Talk:Michael Eric Dyson

2006 comments

This gentleman needs links to his (this) article for ALL words that refer to or about him and any fruit of his efforts. The minimum to fit this requirement would be jump pages for those referenes that don't rate full pages themselves.

The definitions for the words he coined should come directly from the author's published works... not from someone claiming to say what he meant to say and they should be accessable either in their own pages or on this page with their mention (and jump pages sending direct searches to the location of their definitions.)

ANY variation from this would nullify Wikipedia's claim to be a source of the truth and also shows censorship of an active minority

(before anyone denies this I should point out that Wikipedia is a World wide encyclopedia; there are billions of people in the world; and it doesn't matter if you limit your count to english speakers, internet users, or both: the few thousands(?) that (probably multiplely) voted to remove the coined words in less than TWO weeks of their introduction to this depository is censorship of the order not seen since the church of England bought the entire run of the Bible translated into english.)

This article should be classified as a stub. It simply does not do justice to Dr. Dyson's body of work and simply harps on two of his intentionally tongue-in-cheek neologisms.

What exactly does it mean that Dyson "holds an earned Ph.D."? As opposed to an honorary Ph.D.? Are there any other ways, besides honorary, to hold a Ph.D. in religion?

Picture

I changed the picture to the real Mike Dyson. 19:36, 7 April 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.88.65 (talk • contribs)

name of article

For as long as I've been aware of him (dating back to the mid-90s), Michael Eric Dyson has been universally referred to by his full name, "Michael Eric Dyson" -- not "Michael Dyson". This is also reflected in the name of one of his books, "The Michael Eric Dyson Reader". I have therefore moved the article to the correct name. Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Go Ahead, "axe" the question

I think that the last sentence of the article at present, quoting the subject as saying "Go ahead, axe me a question" may be a perceptive reference to Dyson's trademark embrace and celebration of vernacular in both the text and the substance of much of his writing. It is perhaps OR that Dyson tends to pronounce the word "ask" in a manner common to those who speak a dialect common in the southern US and stereotypically identified by many as "black" dialect, but it is OR nonetheless.

The problem here is that there is no reference for this quotation, and while the quote may have its genesis in warm acknowledgment of the subject's admiration for purported "black" vernacular, or in some sly and cynical reference to the man's opinions, or is just a racial joke, if it is based on the listener's characterization of Dyson's pronunciation, I believe it is not supportable. I would urge that unless there are very significant references to establish that Dyson has expressly claimed this purportedly "famous" phrase as his own, and has repeatedly, consciously and expressly adopted the quoted idiosyncratic pronunciation, the referenced quote should be eliminated, based on OR.71.197.93.206 (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed simply because it is unsourced. It has had a "citation needed" tag for 15 months, which is ample justification for its removal. Ward3001 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Its (sic) horrible at any rate. Along the lines of "When's your birf-day?" --75.164.241.122 (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

Afristocracy redirects here, but there's nothing on the page to indicate why. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture

yeah....someone might want to change that picture.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.6.215 (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics

This article contains no information on the politics of Michael Eric Dyson. I knew the name "Michael Eric Dyson" but knew nothing about him until I heard a program on Democracy Now in which he was featured a few days ago (the September 7 show). Here is the url for the segment:

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/7/effective_evil_or_progressives_best_hope

Dyson showed himself to be a crude lesser-evilist and a blatant apologist for right wing Democratic Party politics. A description of his politics should be a major part of this article. ---Dagme (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Democrat" in the opening descriptions is unnecessary.

The term, "Democrat," especially when it is capitalized (thus, indicating a proper noun) in the opening descriptions is unnecessary. If his political party should be noted, it should be in appropriate places - such as the right-hand margins. A "democrat" is much different - to wit, the GOP co-founded the IDU - the International DEMOCRAT Union. Xan81 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oswald Bates?

Michael Eric Dyson seems to be the subject of parody in Damon Wayans' character Oswald Bates, from the television show In Living Color. The affected speech mannerisms, malapropisms, and general incoherence seem to be spot on. Wayans has said he based it on an African-American academic that he will not name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ROOi5xagxg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.214.174 (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Last 2 wives have no "maiden" names?

The information given on Dyson's wives is Theresa Taylor (m. 1977; div. 1979) Brenda Joyce (m. 1982; div. 1992) Marcia Louise (m. 1992)

I tracked back Brenda Joyce (now deceased) far enough to get some of her birth information BIRTH 19 Nov 1953 New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, USA but haven't found a surname

Oreskios (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Oreskios

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Michael Eric Dyson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605090014/http://www.theroot.com/views/remembering-manning-marable to http://www.theroot.com/views/remembering-manning-marable
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101124333/http://www.commongroundfoundation.org/mdyson_bio.html to http://www.commongroundfoundation.org/mdyson_bio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107052116/http://mije.org/richardprince/april-1-journal-isms to http://mije.org/richardprince/april-1-journal-isms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928075247/http://www.hcpl.lib.tx.us/read/naacp-image-award-outstanding-literary-work-nonfiction?device=mobile to http://www.hcpl.lib.tx.us/read/naacp-image-award-outstanding-literary-work-nonfiction?device=mobile
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326201211/http://www.blackamericatoday.com/article.cfm?ArticleID=788 to http://www.blackamericatoday.com/article.cfm?ArticleID=788

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Brigading by the Jordan Peterson subreddit

It seems the Jordan Peterson subreddit has in all of its maturity decided Michael Eric Dyson's occupation should include "Racist": https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8kw3ar/michael_dysons_occupation_on_wiki_right_now/?st=jhfyl92l&sh=c6fbfc5a

If this continues page protection should be considered. --Jobrot (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018

Under the Munk debate section, the last line is a misattribution of Dyson's position, "Additionally, Dyson claimed that success is easier for white people and that white people should be taxed more to offset continued effects of slavery." In the debate, Dyson did not offer this suggestion, nor did he agree that is was a remedy. In fact, in the debate, it was Mr Peterson who first spoke of it as a remedy, rather sarcastically. Dyson did not agree to the suggestion, nor did he make any mention of it being appropriate. The citation makes no mention of Dyson making the clam. This line should either be removed or amended to indicate that Peterson offered it as a rather sarcastic solution. https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/Political-Correctness 2601:648:8780:4EE5:8CB1:1C8E:DF39:9C59 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Munk Debate even a section?

This guy makes dozens of appearances at forums and debates like this ever year, why does this appearance need an entire section that's longer than the section about his radio show? By contrast the Jordan Peterson Wikipedia page doesn't mention this event at all.Roadshell2 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter son’s page and Fry’s pages don’t mention the debate because they are much more important and have achieved so much more that there isn’t the space. Rustygecko (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Dyson Munk debates

I've reverted this edit again. The citation shows that Dyson is being accurately quoted, but it doesn't demonstrate that the remark was controversial. It's also not remotely neutral to describe Dyson's response as a "diatribe". If someone can find a reliable, secondary source that describes these remarks as particularly controversial then we should cite that source, but simply publicly disagreeing with Jordan Peterson is not prima facie evidence of a controversy. Nblund ^talk 15:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

African-American/Black/black?

Should it be noted somewhere that he is black, if he is? Is there documentation? On The Late Show (CBS, 11/3/21), it wasn’t obvious, other than their discussing his new book, plus his professional affiliation. Maybe they used lighting effects to downplay his blackness? In any case, it seems odd that his Wikipedia page doesn’t say one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.220.156 (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Critical Race Theory

Dyson is a believer and advocate for Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory and that should be highlighted. Rustygecko (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of harassment

Restored content removed which was sourced and added by User:Discospinster, User:Jayhawker6, User:Partyclams, and User:Curbon7 among others. User:Jjmelborne if you want to plead your case do it here. DO NOT EDIT WAR and remove sourced content like you have done repeatedly.The One I Left (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand the concern. My intent is not to engage in an edit war but to ensure that the page aligns with Wikipedia's BLP policy. The allegations in question are sourced from student-run publications and social media posts (e.g., Her Campus and deleted tweets), which may not meet the standards for reliable, neutral sources. Additionally, no formal charges or legal action were ever pursued. I suggest we revisit the reliability of these sources and consider revising the section accordingly. Jjmelborne (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Gain a consensus before removing sourced content. Do not engage in Edit Warring as you've done repeatedly with numerous editors reverting your disruptive behavior. Build your case and gain consensus. Also the section reads allegations not legal issues. One of the sources is a WNYC interview with Dyson where he acknowledges the allegations. The One I Left (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The core issue here is whether the content adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and reliable sourcing. In the WNYC interview, Dyson addressed the allegations, describing them as baseless, and no formal charges or legal actions were pursued. Given the serious nature of these claims, I believe we should carefully consider the weight and credibility of the sources before continuing to include this section. I want to emphasize that my intent is not to engage in an edit war, but to ensure policy adherence. Jjmelborne (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Right now you are in the minority as several users have reverted the changes you made without consensus. Allegations can be included without there being legal actions. Dyson himself acknowledged the allegations. Lets see if you can build a consensus.The One I Left (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice on this matter. Instead of deleting the section, I made edits to ensure balance and neutrality, even citing the WNYC interview you mentioned. For instance, I clarified that only one student's accusations were investigated, not several. The initial article might reference other allegations, but only one was formally examined. Additionally, using the term predator seems biased and inappropriate, especially given that no legal actions were pursued. If the investigation led to no findings, such language feels unjustified. Jjmelborne (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems fair to add further context and information. Looks fine from what I can see. I was just against removing the section entirely.The One I Left (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

How much consensus is to be considered before a major change like deleting a section? Jjmelborne (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Copying over what I wrote at BLP/N: I'd say that section is very poorly sourced and UNDUE. BLP says - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. This is not well documented. There is a podcast, a campus newspaper and another source from "Her Campus", which appears to be WP:UGC. Melissa Harris-Perry, who conducted the podcast interview even says during the interview with Dyson - "The allegation has not been widely reported on". Unless some high-quality reliable sources can be found, I'd remove that entire section. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the point you bring up with Harris-Perry's statement. The fact that no major news outlets picked up this story suggests that these sources may not be reliable. Media outlets would likely have jumped on the opportunity to report such allegations. If these claims had credibility, we'd have seen more widespread coverage. Their absence speaks volumes about the weight of these accusations and if they should remain on his page. Jjmelborne (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Isaidnoway. The sourcing is flimsy, and he denies the allegations which do not seem to have affected his career. I recommend removing the section. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if whether the allegations have affected his career is noteworthy. Numerous figures have misconduct sections where they haven't affected their careers (Michael Douglas, Dustin Hoffman, Anthony Anderson etc.). The allegations are sourced and a woman of reputable means has spoken out publicly.The One I Left (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point is that section is poorly sourced and wildly WP:UNDUE. BLP requires that we be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. And WP:BLPSOURCE says "when material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources", which is clearly not the case here. If this was indeed "noteworthy", I would expect to see a multitude of reliable published sources, and WP:BLPPUBLIC is abundantly clear on how we handle this type of content - if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. So this section should be removed per our BLP policy. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I removed the poorly sourced content per WP:BLPVIO, see also WP:BLPRESTORE, if you want to restore this disputed material, you will need to get consensus first, contentious material about living people must be based on high-quality reliable sources, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Isaidnoway. If I understand BLP policy correctly, there is a higher bar that needs to be met in order to include information like this. I do not believe this information, and the poor sourcing, meets that bar. Oliver Phile (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, Isaidnoway. Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)