Talk:Amy Wax

Comment
It would help if the "reaction" section included law professors who disagree with her. This comes across as a "puff" piece. I expect better from Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.164.83 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a puff piece, and is ok as is, but some quotes from her critics, especially any Penn colleagues, would indeed be helpful to understanding the controversy. editeur24 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Transcript
This is a transcript of her most recently focused on remarks. Someone might want to add it in external links or otherwise cite to it. https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/26/heres-amy-wax-really-said-immigration/

The quoted paragraph that we now have in the article in part, continues with Wax saying: “Well, that is the result anyway. So even if our immigration philosophy is grounded firmly in cultural concerns, doesn’t rely on race at all, and no matter how many times we repeat the mantra that correlation is not causation, these racial dimensions are enough to spook conservatives.”

--2604:2000:E010:1100:C8DC:A9D3:EC3E:4D61 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Add 'racist' back on
Many credible organizations (The Daily Pennsylvanian, Penn Law) are calling her racist. we should add that description.

https://www.thedp.com/article/2019/07/racism-amy-wax-penn-law-upenn-philadelphia https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/07/24/penn-law-condemns-amy-waxs-recent-comments-race-and-immigration-others-call-her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnob1 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. This is not RationalWiki and it is not the job of Wikipedia to editorialize about the subject of an article, either pro or con. There is an extensive "controversy" section in which reactions to her views, including those calling her racist, are discussed. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. As long as her racism is documented (for example, in a controversy section) I am OK with it. Arnob (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense to call her a racist. She doesn't call herself a racist, and it would be pure name-calling. On the other hand, if someone prominent has called her a racist, it would be appropriate to include a sourced quote from them in the Controversies section. editeur24 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per BLP, this introduces legal issues. "racist", or any other "-ist" or "-ism" that could introduce legal issues at a public-funded university.DenverCoder9 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 22:18, April 18, 2022 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, this is a reminder about the unusual considerations that BLP introductions, nothing more. The discussion needs to be resolved here before agreeing on the edit. I've removed vandalism in the meantime. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Labeling Wax's ideology?
Should the lede of the article contain a descriptor of her politics? I've reverted a previous edit that outright calls her a "white supremacist" per WP:BLP and unless she outright calls herself a "white nationalist", "white separatist", etc or openly aligns with groups that fall into that category, I'd be wary of throwing that hot button label on her, even if there are mainstream media sources that would label her that way.

She does seem to identify with national conservatism and perhaps that would be appropriate to put into the lede. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "National conservatism" is pretty obscure. Also, tho she probably does agree with whatever it is, we don't really know that-- it would be more accurate to say that she spoke at a conference on "national conservatism". But maybe she was there to say that it's a bad idea, and whatever her brand of conservatism is, is better. editeur24 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Any accusation that could be grounds for legal action (at a university that accepts public funding) introduces a lot of complications, per BLP. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt, this is a reminder about the unusual considerations around BLP for users unfamiliar with them. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Title for the race section
Given the substantial back and forth on this section lately, we should discuss it here, rather than edit summaries. In my view, the most appropriate title is "Statements on race." The section can and should include to the reliable sources that characterize the statements as racist (or not), but titling the section as "Racist statements" or similar is not appropriate. ÷seresin 18:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * One thing to think about whether to call someone "racist" is whether you could defend that in court. If it is a matter of fact, would a jury agree with you that it is a fact that the person is racist, or would you have to pay damages for defamation? If it is a matter of opinion, then honest people can disagree, and the court will dismiss the suit, since expressions of opinion aren't defamation.


 * But if it's a matter of opinion, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, unless it's contrasted with opposite opinions. editeur24 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO the entire point of "reliable sources" is that we don't have to stoop to weasel words and false equivalence when they've weighed in. It doesn't matter how many individual people voice their opinion -- if the Guardian, a consensus reliable source, calls her comments racist, and no consensus reliable source says they're not, then the page should say "racist statements." GordonGlottal (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that not every source in this section describes every statement discussed in the section as racist (for example, see the citation to Mona Charen's piece). Indeed, the article currently cited in the header only characterizes one set of statements as racist.  It is consequently inaccurate for the header to suggest that all of the statements discussed in the section are racist when there are reliable sources to the contrary.  Captioning the section "Statements on race" is therefore accurate, neutral, and is consistent with including all the reliable sources describing her statements on race--even if the balance characterizes them as racist.  ÷seresin 21:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mona Charen is not a reliable source, she's an right-wing opinion writer. See WP:RS and WP:RSP. There is not a single reliable source cited in the article which says her statements are not racist. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is she not reliable, other than that she's apparently rightwing? Whether a statement is racist or not isn't really a question of fact, and I don't see any reason why she wouldn't be reliable source in the mix of opinions discussing Wax's statements.  But the more important point is that she's one of the several sources cited that, albeit implicitly, disagree that the statements are racist.  It's inappropriate for the section heading to characterize her views in the presence of the disagreement among the sources.  ÷seresin 22:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Wax petition
The article states that "As of January 5, [2022], nearly 9,000 Penn law students have signed a petition to have Wax suspended." The cited source (a local TV news report) directly supports this statement, but it is obviously wrong, as Penn Carey Law School only has about 700 students. Perhaps they meant "nearly 9,000 Penn Law graduates ...." What is the appropriate way to correct this? PDGPA (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Cite the Law School Dean
I think simply citing the Dean of the Law School's statements on her would go along way to removing the "fluff piece" perception of her Wiki. Penn's Law School Dean, Ted Ruger, described Wax’s behavior as being disruptive to students and the school community, and he called her “thoroughly anti-intellectual and racist.” Goldsphinix (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
Recently said a bunch more racist comments cursing out Asians, Women, and other groups. She said "Here’s the problem," "They are taught that they are better than everybody else because they are Brahmin elites and yet on some level, their country is a s—hole. ... They’ve realized that we’ve outgunned and outclassed them in every way. ... They feel anger. They feel envy. They feel shame. ... It creates ingratitude of the most monstrous kind." There were also other quotes from other professors from UPenn and other colleges and her own colleagues calling her "dumb." She also criticized many others for leading anti-racism initiatives. Please find more quotes using the following articles: - - - - -

Additionally, a petition has now been signed by over 83,000 people who want to fire her. (Go to c hang e .org and search "Fire Racist Penn Law Professor, Amy Wax" Oreo223987 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit to bio section
I don't know if I'm doing this right. I want to revise one portion of Amy Wax's personal history. Her parents were not "immigrants." Her parents were both born in Brooklyn. Her grandparents were immigrants. My source is Ancestry.com census recors for 1930 and 1940. 35.133.153.243 (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can accept that as a source. However from the video in the source given in the article it seems like she's talking about her family history in general rather than specifically her parents, so I will removed the claim. --Pokelova (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede verbiage
Just noticed your reversion over what you deemed "weasel words". Since it is the lede and the material is sourced, I'm fairly certain this isn't an instance of weasel words but more an effort to demonstrate that the material is sourced externally, rather than the opinion of the editors involved in this page. Her statements are racist/everything they're accused of, but it's not for us to make that value judgement (particularly for living persons), just to report it has been made (repeatedly). If you disagree, let me know. Willing to leave lede as is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Under the standard you're proposing it is never possible to ever write that anyone has any negative properties, because to say that is a criticism and therefore it must be attributed to "critics". Amy Wax's problem is not that she has critics who call her a racist, it's that she's flagrantly racist. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye, this is the issue. You'll note that the article doesn't actually call Wax a racist in Wikipedia's voice, but that it does call her statements racist, not purely because they obviously are, but because they have been described as such repeatedly in quality sources. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't help but feel both of you propose an overly broad degree of permissibility for how we interpret information for living persons. Also, "never possible" is too far; the verbiage I prefer is well within accepted practice. However, I think the two of you achieve a pretty good consensus here. I concede to your consensus and appreciate the work you guys did here on this somewhat hairy subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)