Talk:Coleman Hughes

This article was nominated for deletion on June 21, 2019. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Notability

It seems to me that certain actors are attempting to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting figures associated with the "Intellectual Dark Web." Lindsay Shepherd is another example of a total nobody whose article is poorly sourced. 2607:FEA8:9620:1108:4813:7E6D:579B:C909 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes was one of a handful of people who recently testified before the US congress on one of today's most most controversial issues. His work has been published in many high profile outlets, including NYT. This hardly qualifies as "a total nobody," and WP:BLPNOTE is more than satisfied here. As an editor, you should adhere to the guidelines and leave your opinions at the door. You're free to cite published criticism of his views (as with any other BLP), just not your own. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes is published in NYT, WSJ, City Journal, Quillette, Spectator and testified before Congress as a subject matter expert. WP:BLPNOTE far beyond satisfied. 184.88.62.249 (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer meets Orphan criteria

I noticed that an older link in the double standard article was removed in an apparent bad faith effort to get this article orphaned. I've restored the link. Given that this article does not now meet the very strict criteria for being orphaned, I am removing the relevant tag. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Notability

Just a fair warning to all: The subject of this BLP is apparently seen as controversial, having engendered a fair amount of angst from popular commentators and on social media. I believe there is a concerted effort from people who dislike his public views to make bad faith edits to this article. The assumption of good faith doesn't mean ignoring the fact that this article is likely to be targeted and that editors should be aware. That said, it is unambiguously clear that Hughes meets WP:BASIC. A Google search provides the following:

Given that many (but not all) of the above are coverage of a single event, here are relevant secondary sources published before that event:

I could keep going. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are dropping a lot of articles that mention the subject within coverage of a congressional hearing, but the fact that a hearing receives coverage is not itself evidence that a person who testified and whose testimony is mentioned in that coverage is, in turn, either notable or that the testimony is a notable event. The coverage was of the hearing, which was not about the subject of the hearing.

Secondarily, the fact that a person is mentioned in articles is insufficient to establish notability as an academic or creative professional. Pushing an event-based argument for inclusion seems to be intended to circumvent the requirements of notability, more so given that you only cite one event and it's not actually about the subject of the article.

If the argument is that the subject of this article may eventually qualify for inclusion as an academic or author, or even as a celebrity, that is possible. But inclusion should be based upon what has already happened, not what might theoretically happen in the future.24.52.64.230 (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at WP:BASIC, which is perfectly straightforward. Regarding the testimony, did you even bother to look at the articles? Like the very first one? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/19/reparations-slavery-ta-nehisi-coates-v-coleman-hughes And since most (but not all) of the first batch of articles are coverage of the subject's participation in a single event, I listed articles published before the hearing, that aren't about that event at all. I shouldn't have to repeat this when it's posted above. There is no guideline or criteria regarding a BLP's inclusion as "an academic or author or even as a celebrity," so I have no idea what you're talking about there. Again, see WP:BASIC. I said above that I could keep going, so here are even more secondary sources:

Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. He may be getting more attention now because of the hearing, but he has been speaking and publishing writing about these issues for a few years and has been discussed in published writing for his association with them, along with others with whom he's loosely connected who may share similar views like John McWhorter, Kmele Foster, Thomas Chatterton Williams, etc. He is representative of a community of thinkers and not just an isolated individual. IntOMIatrA (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...best known for..."?

Given the exhausting argument on the (ir)relevance of WP:1E for this BLP, why was this sentence added to the lead? I disagree that it's necessarily true, and I doubt that anyone could actually cite a source for this claim. As mentioned, Hughes has already been known as a writer and commentator, having done various interviews before the congressional hearing. This sentence is unnecessary and unlikely to be substantiated, so I'd like to remove it. Are there objections? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life section

The "Personal life" section of the article was recently removed. The given reason was that it is not pertinent to the overarching information. Is this sufficient reason to remove the information, which came from a reliable third-party source? Information on personal life is rarely pertinent to the rest of a biography article, and yet most well-developed biography articles include such a section. If there is no objection within a few days I will revert the edit. Gazelle55 (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Wallyfromdilbert reverting edit adding context taken from the source

Wallyfromdilbert claims that a statement from the article provided as a source is "misleading", which is false. The user also alleges that it is WP:UNDUE without providing any justification, this is obviously also false. The passage in question is context taken directly from the article that is cited as source. I expect the user to explain the reason for reverting this edit and to keep in mind that throwing around Wikipedia policy titles does not constitute an argument that the policy in question is being infringed. --RaphaelQS (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RaphaelQS, you expect the user to explain the reason for reverting, do you? The same way that you explain your edits and reverts? Maybe start by following protocol yourself before expecting others to do so. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of an edit is optional, the justification of a revert is not. If you have nothing else to add about the reasons of the revert then feel free to leave the conversation. --RaphaelQS (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three million students is the total number of graduating students in the entire country, almost none of whom were even eligible, and so that seems pretty obviously misleading (and that is not even considering how poorly written the content was when it was added to the article). If the content is due, then there should be multiple reliable sources making that a specific comparison.

Also, RaphaelQS, if you think that "the justification of a revert" is not optional, then why did you revert Revirvlkodlaku without even an edit summary, much less a "justification" on the talk page [1]? Your antagonistic and apparently hypocritical attitude does not seem helpful. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think mentioning the number of three million students is wrong, why did you revert the whole sentence and did not just erase that particular part? --ClenX (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sentence was never removed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have written: the whole subclause. Why did you delete the number of granted scholarships, the information that scholarships are based on academic achievement and that they are granted by the United States Department of Education.

Rapper?

Should it be stated this article that he's also a rapper? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEkFBVErK7E Lacon432 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube generally isn't considered to be a reliable source, besides being a primary one... Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signature ?

Is there any historical significance to show his signature? Just because we CAN show it doesn't mean we SHOULD. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingturtle =, is there a good reason not to show it? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong question. For something to be in an article, one must explain its historic or encyclopedic importance. Not the other way around. For some historic figures, their signature is of historic importance and value. What is the importance or value of Coleman Hughes' signature? Kingturtle = (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures of living persons can be easily used for fraud, and shouldn't be put up here without consent. I know I wouldn't want mine up here. Doric Loon (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book

Now that he has published a book, shouldn't that take precedence over the TED talk? This article was obviously written before the book was published, and the book has just been added as an afterthought. But it is where his ideas are fleshed out, and if it were properly covered, the TED talk would shrink to a minor detail of his personal history. So I suggest replacing the TED talk section with a section on his ideas on colourblindness, which would begin with a single sentence on the TED talk and then use the book to detail his ideas, and end with responses to both. Doric Loon (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doric Loon, I agree with your suggestion and think it's a great initiative. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]