Talk:Ibram X. Kendi

Stub

This article contains no information on Ibram X. Kendi's views. ---Dagme (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

Someone added a criticism section but was then reverted. According to WP:CRITICISM, a criticism section is not best practices, especially for a living person. It is common nonetheless on wikipedia. Ideally, a balanced article has both positive and non positive reactions within the article based on the topic being covered at that point in the article. "For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section." Currently, the section on the book "How to be an Antiracist" seems to be covering a lot of that (could use some fleshing out still). However, since Kendi's center just got 10 Million from Jack "Twitter" Dorsey, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a Boston University's Center for Antiracist Research section and perhaps in that section some of the critics of Kendi's formulation of racism/antiracism. I think it would be good if someone other than Coleman Hughes was in that section, just so we don't give Hughes WP:UNDUE. Here is a Reason article which is critical of the grant. https://reason.com/2020/08/20/jack-dorsey-ibram-x-kendi-twitter-ceo-racism-center/ I'm not sure if Reason is considered a solid source on this topic. You can look that up here at WP:RSP. I have other things to focus on, but if someone is interested in doing this, give it a go, and we can discuss here. The new section could describe the Center and its mission, and whatever reaction there has been to all that. Peace DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Article needs protection

There have been far too many attempts to vandalize this article by IP users in the past days. It would appear that Kendi has been mentioned a few times by the usual right wing grifters on Youtube, inspiring their viewers to look him up on wikipedia. This article needs some form of protection to keep the vandals out. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Three sets of edits in five days by (up to) two distinct people, I see. However, I also see this constructive edit from an IP user. I'll monitor the situation and request temporary semi-protection if the vandalism continues. — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I can just make an edit request for similar constructive edits. Vandalism is a bigger issue. I've made similar suggestions for protection on other articles on people who have caught the attention of the far right youtube sphere (both designated "enemies" and "allies"). 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see, that edit was from you. Sorry about not realising that. However, I've seen enough empty and confused semi-protected edit requests to know that a large number of people struggle with them. In contrast, I'm not seeing a recent unconstructive edit that lasted longer than 6 minutes, so I don't think there's much harm being done here. Every act of protection is a small violation of our principle that anyone can edit, so there needs to be a compelling reason. — Bilorv (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statements on discrimination as antidote for discrimination missing

This essential quote from page 2 of How to Be an Antiracist was somehow missing: "The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."Dogru144 (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What secondary sources discuss this quotation critically and analyze its meaning? We can't quote all of his writings and the reason for including quotes is if other authors have commented on them and highlighted them as particularly important. — Bilorv (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This quote is addressed and examined by other authors in some published works, including "Is the Cure for Racism Really More Racism?" (WSJ, 10.12.20) and "Can The Government Exclude Whites On Account Of Their Race?" (Forbes, 5.26.21). There are also quite a few articles and opinion pieces published by political action groups, however these sources are not suitable for an unbiased encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.80.144 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Forbes contributors' articles (not staff) are generally unreliable (see WP:RSP). I can't get past the WSJ paywall but send me an email with the article content and I can take a closer look. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

Change: In the book, Kendi argues that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”[23]

To: William Galston writes that in the book, Kendi argues “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”[23]

Rationale: Current phrasing suggests that Kendi wrote the quoted text but reference 23 cites an opinion column by Galston. This clarifies who actually wrote the words in quotation marks. Clknight (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I've removed it entirely. It is indeed very misleading (I assumed it was a direct quote) and it isn't really due weight to start saying "reviewer X argued that Kendi said Y in the book" in the biography of Kendi. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Controversial figure must be noted in the lead of this biography

I'm trying to add contextual information about a living person who is noted in the media multiple times for being controversial and his actual written words are what I used with citations to give context to those trying to learn more about this living persons' biography and his most famous book "Antiracist Baby." Just as Alex Jones is a controversial figure and is noted as a conspiracy theorist in the lead of wikipedia article (which I completely agree that Alex Jones is a seriously dangerous conspiracy theorist), this user User:Drmies was removing the [and lead I provided here in this revision]. Note that it is not a good idea to try to cover up someone's controversial acts or writings in an attempt to do a sort of whitewashing PR campaign and deleting whole sections of cited information to make a person seem uncontroversial or to pretend he did not write or say certain things, in order to mislead the readers into a non-neutral point of view. The existence of controversy or political statements that Kendi himself made, is not a violation of WP:BLP and I've worked hard to avoid including any citations that simply state opinions about him but rather what he did and wrote to make sure we have a WP:NPOV... Thoughts User:Drmies? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, you're twisting details from his biography in a profoundly negative way, and the lead you wrote is completely undue, overshadowing basic biographical information with tendentious "controversy".

  Oh, I see you wrote a whole bunch of stuff (starting with the patronizing "Note that it is not a good idea") about a whitewashing campaign, and if you think there's a campaign here, one that I am somehow involved in, then I have some thoughts about that too. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Twisting it how? It's not profoundly negative when it is his own writings, unfiltered and in the raw written by Ibram Kendi himself. The only word you didn't like is "controversial" to which I included a citation to how he has faced backlash in the media and on social media for various political opinions that he engages with his real name for political reasons (because he is a politically active figure which can indeed inevitably lead to controversy). It's not "patronizing" to say it's not a good idea to cover up someone's own written-article, edited, and published opinions. You are the one implying his own words are "negative" thereby confessing in some ways that those views are controversial and make his own biography look controversial. As in, Ibram's own words are so controversial that you agree that it is controversial and that's why you don't want it included in his wikipedia article. " one that I am somehow involved in," I don't believe you are involved in it but I don't know why you, in a hostile manner, deleted a whole section of cited information written mostly by Ibram Kendi himself while I was still editing it... As in within seconds, as I was fixing my own grammar mistakes. I applaud your speed but no need to get so defensive about it as if I accused you of something when I did not. I'm sure you're a great person who contributes a lot to wikipedia, but the question is whether it would be misleading for readers to think that Ibram Kendi has never really been involved much in politics which would be false. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 03:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You are adding grossly unencyclopedic content, unreliably sourced (see WP:RSP for post-2013 Newsweek) or original research from a primary source, and adding it straight into the lead no less! That you accuse Drmies―one of the most respected volunteers on the site―of a "whitewashing PR campaign" removes any credibility you could possibly have had. This has nothing to do with the subject matter, except for yourself, as you have betrayed an obvious vendetta to smear this figure; to us, it is merely badly written content that would be removed whether it was in an article about an anti-racist professor or a children's TV show. I've worked hard to avoid including any citations that simply state opinions about him but rather what he did and wrote is precisely the opposite of what Wikipedia does: we incorporate non-neutral sources, but with attribution ("Jane Bloggs of Conservative News Weekly said that ..."), but what we don't do is make our own inferences from primary sources (original research). — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically you get to decide what is unreliable sources and what isn't? For Newsweek, a major American publication, created in 1933? On an article about a twitter backlash for Ibram Kendi, which you can see with your own eyes and ears? I'm suppose to know who "Drmies" is when he comes in here and deletes entire sections like a brand new editor? There isn't a vendetta here, there is a clear coverup campaign here to protect Ibram Kendi within seconds of edit and then your insults and disrespect here for no apparent reason aside from your preconceived mission objective or PR campaign to protect him... Was that person monitoring this page for any changes?

It's rather interesting that you want to protect him from his own words. His own words written down with his own name. May his own writings not suddenly tarnish his reputation and you, working extra hard deleting whole sections within seconds in an effort to protect him while falsely claiming it is original research or "own inferences" rather than a neutral perspective on what he did. That's a vendetta right there. You have smeared yourself by claiming that Ibram Kendi's own words are negative and original research. Any credible and talented editor would notice this about you.

All I did was read about Ibram Kendi, find out who he is, then use his own written words in his own bio so that others may be informed and educated on the truth because I have a moral compass and feel compelled that readers of wikipedia should know in an encyclopedia whether Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist or whether Ibram Kendi is a political activist figure that has controversial viewpoints. That's not "original research" at all, that's common knowledge. Everyone who is at all familiar with Ibram Kendi already knows this except for wikipedia because the sources saying so, are ones you don't approve of politically. So what I had is actually a neutral point of view. The non-neutral point of view would want to cover up and hide his own written words because of the fact that it might be interpreted as legitimately controversial--because it is controversial let's be transparent here--he isn't a neutral figure who balances out viewpoints of various left and right politics. Most people know his politics are leftwing, that's not controversial to say at all; he would admit that himself.

I'm not at all worried that you may have more experience than I do as a "wikipedia editor" with your quick ability to cite some policy but your efforts to edit away anything anyone might highlight about his past, just deleting whole sections without discussion--the only thing it does is make other administrators think twice about how you have complicated the rules to a point where a reader cannot know or grasp the truth about what kinds of things Ibram Kendi has written and what kinds of political activities he is involved in. What is an "anti-racist professor"? Doesn't exist, you merely introduced your own inferences here too. There is no such program as "anti-racism" in universities. There is no such study of the "anti-racism" field.

But that's the thing, the effort here is to create an atmosphere, a veneer of legitimacy and hiding Ibram Kendi's more controversial own writings rather than do actual research on the kinds of viewpoints he holds. It's to give a false idea of what Ibram Kendi does. Any honest person will admit, any honest person with a moral compass will admit that reading this article sounds like he's just some average professor with some awards, with not a blemish of controversy but you all know deep down this is not true at all. It's a more sophisticated way of lying about someones' past that no say, Republican figure, would ever get such a benefit. But go to any other controversial figures' page and you'll even find all sorts of blog citations for living biographies. Hey, apparently, I should know that "post-2013" Newsweek, a publication that existed since 1933, is now blacklisted? All you have responded with is hostility without any explanation or evidence to show that anything here is controversial. Even in your first edit User:Bilorv you cited the word "genocidal" as being a blacklisted word, so I removed that in a friendly manner. But once again the whole section is removed again. Not surprisingly you have edited these pages before, an issue near and dear to your heart and you came here in a hostile manner. I'm sorry if I offended you but you are clearly interested in preserving this articles' positivity and avoiding any negativity.

This is clearly evidenced because it doesn't matter how perfectly neutral the writing is or how accurate the quotes are from Ibram's own writings---as long as it SHOWS the controversial writings of Ibram Kendi then you have committed a wrongdoing. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 02:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community decides on what factors make sources generally reliable, and sometimes converse in specific cases about frequently quoted sources; in the case of Newsweek, we've decided it's generally unreliable. You're welcome to participate in these conversations, as a volunteer, but we all must abide by their outcomes.

Was that person monitoring this page for any changes? — I don't know who you're referring to in this sentence, but I have about 2,000 articles on my watchlist ranging roughly from 10 O'Clock Live and ZPP (complexity). Experienced volunteers use watchlists to observe edits made to pages, so that they can be improved (if useful but imperfect), reverted (if not constructive), or otherwise followed up on.

Your other comments very clearly misunderstand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: in particular, it is primarily an aggregation of secondary sources, in contrast to the original interpretation of primary sources that you are attempting to include. You can do the same thing on any topic and your edits will be removed. Indeed, I have undone hundreds of edits on any range of topics for violating OR. If you can point me to another edit you have made that you think is similar but was not reverted, I'll be happy to be more specific about the difference.

The issue is that you have chosen what of Kendi's words to quote out of hundreds of thousands of words of material, using editorial judgement, which is what a secondary source does, but not what a tertiary source does—we must use secondary sources to evaluate which of Kendi's words are most important to quote. I have an interest in the topic, yes, but I largely disagree with Kendi's writing, and thus have no interest in the article being "positive". — Bilorv (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv So what's the solution? Are you implying that we should just hide a persons' quotes when they paint a person potentially negatively? How can someone who has never heard of this man before, simply assume he is just a casual professor and know nothing about the political controversy that surrounds him? What you're saying essentially is that they shouldn't know because I'm using editorial judgment. I've seen some of the most esteemed, well-respected professors in America have all sorts of "Controversial" sections even as living persons all because they had enough of a reputation after decades of expertise on a subject to discuss something controversial while Ibram Kendi's first book was barely in 2012 and he's already involved in a myriad of controversial, emotionally-charged topics (such as race issues). In a sense you could say well this is "his area of expertise" but everyone would find it very suspicious if a professors' only expertise was race considering it's a made-up category of human beings (skin color is a spectrum and certainly Ibram doesn't speak for everyone). So I ask: what's the solution? How can someone reading wikipedia find out that Ibram Kendi is politically active and involved in various controversies that are beyond abnormal for a professor considering his conspiracy theory beliefs expressed in writing. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 00:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some of the most esteemed, well-respected professors in America have all sorts of "Controversial" sections even as living persons all because they had enough of a reputation after decades of expertise on a subject to discuss something controversial — Can you point me to these articles? I promise I won't support there being sections titled "Controversy" because I have never supported them and regularly rename them or reorder the content in them to make them redundant, citing WP:CSECTION.

How can someone reading wikipedia find out that Ibram Kendi is politically active — You haven't mentioned this so far. What political parties does he campaign for? What protests does he organize? (And sources for both needed.)

... and involved in various controversies that are beyond abnormal for a professor considering his conspiracy theory beliefs expressed in writing. — To say this, we need a reliable, secondary source that says "Kendi is involved in various controversies that are beyond abnormal for a professor considering his conspiracy theory beliefs expressed in writing". Otherwise, there's no reason someone reading Wikipedia should be learning this supposed objective fact.

Are you implying that we should just hide a persons' quotes when they paint a person potentially negatively? — No. I am saying that we do not report on people's quotes unless cited by secondary sources. Kendi has written five or six books. How do you know which page of which book we should quote? Am I "hiding" coverage of his work if I say that replicating page 56 of Stamped from the Beginning would be arbitrary and ill-chosen? In general, MOS:QUOTE says, While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. — Bilorv (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

"You haven't mentioned this so far. What political parties does he campaign for? What protests does he organize? (And sources for both needed.)"

You are acting as his advocate in some ways by essentially saying he isn't involved in political controversy which you know, in all honesty, that isn't true. He's not just involved in say "political support for party X or Y", he's advocating the kind of politics that rejects and attacks all the main parties accusing various groups, institutions, govts, individuals, historical figures, and even common historical understanding with the inflammatory charge of racism (and even attempting to redefine "racism" himself) which anyone honest would admit is much worse than merely being biased-in-support of a political party.

"To say this, we need a reliable, secondary source that says "Kendi is involved in various controversies that are beyond abnormal for a professor considering his conspiracy theory beliefs expressed in writing". Otherwise, there's no reason someone reading Wikipedia should be learning this supposed objective fact."

Are you being fully accurate here when you say there is nothing abnormal here? You know he is mired in controversy (or are you rejecting this claim?). You know that many people see his views as inflammatory. The reason there aren't "reliable, secondary sources" is because you are purposefully filtering out sources that run counter to your confirmation bias about Ibram Kendi and even Ibram Kendi's own writings are restricted from being open to scrutiny or being added to his own biography. If no one knows what he wrote that is controversial, how can a "reliable secondary source" even appear to criticize it if no one in the journalist world or writer world is reading his books and writing articles to criticize it? And when it does, like Newsweek (and I'm sure you'll find Fox News criticizing him which is probably also discredited), you say it is "discredited" or "questionable source" and blacklist it. You have created two alternative realities. One in which we not only cannot cite criticisms of a professor or a "controversy section" (which you said you oppose) but cannot find or list anything controversial about him because people are afraid of being blamed for racism if they criticize his ideas so they don't want damage to their career. So I use his own words for all to see which are important to understanding his core beliefs and that too is rejected by people such as yourself and other great volunteers.

If you dissect someone's words enough and simply brush under the rug anything they said that is controversial, then everyone would seem like perfect angels and no one would know any better and no one can see his writings and become aware of them enough to even write a critical article about him since he's not insanely famous either.

The bias in their defense of Ibram Kendi is such that in google searches of just "Ibram Kendi", you will mostly only find mainstream sources that are positive about Ibram Kendi. But if you keep going down to the back pages of google, finally you might find a different perspective that cannot be denied; citations of evidence scrutinizing his quotes such as:

https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist

Which also mentions a podcast of Vox's Ezra Klein interviewing Kendi but there's no article on it because it doesn't make Ibram Kendi look perfect. And it's possible you might respond to me and say "that source is also not credible." But we are back to the same problem, whenever someone criticizes Ibram Kendi you reject the source. Whenever someone quotes Ibram Kendi himself for his controversial views for all to see, they are "editorializing" or cherrypicking quotes right? So how can anyone ever scrutinize Ibram Kendi's beliefs or challenge him to change or evolve his own view?

And this New Yorker article:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-redefine-racism

Which you will struggle to find online as is the attempt to bury it...

"[Ibram Kendi's] infamous newspaper column was actually a fairly mild representation of his collegiate beliefs, which included a dalliance with the notion that white people were literally aliens, and a conviction that racist whites and treacherous blacks had formed a sinister partnership"

So how can you honestly, with fully honest research, read this and say to yourself "this is unfair to Ibram's arguments" or that he is not a controversial person?

With all due respect; does the whole (not partial) truth not matter above all? No controversy section, no quotes that express Ibram's true core beliefs with his own writing... Is not every quote ever cited in a biographical wikipedia article "picked" by someone? My point is not to edit war you, but to convince you to explain to me how anyone would ever find out about Ibram's ideas without buying his book first or digging the internet for that Ezra Klein interview? I'm obviously not gonna cite fox news or his political rivals, but there is a middle-ground here. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 19:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The reversion was good as this is not cited to an independent source[1]. Today I was dealing with an identical issue on the other side of the political spectrum. The issue here is WP:OR. One type of OR is when we as editors combine facts to create a new conclusion. Another way editors violate OR is when they decide to cite a BLP's own statements without first having a secondary RS to establish weight for inclusion. If a RS discussed the Kendi article you added then we could cite both the RS and the Kendi article to support those facts. However, when no 3rd party source discusses the Kendi article/quotes in question then we no longer have weight to discuss that topic. I get some of the frustration here. If Kendi said, "the only solution is to kill the Dutch" (and meant it) then it would seem like a very important thing to discuss. However if the only sources discussing that claim are ones Wikipedia has said aren't reliable then the topic doesn't have weight and doesn't make it in. Also, including controversial quotes/"sound bites" may be a great for persuasive writing but it's not encyclopedic. It's best to stick with describing the issues rather than trying to use alarmist sounding quotes. Disclaimer about the Dutch here [2]. Springee (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal life: statement not in reference given

In the section Personal Life, there is a statement that the wedding ceremony was officiated by "Kendi's parents". however, in the reference given, officiators are not specified. I propose moving this reference to right after the statement that Ibram and his wife were married and removing the statement about parents officiating. Ginkgo100^talk 17:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ginkgo100: the source says The couple held a ssand [sic] ceremony during which both sets of parents scooped sand from the earth into separate jars and Ibram and Sadiqa took the jars from their parents and poured them into one jar to symbolizie [sic] the blending of families. Perhaps we could say this instead of trying to make a claim about officiants. — Bilorv (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It should say "both sets of parents participated" in the ceremony, rather than making it sound like Mr. Kendi's minister parents presided over a traditional ceremony, which apparently they didn't. Ginkgo100^talk 19:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

How is this: Both sets of parents participated in a symbolic sand ceremony? I feared more detail was undue weight and readers should check the source if interested, but perhaps the description leaves a little to be desired. Re: it not being "traditional", I wondered if it's a cultural tradition I'm not familiar with, but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate article to link to. — Bilorv (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalized search description: problematic statements that subject is an anti-white racist who hates America

Upon searching the subject's name on Duckduckgo, the following text is displayed for the summary of his Wikipedia page:

"[Kendi] is an American author, racist, professor, anti-racist activist, anti-white and historian of hatred for America, race and discriminatory policy in America [italics added]."

This is libelous, and I hope it will be corrected ASAP by someone who knows how to do that. 2601:602:8716:9A:2AC0:6BC8:1D29:81E1 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

See the related Wikipedia:You can't fix Google through Wikipedia. If it's not in the Wikipedia article then it's not on Wikipedia that the correction needs to be made. If the issue originates from vandalism on Wikipedia (which you can find out yourself through the article history) then DuckDuckGo should correct the mistake when their web crawler next traverses the article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Name

Was Kendi born Ibram Henry Rogers (infobox) or Henry Rogers (lede)? 92.10.175.225 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Now "Ibram Henry Rogers" throughout. Per one of the sources cited: The Washington Post, "The budding historian and evolving anti-racist — still known then as Ibram H. Rogers — became uncomfortable with his middle name: Henry, after his enslaved great-great-great-grandfather. He reasoned that the fate of his ancestor Henry had been set in motion by the original racist, Prince Henry. So as part of the wedding ceremony, with Carol and Larry Rogers officiating, Ibram adopted the middle name Xolani, meaning “peace” in Zulu." Now "Ibram Henry Rogers" in both places. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop removing content that is based on Ibram X Kendi's own words

Several times editors seem to have a quick reaction (within 10 minutes "undo revision") where they are watching this page and edit-undoing anyone who places any content that is sourced directly from Ibram Kendi's own books or words. How can anyone know who Ibram X. Kendi is or what is views are, if his own words are not allowed on his wikipedia page from credible sources? (one of these editors stopped participating in an earlier edit in the talk page, after I was nice enough to let his "undo" stay despite his unconvincing argument but he would no longer respond to me and when he reverted again today he did not provide a talk page discussion beforehand about what his goal was or what he was trying to fix, he just "undos"). Is the purpose of the encyclopedia concept, the expression of truth, with full context and background? Or is it only to list the titles of his books without mentioning anything from inside of it, and of course listing out his given awards?

Now if their protest or rejection of what I include is based on "the wording" or "the way you phrased it" or "the words you included alongside his quotes", such as the word "conspiracy theory" is what they are objecting to, then just use the talk page and discuss whether that word should be included. We can use the Socrates Method: what is a conspiracy theory? Is it a theory where someone conspires to commit a genocide by using the AIDS virus as was claimed despite the Reagan AIDS Task Force with Dr. Fauci? Are we to believe that educated people don't engage in conspiracy theories or are immune to believing in them and accidentally spreading them?

Be reasonable and an editor who calmly and kindly uses the community tools to help edit the text and fix the wording. The knee-jerk reaction to "undo" the edit is what's wrong here. I am more than accommodating and welcoming any edits to my edit to fix the phrasing as long as it expresses the words of Ibram Kendi that help shape his world perspective for the world to understand him. Is that not what we are after? The whole truth? The real Ibram Kendi as part of his biography? I'm not cherrypicking his words out of context, they are in full-context. The only real question is if we are after the truth (with a neutral and unbiased perspective) or creating a fanpage for Ibram Kendi.

I've reviewed WP:BLPSELFPUB in terms of the citation I used as his own words were self-published and I do not find any issues with using those quotes.

By all means, I will accommodate anyone making a convincing argument that certain words should not be used and we can edit it together since we are assuming we are both after the truth. Thank you. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary this is something "that people must know about." But if that's true, then wouldn't it be covered in a few secondary, reliable sources? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Using the Socratic method ourselves is original research. The point is to have as close to an objective standard as possible to minimise conflict and bias from volunteers and their own opinions. Rather than me saying "I don't agree with Kendi's views and I have found these quotes that exemplify this", and somebody else saying "I agree with Kendi so I don't support your proposal", instead we have a discussion about what secondary sources say. "The New York Times said this quote exemplified Kendi's ideology" and "yes, let's also include this from The Washington Post" and so forth.

What objective criteria are you using to select under 100 words out of what must be hundreds of thousands of words (or more) that Kendi has written over decades and decide that this article from 2003 is so important that it is the only thing that should be quoted in the article's lead? — Bilorv (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Are RSs discussing Kendi's statements? If not then we shouldn't talk about them here. I have seen a number of social media comments/videos that discuss Kendi and some are convincing. However, per WP:V and WP:RS we should only include statements/comments published by RSs. We should also be sure to follow IMPARTIAL while doing so. Springee (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Here from this noticeboard, which notes that Arsenic99 want this quote in the lead: In 2003, Kendi had written an article entitled "Living with the White Race" where he claimed that "Europeans are a different breed of human" who are "socialized to be aggressive" and "raised to be racist." He promoted the claim that white skin color is a "recessive gene" and states "therefore [white people are] facing extinction." Kendi stated his controversial beliefs that "Whites have tried to level the playing field with the AIDS virus and cloning."

As reprehensible and racist as these comments are, they should not be in the lede. It's a primary source. I don't think it can be included in the "Controversy" section either, since there are no secondardy sources telling us about a controversy. However, it could be put into the article if there were a "Beliefs" section, which we do have for many, many people on Wikipedia. And also, the word "controversial" should not be included, as an unsourced weasel word; the reader can judge for themselves that the view is controversial or wrong.

Overall, given this article's subject matter in the current RS discourse, the article seems to be in WP:NOTRIGHT territory, which I think you would agree with, but there is little we can do when we have to go by RS and NPOV. JM2023 (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Shouldn't Kendi be labeled as far left?

In the header to the Ken Paxton article, he's labeled as far right. Isn't it only fair that Henry be labeled as far left in his header? 204.29.160.156 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Ken Paxton is a politician. Kendi is not. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No. We shouldn't apply labels like that in Wikivoice per wp:LABEL. If there are sufficient RSs describing his actions/view as far left that could be in the article with attribution. It's better to describe his views rather than just label them. Springee (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Anti-capitalist

@Rusentaja: on this diff about Category:American anti-capitalists, note that WP:CATV says It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. You've alluded to a book Kendi has written—can you quote from it or provide a page number (and specify the ISBN)? If it's defining of Kendi's ideas then it should be mentioned in prose and sourced inline somewhere in the article (though I'm not sure which section would be best). — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I added a video to the recordings section where Ibram X. Kendi talks about his views, including anti-capitalism. Rusentaja (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rusentaja: it'd still be good to have a timestamp and some text in Wikipedia's voice that says "Kendi describes himself as [whatever]" ("X on Y" doesn't universally indicate "X supports Y"), but without watching the video I can appreciate it is pretty likely to verify the claim here. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)