Talk:Grant Farred

The section about his comments toward the two graduate students is mostly a copy and paste from a Cornell Sun report on it happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.119.115.102 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed sections
I have removed two sections which were marked as having "undue weight" in this short biography. One of these was about Farred's participation in the Group of 88. I have removed similar sections from biographies of other Duke professors following discussions which supported the idea that they were inappropriate. There also seemed to be neutrality issues. If anyone is interested in restoring those sections it might be a good idea to have a discussion here first. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links to the discussions supporting the idea that they were inappropriate? Meatsgains (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I didn't link the discussions because I can't remember exactly where they took place. The start of the matter was here and there is a discussion here but there were other pages as well. Nigel Pap (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if you cannot provide a link to discussions you claimed to have already had on the issue, the content will stay. The first link you provided is a discussion on the "Group of 88" category which serves as no support towards removing content from Farred's BLP. The second link you provided is closer to what you need but it is far from "support[ing] the idea that the were inappropriate." Users in that discussion did not reach any kind of consensus on removing material. Meatsgains (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this what normally happens in biographies with disputed material? It stays there until there is consensus to remove it? It would seem much more sensible to leave it out (if disputed) until there is consensus to include it. Farred seems more involved with the Group of 88 topic than Baker was but is it worthy of mention in this short biography? Meatsgains, you wrote the original longer versions of the two disputed sections, do you think they are neutral and balanced with the rest of the article? Nigel Pap (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose inclusion of this unreferenced factoid, which gives undue weight to his signing a letter published as a newspaper ad. What reliable source says he "was among the most outspoken"? Since when does signing a newspaper ad make a person a permanent part of a "group" that never existed in any organized form? And much of what has been said about that ad are lies, as the wording of the ad never prejudged the guilt of the accused. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The shortness of the article is not a reason to remove controversial information, but it has to be referenced because of BLP. Generally it's a problem here in Wikipedia that controversy sections bloat (that information should be in general sections of the biography if possible). Besides, the Duke Lacrosse thing was mentioned with just one sentence - that isn't too much but I think it doesn't need an own section in the article. Also, anyone should feel free to add text about non-controversial issues.

An article by professor Mark Bauerlein in The Chronicle of Higher Education indicates that Grant Farred was "one of the leaders (of Group 88)". --Pudeo' 02:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)