Jump to content

Talk:Kwame Anthony Appiah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homosexuality

[edit]

Whoever it is that keeps removing the fact that he is gay and that he was born in London, could you please explain why? There is a citation to an interview he gave where this is discussed. Deepak 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He spoke at a Black Nations/Queer Nations event in NYC in 1995. He is openly gay. The man in most of his family photos on his personal page is probably his lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk • contribs)

Ideas

[edit]

It's hard to tell if the section on the book "Cosmopolitanism" is a summary of his ideas or a critique of his ideas. Would the article work better by just editing out this whole paragraph and replacing it with a one or two sentence summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nangua (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: "But Appiah first defined it as its problems but ultimately determines that practicing a citizenship of the world and conversation is not only helpful in a post-9/11 world." Request to the author of this sentence: Please, revise this, as it is unclear at least and for me even completely unintelligible.(WKra-NL)62.194.222.172 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

African American

[edit]

If he was born in London, can he really be described as 'african american'? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta

[edit]

Apparently he was a joint editor of Microsoft's abortive Encarta Africana. Worth a mention? 86.159.192.146 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow ns,

I have just modified one external link on [[]]. 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) 05:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow ns,

I have just modified one external link on [[]]. 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) 18:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

criticism of academic integrity

[edit]

COI - I know Appiah for many years and I know of the author of an article that alleges with serious documentation that in one of his books Appiah committed academic misconduct. Now I know this is controversial but I looked up some papers on academic misconduct and this is what they wrote regarding the Stapel Affair: Wouter J. Hanegraaff ''Something Rotten 'How is it possible that a well-known scholar could get away, for many years, with a large string of publications in which all his hypotheses were always spectacularly confirmed, by experimental data that were widely perceived by colleagues as “too good to be true", ...... Think of the fact that, again and again, academic top managers have tried to cover up cases of fraud and plagiarism, and have been intimidating whistleblowers, because apparently they are more afraid of reputation damage for their institution than concerned about scientific standards and morality.'

In this context a high reputation and a minority background may inhibit critical faculties and fear at the risk of being accused of harbouring anti-minority biases, but once the 'whistle' is blown I think it should be mentioned. Appiah certainly is able to defend himself but the debate and academic integrity only work if whistles can be blown.

I am proposing to insert: "allegations have been made about the integrity of Appiah's scholarship" with a reference to the article: https://www.academia.edu/38069441/Appiah_and_the_racism_in_his_work_-_part_1.pdf

If you have a lazy moment feel free to have a read. Napata102 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Are there other scholars who have published this allegation? I see that African Century Journal describes itself as peer-reviewed but I can't find anything about its submissions process and this particular paper is written by the chair of the journal, so arguably falls more into the category of self-published sources, which are barred from use in biographies of living people. Additionally, we should keep in mind the guidance about due weight, particularly as far as determining the significance of different viewpoints--if we can't find it discussed anywhere else, it probably does not rise to encyclopedic significance as yet. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I would not like to promote scurrilous accusations against living persons its not fair or pleasant. Generally, I would entirely agree with any suggestion just to keep the peace.

The fact that Appiah has insulted all the national heroes of Africa is probably of no concern to most of you. I get that. But people have already complained and exposed that before so any accusation of being offensive would not be news or worthy of repetition. I would accept if others in such cases said ‘what’s new?’ Everybody probably has scurrilous detractors if you are well known, particular in this Trump era.

This is however a little different.

I do feel It is unreasonable to ask of a ‘whistleblower’ has anyone else blown the whistle before. Despite that the answer is ‘yes’: I don’t like to recommend any thing that is not solid. A previous writer described Appiah’s scholarship as a big con ...that is the title of his published article. 

Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Nov., 1995), pp. 185-200

‘The Big Con’ by 

Thomas Houessou-Adin

He describes Appiah’ work as follows: ‘Professor Appiah's article is strewn with fallacies and misinformation; ‘

There have been numerous other criticism of the quality of his scholarship to cite a few: An Afrocentric Critique of Appiah's in My Father's House Author(s): Victor O. Okafor Source: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Dec., 1993), pp. 196-212

Pan-Africanism and its detractors : a response to Harvard's race-effacing universalists / Opoku Agyeman 1997

Main author: Agyeman, Opoku, 1942- 

but none had found a ‘smoking gun’.

The main difference is that previously no one took a close look at Appiah’s claimed sources, as readers just assumed he would get his sources right. Now a scholar has checked his claimed sources to find they do not exist. That and other facts constitute the difference between poor scholarship and fraud.

Most of African Century Journal’s founding editors have died as is stated on the website. They included Professor J F Ade Ajayi, the leading historian of Africa,(see his entry https://en..org/wiki/J._F._Ade_Ajayi) On his death The Guardian reported that he had ‘a lasting place of honour as one of Africa's greatest historians". Another deceased member of the Editorial team was Professor Dennis Brutus of Northwestern University (formerly poet in residence at Robben Island with Nelson Mandela) see his entry (https://en..org/wiki/Dennis_Brutus) where it is stated:’According to fellow writer Olu Oguibe, interim Director of the Institute for African American Studies at the University of Connecticut, "Brutus was arguably Africa's greatest and most influential modern poet after Leopold Sedar Senghor and Christopher Okigbo, certainly the most widely-read, and no doubt among the world's finest poets of all time.’ Other work of 'The Chair' has been praised by Steven Pinker, and he has published in many journals, so the least that can be said is that unlike myself he is a widely recognised scholar. 


The journal has  recently been relaunched after a silence of a decade and its editorial board expanded  as it says on the website but not surprisingly and as I would expect, this takes a while to get the right people as editors and contributors. It is a recognised journal with ISSN number:ISSN 2514-5673 which is displayed on its welcome page. The original Journal had a very broad range of contributors over time such as Professor Ifi Amadiume       (https://en..org/wiki/Ifi_Amadiume) et al.

If you wanted to know about who has acted as peer reviewers and what the process of submission is all you had to do was write to the journal. I am sure they would have been happy to answer you. Anyone submitting an article would wish to know so it won't be a secret.


To repeat: there had been many criticisms of Appiah’s scholarship but no ‘smoking gun’ was found, that is until now. No one had checked his sources . As a teacher in this field I find this important to know. Napata102 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what you describe, it does not sound like this is yet appropriate material for the encyclopedia. Please do read the due weight policy on how to determine whether a viewpoint is significant enough to merit inclusion. While I understand your interest, as a teacher, in this new finding, the purpose of the encyclopedia is not to alert specialists to new information; rather, as a tertiary source, we aim to give generalists the broad strokes of what is already drawn the attention and discussion of the respected secondary sources in a field. (I know this principle of being a lagging indicator of significance is nearly the polar opposite of what's prioritized in research journals, and can come as a surprise when one first starts editing the encyclopedia.) If this new material ultimately garners attention and discussion among a number of reliable sources, then we might consider it's a sufficiently significant view to rate inclusion. But it does not sound like that's the case yet. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Napata102 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC) I believe you are showing clear evidence of undue bias. You are objecting to a neutral reference to 'an allegation' and requesting sufficient back up/ documentation that would actually establish the matter as proven!!! I answer every point and you invent new ones without acknowledging that your previous points were mistaken. Are you sure you do not have a COI here? You are surely behaving like you do. Not acknowledging that a previous allegation/criticism turned out mistaken is typical behaviour of COI.[reply]

However Let us take your new points. Yes I have read the issue on due weighs and this is what it says: "Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list

'If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;'"

Prominent adherents: Professor Tommie Shelby - Harvard University

Professor Molete Asante - Temple University

Professor Opoku Agyeman - Emeritus Professor of Montclair University

Professor Tobo Houessou Adin - Peirce College, PA

Ironically, Professor Asante's comments are already on Appiah's page so on what basis do you argue that the new work is from an uncorroborated viewpoint?

Here are the sort of criticisms made: Professor Shelby wrote a strongly critical piece about Appiah scholarship https://www.tommieshelby.com/uploads/4/5/1/0/45107805/racism_dbr.pdf

Professor Asante has openly accused Appiah of malfeasance and EVEN on Appiah’s webpage is a reference to Asante's accusation that Appiah's work was ‘anti-African’ “His critique of contemporary Afrocentrism has been criticized by some of its leading proponents, such as Temple University African American Studies scholar and activist Molefi Asante, who has characterized Appiah's work as "anti-African."[27] “ The claim that Appiah is ‘anti-African’ is a short hand for an accusation that he is an anti African racist.

Asante states this of Appiah: "He is either ignorant of the movement he is criticizing or a very devious writer." From 'http://www.asante.net/articles/11/a-quick-reading-of-rhetorical-jingoism-anthony-appiah-and-his-fallacies/'

Professor Opoku Agyeman wrote an entire book “Pan Africanism and its detractors’ solely devoted to proving Appiah’s scholarship to be woefully inadequate.

Professor Houessiou Adin called Appiah’s work 'a big con' and much of his analysis ‘gobbledygook ‘ , and later suggests of Appiah work:. ‘Henceforth I say, "Halt, it's a real mess!" ‘

Each and every one of the above make claims about the quality of Appiah's scholarship. Each comes from as lightly different perspective ..otherwise the articles would simply fall foul of plagiarism if they merely repeated each other. Perhaps then as a compromise we should add them all together in one reference.

If we add to the references the work of Professors Tommie Shelby, Molete Asante, Agyeman Opoku and Houessiou Adin (making a total of 5 references including the recent one) to the "allegations have been made..." then perhaps we can agree that it reflects the views of a significant minority.

I am beginning to be concerned that you are ceasing to show any sign of objectivity and may soon feel obliged to escalate matters.


I went ahead and read some of the linked articles. The ones alleging academic misconduct are laughable; many of the criticisms are on the level of: "this statement from his book is a lie because he used figurative language." It's ridiculous. Many of the other articles here don't even criticize Appiah, they merely cite him for unrelated reasons. So, the critic here doesn't see to be able to distinguish normal academic debate from "allegations of academic misconduct." Loquacious Folly (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kwame_Anthony_Appiah&oldid=1252188241"