Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kevin M. Kruse: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:54, 15 June 2022 editXOR'easter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,957 edits →Plagiarism allegation/accusation: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 03:37, 16 June 2022 edit undoSpringee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,526 edits →Plagiarism allegation/accusationNext edit →
Line 36: Line 36:


:Depending on how "viral" this accusation goes, there could be an indefinitely large number of jubilant right-wing sites copying one another, plus a comparable number of denials, excuses, or sorrowfully-willing-to-condemn-one-of-our-own screeds on left-wing sites of comparable (un)reliability. ''None'' of that would be useful for our purposes. A publication like the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' or perhaps the ''Columbia Journalism Review'' might eventually have a useful report. What matters is that we do not commit one kind of bad writing when covering another. ] (]) 23:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC) :Depending on how "viral" this accusation goes, there could be an indefinitely large number of jubilant right-wing sites copying one another, plus a comparable number of denials, excuses, or sorrowfully-willing-to-condemn-one-of-our-own screeds on left-wing sites of comparable (un)reliability. ''None'' of that would be useful for our purposes. A publication like the ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' or perhaps the ''Columbia Journalism Review'' might eventually have a useful report. What matters is that we do not commit one kind of bad writing when covering another. ] (]) 23:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

:The allegations and evidence presented are significant. However, such an accusation also carries rather significant BLP concerns. I would err on the side of exclusion for now. If nothing more comes of these claim then Misplaced Pages shouldn't include them. If more sources pick them up or if other ramifications occur there is no time limit and we can add the information later. ] (]) 03:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:37, 16 June 2022

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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 iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
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 Low‑importance
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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States History To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance 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 Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin M. Kruse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism Protection

Should some article vandalism protection to be added? Since 17:54 on 25 October 2019, this article has had the following sentence added, twice after being reverted (the vandalism was bolded by me for clarity:)

Outside of academia, Kruse has attracted substantial attention and following for his Twitter threads where he provides historical context and applies history research to current political events. I.e. constantly dunking on Dinesh D’Souza.

While Kruse has had interactions with D'Souza on Twitter, they've neither not been serious enough to warrant media attention (i.e., coverage from a reliable source) or otherwise worthy of being added to the article. Despite this, the unnecessary mention of D'Souza keeps being re-added. I propose that the article be given temporary vandalism protection. --Praefect94 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

apparantly some coverage. --Adamswheel (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Pettit, Emma (December 16, 2018). "How Kevin Kruse Became History's Attack Dog". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ISSN 0009-5982. Retrieved December 27, 2018.
  2. https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2020/12/the-perilsand-potentialof-the-twitter-professoriate
  3. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169492
  4. https://psmag.com/education/kevin-kruse-how-to-beat-demagogues-using-history
  5. https://thepolitic.org/an-interview-with-kevin-kruse-history-professor-and-twitter-legend/

Plagiarism allegation/accusation

I removed some text that, in my view, needs to be workshopped before it can be included: "extensive" is POV (who decides that?), as is "limited and superficial rewording" (how much rewording does one have to do before it stops being "limited" or "superficial"?). Moreover, the "was noted" language disguises the fact that we just have one person saying it's ironic. Nothing in principle rules out covering this topic here, but we lose nothing by waiting a few days for more sources; in fact, we gain by having more than one person's opinion to follow in judging how much to say. The website that published the source, Reason, is regarded as generally reliable "for news and facts", with the caveat that it "primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles". The cited source runs the edge between "news" and "opinion" (the conclusion takes it towards opinion-column territory), and "Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight." Regardless of the politics of all involved, we need to play it cautious with all accusations of academic misconduct. XOR'easter (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Depending on how "viral" this accusation goes, there could be an indefinitely large number of jubilant right-wing sites copying one another, plus a comparable number of denials, excuses, or sorrowfully-willing-to-condemn-one-of-our-own screeds on left-wing sites of comparable (un)reliability. None of that would be useful for our purposes. A publication like the Chronicle of Higher Education or perhaps the Columbia Journalism Review might eventually have a useful report. What matters is that we do not commit one kind of bad writing when covering another. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The allegations and evidence presented are significant. However, such an accusation also carries rather significant BLP concerns. I would err on the side of exclusion for now. If nothing more comes of these claim then Misplaced Pages shouldn't include them. If more sources pick them up or if other ramifications occur there is no time limit and we can add the information later. Springee (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Kevin M. Kruse: Difference between revisions Add topic