Talk:Michael Kimmel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reception section[edit]

I created the reception section, which is completely appropriate for any author, much more so one so widely published, and the single most published pro-feminist author on men and masculinities. In it I sourced a statement to the very mainstream publication "Psychology Today" and was reverted by another editor -- a change I have since reverted, (hence this section on talk.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is not sourced to a "blog" in any traditional sense. This is cited to the "Psychology Today" offical blog page of a noted author on the same subjects that Kimmel treats. Anthony Synnott, (Ph.D) is professor of sociology who teaches and has scholarly publications on men and masculinities and deserves his own WP page.--Cybermud (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, the "reception" section now features only one critic's response to Kimmel's work; and while it seems like a good idea, as you suggest, to "remove unsourced glowing praise and POV, content" you did not rewrite or replace it with appropriate content. (This revision and others.) We can work on this together. As you mention, if it is true that Kimmel is the "single most published" author in a particular field, what can we do to write a fair section that reviews notable reception of his work including both criticism and praise, within the bounds of NPOV and BLP? Let's try. Mike Restivo (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that quotation again, but as I mentioned before, I am happy to try to work together to try to improve and expand the "Reception" section to include more apt criticisms of Kimmel's work. If you go back and read the source of this quote, you will see that it originates in Kimmel's book (p. 565); but my initial question remains: Is this quote taken out of context by Synnott? Was it made tongue-in-cheek? Surely, if Kimmel is as influential an author as you argue, we should be able to find more reliable criticism of his work, which we should try to incorporate into this article. Notice that I did not remove the sentence that summarized Anthony Synnott's critique altogether. I simply removed this quotation because I am not convinced that it serves its purpose. If you or anyone else could find the original context for this quote (in Kimmel's book) and explain here on the talk page why it is a valid and transparent example of what Synnott is critiquing, then I can certainly be convinced that it belongs in the article. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I mention all of this is because I am having a hard time actually tracking down and verifying the authenticity of the quotation ("Warning:...") that Synnott attributes to Kimmel 2004, p. 565. He says it is from Men's Lives but the only edition of that book I can find is from 2009? So I just want to make sure everything is on the level. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cybermud, I see that you have restored that questionable material. My previous concerns about including this in the article have not been addressed. Please respond to the specific points I made above regarding the provenance of this quote and its appropriateness for inclusion in a BLP article. Until then I feel like this should material should not remain.

Rather than engaging in a back-and-forth revert situation, I suggest a time-period in which we can attempt to find consensus about this situation. I would be very interested in hearing other editors' opinions on this matter. Together, we can improve this article and make it more reliable and informative. After a month, if my concerns remain, I will remove the material again. Until then, I am happy to engage in a dialogue with the editors of this page to determine the best way to proceed. Mike Restivo (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is is a BLP situation, I have removed the disputed text awaiting a consensus to include it rather than the opposite. I agree with Mike Restivo's perspective and deletion, and would go further to question the appropriateness, per BLP and UNDUE of other aspects of the reception section, and may ask for opinions at the WP:BLPN.--Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no lack of consensus among actual WP editors. Mike Restivo has never made any edits to any other articles but this one and I believe there is a conflict of interest at work here.--Cybermud (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at his contributions proves that the claim that he hasn't made any other edits is entirely incorrect.[1]. --Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Entirely incorrect" is not really correct either is it? My honest mistake was a whole lot more accurate than your characterization of it. Sometimes a half truth is a lot less true than an outright falsehood after all. Mike's first edit a year ago or so was this page and, besides a WHOLE LOT of talk page activity (which hides the minor details you dug for) has only made minor changes to like 3 article's since then. Not what I'd call a well-established editor by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps now that we've agreed on this, pointless, point, you can address the substance of my comments rather than nitpicingk about a mostly true statement about another editor who is, by all appearances, capable and willing to speak for himself?--Cybermud (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it really matters, but I am just curious why the content of my edit history is such a contentious point. Anyway, here are my article edits: [2] Mike Restivo (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately you have removed the well-source material and not answered my questions as to why you were removing it in the first place. Psychology Today is very much a reliable source yet you seem to want me to discount it on the grounds that you have one edition of a book with something like 6 and couldn't find the quote in your edition. Your edition is not the point. You are doing WP:OR and, on the basis of it, putting the unfair burden on me of verifying the sources of sources that are already reliable in order for me to be able to put in something that already exists in a WP:RS. Please refer to any outside sources you would like to seek consensus or other opinions but your reasons for removing my well-sourced edit, and asking me to leave it out for some indeterminate amount of time until some "other" editors appear is no reasonable. Furthermore, IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST with relation to this article you should acknowledge per WP policy or not edit it. To avoid potentially outing an editor I will refrain from expanding upon that point for the time being, but it strikes me that you have been shifting the goal posts as to why this material should not be included.--Cybermud (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is one of BLP and Undue weight. Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it should be included, and in this case it shouldn't.
Vague, threatening allegations of COI are most inappropriate, especially given the fact that Mike Restivo hasn't edited the article in 8 months. --Slp1 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your comments I've made NO threats and have NOT been vague at all above and beyond trying to step lightly around outing an editor. Mike Restivo has not edited ANY article except this one ever and has only edited it to remove this reliably sourced criticism which is not UNDUE by any stretch of the imagination. I will not expand on this particular topic to avoid potentially outing an editor but if you'd care to continue it you may email me... or just try google. You said you may open something in WP:BLN, and I have no doubt that you would have since you have no reason whatsoever to be happy about a status quo that removes valid criticism from a source you use repeatedly in other WP articles but, nonetheless, I will save you the effort and open a request for comments there regarding your BLP and UNDUE concerns.--Cybermud (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you keep repeating that he hasn't edited any other articles. What about creating this articlethis article or this one or this edit (and I could go on, by looking at his contributions? --Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cybermud, I assume good faith on your part and hope you would extend that courtesy to me and other editor.
First, in regard to your suggestion that I have a conflict of interest: evidence to support such a charge is better than mere assertion. But I see you have provided none. It is trivial enough to link to my user contributions [3] which easily debunks your claim. But to assure you, I declare no conflict of interest in this situation: I am not Michael Kimmel's co-author, publicist, research associate, or student, so I don't really get what you are insinuating.
Second, I don't understand your allegation of original research; I am merely trying to find the original source of this quotation to verify its accuracy. To be clear: you are quoting Synnott who is quoting Kimmel. All I'm concerned about is finding the original source of the quote. This seems to be very much in the spirit of WP:V. Once we have that in hand, we can proceed to the discussion of its appropriateness for inclusion in this article. (But I agree with you in the sense that my inability to find the original source of the quote you referenced of course does not mean that it doesn't exist. I'm still curious why I can't find the particular edition of that book, but like you said, there are multiple editions and maybe I just don't have access to the right one.)
Third, my consistent position has been that we should work together with other editors to strengthen this article. That includes elaborating on the "Reception" section by incorporating more appropriate criticisms of Kimmel's work. My concern is whether the Kimmel quote (as quoted in Synnott) is appropriate to be included in the article; as I originally said, perhaps it was taken out of context or tongue-in-cheek? If Kimmel is "so widely published" as you suggest, surely the disputed Psychology Today commentary from Anthony Synnott does not represent the only critical review of Kimmel's scholarship that has ever been published. What I have been suggesting is that we find reliable and notable sources of such criticism, in order to incorporate it into the article in an appropriate fashion. I'm not sure what's so controversial about that.
Finally, you should note that the substance Synnott's criticism of Kimmel is still included in the article. As I mentioned above, we should be looking to expand this section so that readers can get a good sense of Kimmel's academic supporters and detractors. The questionable material was this one particular quotation. Let's try to stick to why this one quote should or shouldn't be included in the article. I laid out my arguments above and a second editor seems to agree, but of course two editors does not a consensus make! On the other hand, unilaterally controlling this situation on your own also does not sound like the process of coming to consensus, either.
Cheers, Mike Restivo (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mike, I apologize for all the hoopla. I check the history of a lot of these articles quickly looking for my edits to be removed entirely (as they far too frequently are with no justification or a very poor one) and mistakenly thought you had essentially removed all of the critical content in the reception section. Seeing that the only thing that has been removed this time is the quote (and not the other surrounding text which makes the point anyway) I'm ok with the section as it is. Indeed, I think it really is actually better like that. Truly sorry for the confusion!--Cybermud (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there is a sociology professor who has given presentations with Kimmel who shares your screen-name, so it looked as though you might know the person that this article is about personally (which creates a conflict of interest.) Glad to clear that up.--Cybermud (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cybermud, no problem. That's why I always assume good faith from other editors...because that's usually the case :) I will continue to look for resources to expand this section and I hope you do likewise. (By the way, I do know Kimmel, but I don't think that simply knowing someone creates a conflict of interest per se. I'm curious to find out who this other Mike Restivo is.) Mike Restivo (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the Reception section (not sure when it was deleted entirely) as it existed in April 2012, and, added some new material. Memills (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. You'll find the reasons in the section below, also blogs aren't usually considered reliable sources. The source you added, some comment in some journal of Male studies looks to be less than ideal as well. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, why you think it is "less than ideal"...? It is a peer-reviewed, international academic journal. It not just "some comment" in "some journal"... Memills (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a journal is pretty much never cited by anyone except itself is a pretty good indication that it's not a very significant journal and should be given appropriate weight as such (which is not, er, much.) When an "international academic journal" has fewer outside citations in its entire history than many papers written by grad students, it's a pretty good indication that it doesn't present viewpoints shared by many others, and that putting any significant focus on it would run in to WP:UNDUE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The journal has been existence for less than three years -- give it a break, Kevin. In addition, it is a non-feminist men's studies journal in the inbred academic field of "gender studies" (where having a feminist orientation is virtually always clearly stated in job descriptions as a requirement for new faculty). Memills (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in WP:NPOV that suggests that we should try to right great wrongs by giving extra prominence to sources that run counter to the prevailing winds of academia. A newly established journal that no one cares about is just that, a newly established journal that no one cares about. Giving it more prominence than it deserves runs against WP:NPOV. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it getting "more prominence than it deserves"? It meets the criteria as a WP:RS. Memills (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's open for debate and to be determined here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I don't see anything there. Link, please? Memills (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Memills, you seem to be pretty badly confused as you've insisted in multiple places that WP:NPOV doesn't apply to reception sections and seem to be suggesting here that WP:UNDUE also doesn't apply to them. Please do not continue to make edits that run contrary to WP policy here; given your seven previous sanctions under the MRM probation, if you continue to do so, I will request a permanent topic ban at WP:AN. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just posted the same thing over at the Men's rights movement Talk page. This is getting pretty tiresome. But I'll repeat myself. You previously initiated two ANIs against me -- both were declined because they were deemed as frivolous, and you were specifically told to back off. Take it to my Talk page, Kevin. We have conflicting views on this topic. But let's try our best not to let that get in the way of WP:civility. Memills (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Memills: you bring up quite frequently the fact that I've initiated ANI's against you that didn't end with you being sanctioned... in doing so, you tend to overlook the fact that you've been sanctioned seven different times for violations in this topic area. So, er, again, please start adhering to basic Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, and (although admittedly you haven't done this here, just several other pages,) if you want to accuse people of violating things like WP:HA and WP:HOUNDING, take your complaints to ANI, instead of repeatedly bringing them up on non-ANI pages. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might point out that the administrator doing most of the sanctioning was asked by Jimbo himself to resign due to what he deemed as inappropriate administrative actions... But, this is getting personal and quite off-topic (and the parallel discussion was collapsed for that reason at the Men's rights movement talk page). Again, if you wish, take it to my Talk page or ANI. Memills (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have great respect for Jimbo, but the days when he served as the de facto power on Wikipedia are long gone. @Bbb23: is a well respected administrator who has not had a complaint sustained against him. Asking you to stop making edits that run contra to WP:NPOV and to stop accusing people of harrassment or hounding except in appropriate forums is not off-topic for the talk page of an article where you've been making edits that don't comply with WP:NPOV. But given that your last statement about WP:NPOV demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of the basics of the policy, I guess that I do unfortunately need to add starting a tban request to my to do list - I'll probably get a section up about it in the appropriate forum later today or tomorrow. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still discussing this here? I asked you to either take it to my Talk page, or to ANI. This is getting personal between us, and it is off topic. I am happy to discuss these issues with you on my Talk page or at an ANI. This is my last reply to you here.
@Jimbo Wales:'s "defacto power on Wikipedia are long gone"? News to me. As far as I am aware, according WP:Role of Jimmy Wales he still "holds a special role in the governance of the English Wikipedia, due to the central and vital stake he had in its founding" and he still "has the technical ability, through the unique permissions flag of 'founder', to add and remove all user rights." When Jimbo says to an administrator "I think you need to resign your admin bit. Your actions are very very far outside the standard that I expect admins to follow" I would certainly take note.
You are planning to use this diff from my own Talk page to demonstrate a violation of WP:NPOV? Oh, my. That is a stretch...
Honestly, it seems to me that your motives in threatening to start your third ANI against me have less to do with WP policies than... something else. Clearly, you strongly disagree with me on this topic, dislike my editing of it, and, you have previously stated that you would like to have me to be topic-banned permanently. But such attempts at silencing those with a different POV, and WP:Censoring, really run counter to the mission of WP. Shameful, imho. Memills (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not very much of a stretch to suggest that a post that says in essence "it has one positive thing and one negative thing therefore it's neutral" demonstrates that you lack an understanding of WP:NPOV, specifically, WP:DUE. Wikipedia doesn't strive for neutrality in a weird vacuum where both sides are presented equally; we strive to present views roughly in proportion to how they're presented in reliable sources. Unless by some fluke of fate Kimmel has exactly as many detractors (and of equal prominence) as supporters (hint: he doesn't,) then a section that presents one good thing about him and then one bad thing about him does not meet the standard laid out in WP:NPOV. To the best of my memory I have never stated that I want to have you tbanned permanently, although I've certainly contemplated that doing so may be necessary. If I wanted you to be tbanned permanently, I would've been off requesting a permanent tban for you a week ago, not trying to explain policy to you. By the way, the reason you collapsed the whole page instead of just the section you wanted to collapse was because you didn't put a collapse bottom template at the end of the section to match the collapse top template. That said, you'd be better off waiting for an uninvolved party to do so, especially if you intend on editing Kimmel's article in the future. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the opinion piece in the MRM journal per WP:BLP. The reliability of the source was questionable and the opinion was given undue weight. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Time to revisit this issue. First, the article in question is not an "opinion piece in the MRM journal." The journal is a scholarly, academic journal about men's studies (per it's title "New Male Studies" and its stated mission as an academic "interdisciplinary forum for research and discussion of issues facing boys and men worldwide."). As a peer reviewed, scholarly journal, it meets the criteria as a RS. However, if there is disagreement about this here, perhaps the issue can be reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN.

Also, the article is a scholarly review of an academic book written by Michael Kimmel. Reviews are a normal part of the process of academic scholarship, they do not violate WP:BLP and do not meet the criteria of undue weight. Memills (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the para re Groth's review of one of Kimmel's books under the "Scholarship" subsection. Again, if there is disagreement about this, perhaps the issue can be reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN.Memills (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the paragraph again for the reasons stated above. There is no consensus for including an opinion piece in an obscure men's rights journal to discredit a academic. Let me also remind you that this article is subject to the article probation explained here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above -- this is not just an "opinion piece. " It is a scholarly review written by a professor of an academic book written by Michael Kimmel. Book reviews are a normal part of the process of academic scholarship, and, the journal is a RS (see the journal's editorial board). However, since I don't think this will convince you, time to get a 3rd party review.
I have requested a review of this issue here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Memills (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting the RSN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmel is a controversial figure, which is not necessarily a bad thing. This page reads like a eulogy and is devoid of any criticism whatsoever. Miles Groth is a scholar of international repute with a publication list as long as your arm. Wikipedia achieves neutrality by recording all significant view points, especially from reliable secondary sources. The Miles Groth piece as such is a secondary source from a scholarly individual, in a scholarly publication that has an impressive team of editors. Until proven otherwise this is a reliable source of worth in the construction of this article. This material should be replaced. If others wish discredit this source then they should take it to RSN. CSDarrow (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CSDarrow: You have it backwards. RS needs to be established first. There's already been discussion here and on RSN suggesting it's not RS. More importantly, there are BLP concerns (see section below) and a questionable source absolutely cannot be used. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Miles Groth piece as such is a secondary source from a scholarly individual, in a scholarly publication that has an impressive team of editors. Until proven otherwise this is a reliable source of worth in the construction of this article."
Now prove otherwise. That's the way it works, that's the way round it is. Watching people tying themselves in knots trying to censor any criticism of Kimmel is not uplifting. Groth's opinion is a significant secondary source opinion wherever it appears. Kimmel is a very controversial individual, no criticism of his views in this page is absurd. There are no BLP issues, he is a public figure who holds and expresses strong views. CSDarrow (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already proven on RSN. Groth is editor and board member of the journal that review, which he wrote, is published in. Journal itself fails WP:SCHOALRSHIP. Again, all on RSN. BLPs of public figures are still BLPs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand how journals work, editors commonly print opinions pieces; which this is. Also the worth of Groth's piece is independent of where it appears. CSDarrow (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CSDarrow: I'm in academia. I assure I know how they work. If we are to use it, it needs to be treated as a SPS opinion piece. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is openly an opinion piece, it is a book review. Book reviews are rarely if ever peer reviewed. Groths's opinions are being used as a secondary source, he is a notable person in this field. Don't you understand that? For someone apparently in academia I find it odd that you don't CSDarrow (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a secondary source? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read Secondary Source. Groth's piece is simultaneously a primary and secondary source. CSDarrow (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue[edit]

This "Reception" section was added in 2010. Anthony Synnott's characterization of Kimmel as "misandric" ("Michael Kimmel, who owns Men's Studies in the States, is particularly misandric...") still remains in the article. The source is an opinion piece of questionable reliability published in Psychology Today. Synnott argues that "misandry is everywhere" and characterizes basically everything, from Alice Walker's The Color Purple, the focus on violence against women after the École Polytechnique massacre, to pro-feminist literature (he calls it "propaganda") as "misandric". He does not always explain why he believes something is "misandric". In Kimmel's case, he offers an explanation:

Michael Kimmel, who owns Men's Studies in the States, is particularly misandric, opening his book "Manhood in America" (1996) with a long list of male villains - not a hero, hard working man, good father, Nobel Peace Prize winner, not a useful Newton, Darwin, Freud, Einstein, Gandhi, Mandela, King, Carnegie Medal winner in sight. It's amazing. Then in "Men's Lives" he adds more villains and this suggestion: "Perhaps we should slap a warning label on penises across the land. WARNING: OPERATING THIS INSTRUMENT CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR AND OTHERS' HEALTH" (2004:565. His emphasis). One wonders if he is wearing this label on his own penis. Does he practice what he preaches? Oh well. But such is the "scholarship" on men these days: dehumanizing.

The slapping "a warning label" sentence is quoted out of context. Kimmel and Messner write: "But it's not men on trial here; it's masculinity, or rather the traditional definition of masculinity, a definition that leads to certain behaviors that we now see as problematic and often physically threatening. Under prevailing definitions, men have and are the politically incorrect sex. Perhaps we should slap a warning label..." Clearly, Kimmel and Messner discuss the "traditional definition of masculinity" rather than "men". His other explanation that Kimmel is "misandric" because he doesn't start "Manhood in America" with a hymn of praise for Einstein et al. is absurd. Kimmel mentions 7 successful and famous men including Woody Allen and Michael Jackson.

Apart from the above mentioned problems, Synnott's description of Kimmel as "misandric" is completely undue. Kimmel may not "own Men's Studies in the States" as Synnott says, but he is considered an expert in the field of gender and men's studies and Synnott's reading of Kimmel represents an extreme minority view. There are also sources claiming that Obama is a socialist but we exclude such sources per WP:UNDUE.

I propose to remove the paragraph in question. But I would love to hear more opinions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your argument. But in the discussion I had with Cybermud (above), you will see that I also suggest that for a scholar as prolific as Kimmel, there is bound to be some legitimate and serious criticism of his work. Perhaps that can be included, where appropriate. Mike Restivo (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can. But the criticism (if you can call it that) in the article is neither legitimate nor serious and it's not a criticism of Kimmel's work, it's an attack on Kimmel. How is calling someone a "misandrist" because he fails to mention Einstein and other great male scientists in the introductions of his books a criticism worth including in an encyclopedic article? I know you did your best to reword Synnott's accusations, but the fact remains that he calls Kimmel, not Kimmel's work "misandric". The fact also remains that the quality of the source is subpar. I'll remove the accusations per WP:BLP. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per WP:BLP. Having criticism in the article is fine, but throwing in personal attacks is both unencyclopedic and in danger of violating WP:BLP, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously late to the party, but I also support leaving this material out. "Reception" sections are inappropriate for biographies, which must avoid becoming attack pages. Per WP:BLP,

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

None of those conditions appear to have been met here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Kimmel. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michael Kimmel. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Kimmel. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity/religion[edit]

I've removed an extraneous factoid about Kimmel being Jewish for now. Feel free to add an appropriately sourced explanation of how his ethnicity or religion is pertinent to his life and career, if applicable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of sexual harassment[edit]

I have added a short reference to the accusations of sexual misconduct Kimmel has received over his career. After making this edit, I noticed that one particular user has previously tried to remove any reference to this from the article. Rather than engage in an edit war, it would be better if future edits were discussed here instead. Toofarfromhome (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Kimmel&oldid=1206493259"