-government. There are much more effective responses to her criticism, pointing out her factual mistakes etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TJW's reasoning at the provided link. The best place for extended content on Professor Scheppele's views on Orban is on her own page. What other people do with her views on other pages, is outside the scope of whether this article should exist and what content should be present. She certainly meets the WP:NACADEMIC, since she has a named chair position at Princeton, and it just happens that reliable sources cover her in the context of critiquing Orban. As for the claim that she's biased because she's associated with Hungarian opposition members, that connection seems like a natural and expected relationship for a critic of the government – one could even say that a reputable academic critic who doesn't associate with the opposition to the government they're critiquing should have their authority challenged. Unless reliable sources exist to show that that relationship has undermined the legitimacy/accuracy of her work, we shouldn't be preemptively poisoning the well.

While Mr. Schopflin isn't part of Orban's cabinet, he is a sitting MEP for Fidesz, Orban's party, and his statement that Professor Scheppele's critiques are politically motivated is an opposing viewpoint on those critiques. If you can provide reliable sources with more substantial critiques of her work, feel free to link them here for discussion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should untag this article. I don't see an issue of UNDUE here. This is clearly covered appropriately, and is a large part of this woman's career. Andrevan@ 23:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at her mentions in reliable sources, she most frequently appears as an expert on Hungary issues. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, my problem with this article is that it focuses only her criticism on the Orbán government. We do not know anything else. In this form it is at least a stub, or soapboxing. I checked her publication list (http://sociology.princeton.edu/files/faculty/cv/scheppele_cv_0.pdf) , and I found that she is an expert of judicial activism, a critic of the "small emergencies that undermine US Constitution", US federalism, seaxual rights etc. None of these are mentioned. Only a small part of her scientific works deals with Hungary. The article however gives the impression as if Hungarian affairs were in the focus of her scientific activity. She published only 6 or 7 articles on this topic in peer reviewed journal, she gives her point of view mostly in blog-entries and opinion pieces. So, I think, this article is totally unbalanced now, because she is described as scientist, but her opinion appeared almost entirely in the Krugman-blog, and other blogs. It is misleading now. I am not sure, but somewhere I read that she is a political activist too, she represented someone in court. So I suggest that we should add a "stub" tag.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Most of the readily available reliable sources mention her work in the context of Orban. If you want to add other stuff, that's incumbent on you to provide reliable sources to add that content. If you want to mention her other work, go dig up book reviews of her books, and add them to the article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not a stub. It's not "soapboxing." It's an article about a critic of the Orban gov't. You, Ltbuni, clearly support that gov't and have a problem with its critics. That doesn't mean you get to go around pushing that POV and trying to cast doubt on articles. If you want to expand this article, that's a viable action, though probably not the one you want. You went from saying the article "must be deleted" to wanting it tagged as a stub. Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Andrevan@ 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A year and a half went by, and no one gave a c..p to expand it. It still focused on the criticism, before I added something... Its only aim is to smear a bunch of people, citing libellous remarks as "judicial czarine" "toxic wastedump" and others. It WAS/IS soapboxing, with this specfic aim. And please don't lecture me on how Wikipedia works, because lecturing, and attributing party affiliations to others is how it DOES NOT WORK!--Ltbuni (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

EXPERT??? on Hungarian law? :D

It's funny that non liberal, non marxist, normal thinking leaders, politicians, journalists, artist, social media figures are always right wing or far right conspiracy theorists, extremist, supermacist etc on wikipedia, yet paid or needful idiots on the left are always experts or so :) This woman is a well known anti-Hungarian tool. Nothing else. There is nothing that would make her an expert on any topic about Hungary. She is not just an Orban-critic expert as you put it here euphemistically she is hard core biased anti-Hungarian agent provocateur. Elon Musk should buy wikipedia as well to fire all the crazy people running this asylum. 85.67.103.119 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Has Kim Lane Scheppelle come from Nowhere?

Has she got any parents, any family or at least any relatives? 2A02:A317:2238:B500:7D35:1AAA:C2F9:A68C (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)