Talk:Michael Kimmel

Reception section

I created the reception section, which is completely appropriate for any author, much more so one so widely published, and the single most published pro-feminist author on men and masculinities. In it I sourced a statement to the very mainstream publication "Psychology Today" and was reverted by another editor -- a change I have since reverted, (hence this section on talk.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this is not sourced to a "blog" in any traditional sense. This is cited to the "Psychology Today" offical blog page of a noted author on the same subjects that Kimmel treats. Anthony Synnott, (Ph.D) is professor of sociology who teaches and has scholarly publications on men and masculinities and deserves his own WP page.--Cybermud (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, the "reception" section now features only one critic's response to Kimmel's work; and while it seems like a good idea, as you suggest, to "remove unsourced glowing praise and POV, content" you did not rewrite or replace it with appropriate content. (This revision and others.) We can work on this together. As you mention, if it is true that Kimmel is the "single most published" author in a particular field, what can we do to write a fair section that reviews notable reception of his work including both criticism and praise, within the bounds of NPOV and BLP? Let's try. Mike Restivo (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed that quotation again, but as I mentioned before, I am happy to try to work together to try to improve and expand the "Reception" section to include more apt criticisms of Kimmel's work. If you go back and read the source of this quote, you will see that it originates in Kimmel's book (p. 565); but my initial question remains: Is this quote taken out of context by Synnott? Was it made tongue-in-cheek? Surely, if Kimmel is as influential an author as you argue, we should be able to find more reliable criticism of his work, which we should try to incorporate into this article. Notice that I did not remove the sentence that summarized Anthony Synnott's critique altogether. I simply removed this quotation because I am not convinced that it serves its purpose. If you or anyone else could find the original context for this quote (in Kimmel's book) and explain here on the talk page why it is a valid and transparent example of what Synnott is critiquing, then I can certainly be convinced that it belongs in the article. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason I mention all of this is because I am having a hard time actually tracking down and verifying the authenticity of the quotation ("Warning:...") that Synnott attributes to Kimmel 2004, p. 565. He says it is from Men's Lives but the only edition of that book I can find is from 2009? So I just want to make sure everything is on the level. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cybermud, I see that you have restored that questionable material. My previous concerns about including this in the article have not been addressed. Please respond to the specific points I made above regarding the provenance of this quote and its appropriateness for inclusion in a BLP article. Until then I feel like this should material should not remain.

Rather than engaging in a back-and-forth revert situation, I suggest a time-period in which we can attempt to find consensus about this situation. I would be very interested in hearing other editors' opinions on this matter. Together, we can improve this article and make it more reliable and informative. After a month, if my concerns remain, I will remove the material again. Until then, I am happy to engage in a dialogue with the editors of this page to determine the best way to proceed. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is is a BLP situation, I have removed the disputed text awaiting a consensus to include it rather than the opposite. I agree with Mike Restivo's perspective and deletion, and would go further to question the appropriateness, per BLP and UNDUE of other aspects of the reception section, and may ask for opinions at the WP:BLPN.--Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

More accurately you have removed the well-source material and not answered my questions as to why you were removing it in the first place. Psychology Today is very much a reliable source yet you seem to want me to discount it on the grounds that you have one edition of a book with something like 6 and couldn't find the quote in your edition. Your edition is not the point. You are doing WP:OR and, on the basis of it, putting the unfair burden on me of verifying the sources of sources that are already reliable in order for me to be able to put in something that already exists in a WP:RS. Please refer to any outside sources you would like to seek consensus or other opinions but your reasons for removing my well-sourced edit, and asking me to leave it out for some indeterminate amount of time until some "other" editors appear is no reasonable. Furthermore, IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST with relation to this article you should acknowledge per WP policy or not edit it. To avoid potentially outing an editor I will refrain from expanding upon that point for the time being, but it strikes me that you have been shifting the goal posts as to why this material should not be included.--Cybermud (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)