Talk:Robert D. Cherry

There are a few problems in the "Controversies" section. The most glaring was this sentence, which I removed: "Throughout his review, he repeatedly denied that whites ever sought to control black bodies -- as if slavery never existed in America." That isn't supported by the cited source (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/race-and-opportunity). In fact, Cherry doesn't make that claim once, let alone repeatedly, in the article. Another issue is that the rest of the section includes no actual sources suggesting that there was controversy over anything; it's just a list of things Cherry has said. The section should either be updated to include sources supporting the claim that there was a controversy over the claims it mentions, or else the claim that those articles were controversial should be deleted (which would mean deleting the "Controversies" section). This goes for the National Affairs article as well; I removed the false claim but there are still no citations to suggest the article was controversial, as the heading of that section suggests. (I should add that I haven't reviewed one of the sources, the National Economic Association one, because the link takes me to a login page that I can't log into. Maybe that source, when the link is updated, will include evidence that there was some controversy over the relevant issues, but it looks unlikely, since from the title it appears to be just another article written by him, not a report on a controversy surrounding his views, or an actual example of controversy arising about his views, or etc.) If the sources can't be updated the section should be deleted, but I won't delete it myself right away, since if it was properly sourced -- and if it was revised to only make claims that are supported by its sources -- the section would be informative and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRichmo (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Contentious pages re-added.
When I read the Wiki article on Robert Cherry, I was shocked at how blatantly partisan it was. Not a Wiki-standard piece at all, just a partisan hit-job. Why isn't it re-edited to reflect Wiki's high standards? Doug1943 22:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk • contribs)

Reinsertion of blatantly false claim
As noted in another post, the article claims "Throughout his review, he repeatedly denied that whites ever sought to control black bodies." As noted, this claim is NEVER made in the review, let alone "repeatedly." I don't want to start an edit war, but this is wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneCallahan (talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed—I have excised that, as well as the claim that his article was a "defense of blackface", which is patently false. I am further concerned that this lead is unsupported and pure opinion: "Some of Cherry's comments on racial issues have aroused controversy." Not one linked article mentions controversy—indeed, they are all written by Cherry himself. Further, there is no information at the link to the "National Economic Association listserv" which is a private message board. Unless anyone objects, I will remove the entire "Comments" section, as it is pure POV and totally unsupported by the cited sources. Thanks for any and all input! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, it appears Cherry is currently a professor emeritus at Brooklyn College, at least according to his bio at City Journal. I propose including that information in the lead, rather than "was a professor" which seems, at the very least, less accurate. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring the changes which you've reverted—as you can see, there has long been discussion of that material, with numerous editors objecting to it and none supporting it. I would ask that you join this now months-long discussion before making further changes. It would be helpful if you could point to the specific parts of the article which you believe support the "defense of blackface" and "repeatedly denied…as if slavery never existed" assertions. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

proposing deletion of original-research "Comments" section
The entire "Comments" section appears to be nothing but original research. It's predicated on the premise that Cherry's statements have "aroused controversy"—yet there's not one single cited source that reports this controversy. Indeed, all the citations are simply links to Cherry's writings. And Cherry-picking (forgive me) excerpts from his work, then claiming that they've caused unsourced and un-cited "controversy" is exactly what the guidance at WP:NOR is designed to prevent. Unless there's some RS that documents this supposed "controversy", the section must be deleted forthwith. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * On second consideration, this appears to be an obvious WP:BLP issue—it pushes a fictional "controversy" that contains the loaded implication that Cherry is somehow "racist" or racially insensitive, and originally contained the absurd and obviously libelous claims that he "defended blackface" and all-but-denied that slavery existed in the US. Given that, I'm deleting it now, and welcome any comments. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * as you can see, there has been longstanding discussion of the issues in this article. What RS are there for this entire section, beginning with "Some of Cherry's comments on racial issues have aroused controversy"? What controversy? Where? Please discuss here before wholesale reversion. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * copying you here as well, since you singlehandedly wrote the "Comments" section and have been reinstating it without responding to years-long discussion on this Talk page. I am undoing the reversion by user:IHateAccounts, as the section is 100% WP:OR; fails WP:NPOV; and, most importantly, violates WP:BLP, which requires the material be removed immediately. To claim I have engaged in WP:VANDALISM or violated WP:NOBLANKING is specious and violates WP:AGF: I have explained carefully my reasons for removing the section after considerable discussion on the Talk page which presents a consensus for doing so—while not a single person has defended the inclusion of the material . For clarification:
 * The entire section (originally titled "Controversies") is premised on the Wikivoice claim that "Cherry's comments on racial issues have aroused controversy"—yet there is no source cited for any such "controversy". Without any citations, the section is prima facie WP:OR.
 * The section claims that Cherry emailed grades of his students cited only by a link to a password-protected private listserv—hardly a RS, even were it accessible. It also includes a purportedly direct quote which I am unable to find anywhere.
 * The rest of the section consists entirely of seemingly arbitrary excerpts taken from Cherry's work which have been grossly misrepresented in Wikivoice so as to give the impression that Cherry is racist, has suggested "slavery never happened", "defended blackface", and other fictitious nonsense. There is no citation suggesting that any of these excerpts have caused any "controversy" or are otherwise notable—they appear to be selected specifically by one single-purpose account to create an originally-sourced, heavily POV narrative that defames and libels Cherry.
 * In short, the whole section, written by a single-purpose account who has failed to engage with any of the serious objections over the last two years, is a disgrace, making a mockery of "written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." If it continues to be re-added without a single properly cited RS, I will have to take it up on the BLP noticeboard. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In short, the whole section, written by a single-purpose account who has failed to engage with any of the serious objections over the last two years, is a disgrace, making a mockery of "written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." If it continues to be re-added without a single properly cited RS, I will have to take it up on the BLP noticeboard. Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)