Talk:Carol M. Swain

Question

I am confused by the reference to a "master's degree" from a law school. Law schools generally confer a JD after three years of study. Does Carol M. Swain have a JD?Naomieva (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Naomieva: The cited reference (a speaker profile, presumably approved by Swain herself) lists among her credentials an MSL degree. This is an alternative to a JD awarded by some law schools for students who don't intend to pursue careers as attorneys. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

opinion piece controversy

I have reported a dubious addition to the profile of Carol Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt, relating to an opinion piece Swain published a month and a half ago, to Wiki editors. This profile provides a general history of Swain's academic career. It does not include links to all of Swain's numerous works or opinion pieces. The inserted material discusses a non-existent "controversy" over a single opinion piece published a month and a half ago. It's not an appropriate addition to a general info piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnie Katz (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the addition may lend undue weight to the single event, but the event does reflect on Swain's conservative mindset (and its discordance with the liberal views of her colleagues and students), and it did have consequences (protests and subsequenting writings about the event). Since the article points to Swain as an expert in race relations, among other fields, the views expressed in this particular op-ed against Islam are significant. I don't believe the material should be removed, but I do agree that it might be better to put it into a broader context of Swain's other writings. That is a task of article improvement, but it is not sufficient reason to suppress the information that exists. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This material is included here because a) it is cited by at least five secondary sources; b) is not an attack on Ms. Swain (most of these sources seem to side with her right to express her opinion (although they do not all agree that her opinion is correct in this case); and c) it did indeed cause a controversy - it led to students protests, condemnations, and threats which have escalated to the point that Ms. Swain no longer feels safe on campus.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC))

@Hyperionsteel: I agree that the material probably belongs on the page, but given that about 20% of the entire page is given over to this single incident, I believe that constitutes undue weight given to this single incident. I believe the material would stand better if placed among the context of all of Swain's writings and positions. That material is not yet included in the article, but I believe that is an improvement that needs to happen with this article, that would then balance the single controversial incident. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

JW

The article currently says she was a JW but converted to Christianity. Wikipedia says JW is a kind of Christianity. It seems like saying she was, say, a Baptist and converted to Christianity. Kdammers (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That's rather inaccurate anyway. She had a "strong commitment" to JW but in 1975 had become disillusioned with them, according to the source. There's no indication she was associated with JW past 1975. I've changed the date in the infobox. Huon (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Recent controversy"

A separate section on the "recent controversy at Vanderbilt University" was recently added to the article by User:Jwt3r. I do not think that section is appropriate, for the following reasons:

• It gives undue weight to a rather minor recent event. The same event is already covered by a paragraph in the "academic career" section.
• It is largely based on primary and unreliable sources, citing heavily the Change.org petition itself and even a dictionary (which obviously has nothing to say about Swain).
• It contains errors of fact, starting with the very first sentence: "Swain has recently been involved in numerous controversies as a law professor at Vanderbilt University" - firstly, "one" isn't "numerous", and secondly, the controversy was about her op-ed, which I rather don't think was written as part of her duties as a law professor.

As it was written, it violated WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. If that were to become an adequate summary of what reliable third-party sources report about Swain, it would have to be rewritten in its entirety. For these reasons I'll once again remove that section. Huon (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Religion

The source cited for Swain's post-1998 religion does not say she became a Pentecostalist, nor that she was baptised "in that faith". It says the chaplain who arranged her baptism happened to be a Pentecostalist. We technically don't even know whether the chaplain himself performed the baptism, and the wording rather suggests he did not. When Swain speaks about her religion she refers to herself as a "conservative Christian", not a Pentecostalist. Thus a more generic "Born-again Christian", clearly reported as her religion by a secondary source, seems more appropriate than "Pentecostalist". Huon (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested edit

(This was originally posted on the editor's talk page, I have copied it here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

1. Academic career, end of 1st paragraph, please add:

A counter-petition supporting Swain and her right to free speech and academic freedom quickly exceeded its goal of 5,000 signatures. As of December 18, 2015 more than 12,700 signatures had been garnered on the pro-Swain position.

Source: http://citizengo.org/en/sy/31026-protect-academic-freedom-professor-carol-swain

2. Immediately after the information to be added above at end of Academic career 1st paragraph, and keeping to the same paragraph, please add the following:

(This was originally posted on the editor's talk page, I have copied it here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

Students objecting to Swain have been criticized for their attacks on her.

Sources: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260759/angry-white-leftists-target-black-conservative-daniel-greenfield http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/13/vanderbilt-professor-facing-protests-tells-students-to-grow-up/

3. In the boxed-in summary of Carol M. Swain on the right side of the page, please change her religion simply to Christianity. She was never actually a Jehovah’s Witness, and Pentecostalism is not accurate either.

Source: Carol M. Swain, "Can Religion Promote Harmony?" in The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002). pp. 420-421 Quoted text: "My religious views have evolved significantly over the last few years. Once a devotee of New Age religions, I have become a born-again Christian water-baptized by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the dictates of Acts 2:38."

4. One spot (of many), but this one especially, where the information is incorrect, needs to be corrected and augmented. This is the section entitled Be the People talk show. As currently written, those two sentences are incorrect because they are no longer true – regardless what the dated sources state. The show no longer is being televised on those stations.

Here is what that section should say, followed by the sources:

Swain has been the host of Be the People, a weekly television news talk program, which originally aired starting October 8, 2012 on Nashville’s NBC affiliate WSMV-TV [50] following the network’s Sunday Night Football telecasts. It reached as many as 46,000 households, according to the Nielsen ratings. Starting in February 2014, Be the People also was shown in Nashville on Fox affiliate WZTV as well as Comcast Channel 6 and Channel 1006.[51] With guests ranging from the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto and U.S. Congressman Steve King to economist Arthur Laffer and singer-songwriter Lee Greenwood, discussion topics have included affirmative action on university campuses, the conflict between Israel and Hamas, immigration reform, the GOP’s difficulties in attracting racial and ethnic minorities, freedom on university campuses and abortion. In the fall of 2014, Be the People moved to YouTube. The show has a companion TV website that offers conservative commentary on current issues.

Sources: 1. Carol M. Swain (2015). Free Speech, Politics, and Academia. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48, pp 100-107. doi:10.1017/S1049096515000517. page 105-106 needs to be specifically cited for information about the show. 2. http://bethepeopletv.com/tv-appearances/people-television/showtimes-stations/ 3. http://www.carolmswain.net/2012/10/the-premier-of-be-the-people-show/

Thanks, Vermonte1974 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Attack Article

Template:BLP noticeboard This article needs substantial revision. It appears to be an attack article. Re: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid:". JohnDoe1122 (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

After having reviewed several of the sources cited within this article and compared them to the inline quotes extracted from each link, I have come to the conclusion that this is warranted for an attack page tag in compliance found at WP:ATP. I had stated briefly some of these findings at WP:BLPNB but quickly realized listing was futile as the evidence was overwhelming. I will be placing a tag on this article. If you wish to discuss the reasons here, I would be happy to engage. Maineartists (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to {{db-attack}}, I don't think that will stick as the article is salvageable. However, a {{POV}} tag may be worthwhile to provoke discussion. You could also be bold and fix the glaring issues yourself. clpo13_(talk) 22:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you were right. But to say the article is salvageable is difficult when there is so much back editing involved. One would have to be diligent to keep it neutral and on topic. I was hoping by a speedy deletion that a stub article would be created fresh. I will try the POV tag. Hopefully that will not be removed. Thanks, clpo13 Maineartists (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep trying. This article is way out of bounds. Wikik would be better off with no article than one that constantly revised to be used for defamation. 12.167.237.19 (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Agreed 12.167.237.19 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it clearly fails to meet the G10 criteria. --Edwardx (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This article meets the G10 criteria in my view. Especially the 'personal life' section ! There is absolutely no neutral point to that entire paragraph. 12.167.237.19 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of POV tag

Please use this section to discuss the neutrality of this article and its point of views. Thank you Maineartists (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Maineartists, since you placed the POV tag on the article, why not start by pointing out which parts, specifically, seem non-neutral to you? Huon (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is my "list of points":

“In 2002, Swain argued against reparations for American descendants of African slaves during an event at Delaware State University, a historically black university. She told black students, "Get over it.”

• This does not cover the linked article written by Gregory Kane but simply extracts the tabloid-like hook title “Get Over It”. If one reads the article Kane writes, the reason for inclusion to this article should not be written as such. One comes away with a very different impression of the subject from reading the sentence by itself, and then reading the article as a whole.

“When the apology happened in June 2009, during the presidency of Barack Obama, she called it "meaningless." She expressed disappointment that it did not happen under President George W. Bush, when the Republicans were in power, arguing that "It would have shed that racist scab on the party.”

• This is not correct. The entire quote is thus: “Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate's resolution "meaningless" since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.” There is no mention of her expressing disappointment that it did not happen under President Bush. The extracted word “meaningless” amidst the other sentences provides a series line of intention. Especially when the quote referred specifically to the act of the Senate’s resolution.

• The object of this first paragraph alone seems to paint Ms Swain in a catch-22 of conflicting statements; which is untrue when you study the articles and speeches she wrote and gave on the subject of race. It is more evident further down when the contributor uses “meanwhile” and “however” to illustrate his/her point.

“In September 2009, Swain wrote an op ed in The Huffington Post titled "Whites are People Too: Why Some White People are Stating the Obvious," calling for an end to political correctness about race. Meanwhile, she endorsed A Conversation About Race, a documentary directed by Craig Bodeker whose premise is that racism does not exist in the United States.”

• Case in point, conflicting statements that promote nothing to the notability except to paint the subject in a negative light of contradiction.

“Meanwhile, she endorsed A Conversation About Race, a documentary directed by Craig Bodeker whose premise is that racism does not exist in the United States. She wrote a blurb about the documentary and called it "outstanding and meticulously done.”

• I had to read the article to figure out that this line was so poorly written that it sounded as though she was praising herself for the blurb she had written; when in fact, she was cited to say that the documentary was “outstanding and meticulously done.” Furthermore, the link doesn’t even support the claim for the premise of the documentary. It is obvious of what the intent of these two sentences.

“In October 2009, Sonia Scherr of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-discrimination group based in Montgomery, Alabama, questioned Swain's endorsement on their "Hatewatch blog", explaining that the documentary was "a hit among white supremacists" for its suggestion that the race card was used to oppress whites in America.[60] Meanwhile, Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote an op ed in The Tennessean arguing, "Carol Swain is an apologist for white supremacists.

However, James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal rejected this position, arguing that she was simply politically incorrect. He concluded, "dismissing Swain as 'an apologist for white supremacists' is the tactic of one who is trying to shut down, not encourage, debate." Swain herself wrote an op ed in The Huffington Post four months later, in March 2010, after comments made by Bodeker comparing Present Barack Obama, who is black, to a "monkey", became known. She dissociated herself from Bodeker, adding "The racist comments attributed to Mr. Bodeker are ugly and vile."[62] She drew a parallel between her endorsement of Bodeker's documentary and liberals who praised Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.”

• What is the relevance of these 2 paragraphs? It seems they are simply a tit-for-tat scenario by way of other subject’s opinions of Ms Swain. Attempting once again to paint the subject in a “back-and-forth” light.

• The Lopez-Swain interview that references the one extracted quote regarding Obama’s re-election as: “a very scary situation” merits no inclusion on its own standing. Furthermore, the interview, entitled: “Being Faithful to a Founding: A college professor talks good sense.” is extensive in its sources for material to extract quotes from to build a good article on this subject. It is ridiculous at best to have extracted that one line to simply include it here for no other reason than negativity. It merits no inclusion under “Views of Race” and does not offer a reason as to “why” the re-election is a “very scary situation” or why it’s even mentioned.

“In 2013, when she was asked if Jesus was black or white, she responded that the issue was "irrelevant." She added, "Whether he’s white, black, Hispanic, whatever you want to call him, what’s important is that people find meaning in his life.”

• This is not correct. The correct quote is this: “For Carol Swain, a scholar of race at Vanderbilt University and a “Bible-believing follower of Jesus Christ,” the whole debate is totally irrelevant. Whether he’s white, black, Hispanic, whatever you want to call him, what’s important is that people find meaning in his life,” Swain said. FOR Carol Swain. She never said the “issue” directly was irrelevant. She said FOR herself the “debate” was totally irrelevant; and she did not “add” as though to lessen the shocking statement prior, she simply spoke continuously. The first treatment implies negativity toward the subject.

“Swain, who supports Donald Trump's 2016 campaign for president,[72] said David Duke's endorsement was a “non-issue".[73]"

• The actual quote is: “Vanderbilt professor Dr. Carol Swain tells MSNBC the David Duke and KKK endorsements of Donald Trump, which the candidate eventually disavowed, will be a "non-issue" because people have had enough of political correctness and "no candidate can totally control who supports that candidate.”

• These constant one-liner inclusions that highlight negative words (most of which do not even belong) I feel are deliberate and calculated and do not weigh evenly with the subject on a whole. In “View on Race” alone, here are a list of the descriptive words: “argued against”, “get over it”, “meaningless”, “disappointment”, “arguing”, “racist scab”, “meanwhile”(2), “however”, “dismissing”, “rejected”, “ugly and vile”, “black, to a monkey”(not her words), “very scary”, “argued(2)”, “death(2)”, “destructive”, “needs to go”, “non-issue”. For a woman who has been quoted as being a “hero”, as a “follower of God”, a “champion”, etc in the same articles. , I have to question why the above words are the only ones to find their way into this particular section?

• Even in the section: “Be the People Talk Show” the only relative inclusion is that it was funded by paid programming. Yet the links and resources on the net are extensively positive in their description. The article is well sourced, but the extractions I feel are not neutral but are slanted toward the need for negative construction. The grammar and spelling are lacking and the writing is in desperate need of help.

• The “Early Life” section has been terribly misquoted to completely disregard the reasoning for any of its factual inclusions. From the opening word “Carol” to the end “Trailer Park” there is no justification for the events in her life to be shared unless you include the rise from that state of living and use appropriate quotes from the article from whence the facts were simply taken.

• Her “Academic Career” reads like a resume; which is discouraged when constructing an article of a living person. And the “Personal Life” is embarrassing. Yes, it’s from a reputable source, but the extractions of content paints a distressing picture of a very renowned, successful person. There is certainly more to this subject’s life than the constant tabloid need to focus on the negative.

I'll stop for now. Thank you Huon for allowing me the forum. I know I'm probably wrong in my assessments. But I appreciate the opportunity to express them here. Maineartists (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, sSome comments:

• I agree that the "Get over it" comment isn't really helpful. She opposes reparations; more isn't needed.
• I think "The Republican Party needed to do it" can be seen as disappointment that the Republican Party didn't do it. She "had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology", said they needed to do it, and was dissatisfied when someone else did it.

I don't have the time now to look through all the other points, will likely comment on them later. Huon (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Start with the entire 'Personal Life' section. 12.167.237.19 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)