Talk:Jason Stanley

Blurbiage
In his more recent work, he has brought tools from philosophy of language and epistemology to bear on questions of political philosophy, especially in his 2015 book How Propaganda Works, which grew out of some blog essays at "The Stone."

"He has brought" doesn't strike me as encyclopaedic tone. At present, Google finds 4000 instances of the verb construct on Wikipedia.

Some of these are plot synopses (appropriate).

After keeping Akaky waiting, the general demands of him exactly why he has brought so trivial a matter to him, personally, and not presented it to his secretary. (src The Overcoat)

Some are of a grander order:

In 1978, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada "in recognition of the distinction he has brought to Canadian theatre through the operas, ballets, plays and musical comedies he has produced on stage and television for well over a quarter-century". (src Norman Campbell)

Some are iconic:

He has brought some of British cinema's most iconic characters to life and introduced his very own laid-back cockney gangster into pop culture. (src Michael Caine)

And some are terrible with pudding on top:

Pascoe's appointment as Chief Judge has been widely applauded as a result of the significant management skills that he has brought to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which continues to be the most rapidly expanding court in Australia. (src John Pascoe)

There's pudding here, too, though not as much. &mdash; MaxEnt 16:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You have brought an irrelevant topic into this discussion. ---Dagme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Though on the other hand, the verb in question is actually "to bring [something] to bear on," and not just "to bring," and this is a perfectly good construction, suitably encyclopedic in tone, so all the above is nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C69:74D0:7C0F:8B6A:6B38:C03A (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Section on Twitter as Public Intellectual Work
This passage has been removed several times by unidentified users citing "harassment" and "vandalism". But the sources are valid, and it is not harassment to cite The Chronicle of Higher Ed and Stanley's own public writing (his quotation to the Yale Daily News and his own Twitter account). Thoughts on including this?

According to Stanley, "his Twitter is 'public intellectual work'." According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, "However famous Stanley’s books have made him, he is possibly better-known (at 127,000 followers and rising) for his Twitter account." In April 2022, Stanley attacked essayist Wesley Yang on Twitter "for the past two years of right-wing agitation," for which he apologized "for the falsity of these accusations" the next day. Cacatcat10 (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not terribly familiar with the protocol behind this sort of thing, but it's comically absurd to me that someone thinks slipping 'In April 2022, Stanley attacked essayist Wesley Yang on Twitter "for the past two years of right-wing agitation," for which he apologized "for the falsity of these accusations" the next day.' into this article wouldn't obviously be identified as the work of someone with a personal beef against Stanley, a blatant attempt to harass/vandalize (and I'm not the person/people who made any edits, this is the first time I've typed into Wikipedia in my life) if I've ever seen one. It's just such a trivial incident. Using his personal opinion of his twitter page to shoehorn that in makes this seem like it could only be from Yang himself. Has anyone so much as offered any sort of reason the "attack" on Yang merits inclusion? I'm not even a fan of Stanley's, this is just so bizarre. 98.97.178.68 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The full passage began with: According to Stanley, "his Twitter is 'public intellectual work',” As stated to the Yale Daily News in July 2022. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, "However famous Stanley’s books have made him, he is possibly better-known (at 127,000 followers and rising) for his Twitter account," also from July 2022. These are credible sources, including Stanley himself, stating that his Twitter account is part of his intellectual work.
 * I am not Wesley Yang and I don't know him or Jason Stanley. Stanley, by his own statement, uses his Twitter account to make claims as a public intellectual. It is not just "his personal opinion of his Twitter page" - it is also the "opinion" of a highly credible source on education. The Yang incident is an example of that. Cacatcat10 (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)