Talk:Joseph Epstein (writer)

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

Max Beerbohm[edit]

I don't know where the claim this guy is the American Max Beerbohm comes from, I can't find the claim and it is extraordinarily unlikely that anyone but perhaps he himself thinks this. He's approximately nobody. CraigBurley (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your last sentence: leaving aside his occasionally problematic political positions, Epstein/Aristides is certainly not "approximately nobody", and he has a long and extensive reputation as an essayist, for example as summed up in his 2003 NEH career award. I do agree, however, with your comment about the Beerbohm reference. In a 1999 Atlantic interview, Epstein discussed some of his influences including Beerbohm and La Rochefoucauld, and he mentions Beerbohm elsewhere in his writing. But in the absence of an actual quotation from a suitably significant third party, I agree that the sentence as written is best removed--and I have accordingly deleted it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humorist[edit]

Regarding Buckley's comment: Epstein's not known as a humorist. I think this part of the article should be deleted because it gives undue weight to an aspect of his work that is peripheral rather than central.
Vmavanti (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He is currently an Emeritus Lecturer of English at Northwestern University"[edit]

This phrasing seems off to me — since emeritus basically means 'former,' it seems like it should be "He is an Emeritus Lecturer" (removing currently and including an explanation of the term). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSummoningDark (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern has posted explicitly to say he was never a tenured NU professor, and hasn't been a lecturer there since 2002. Honestly the reference to NU should reflect that, since wikipedia has been around more recently than he's taught a class at that institution. https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1337982875413729280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8300:A1E0:409B:4695:FF0:CCB5 (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrinking article size amidst recent controversy[edit]

So, I went back and compared the edits with the most number of bytes with the current one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Epstein_%28writer%29&type=revision&diff=993931138&oldid=975721057

I absolutely understand that this guy wrote an incredibly awful article and published it to the very public derision of many. However, I think it's also incredibly morally... wrong to shrink the article from to ~2/3 of what it once was *before* this controversy in what appears to be a systematic effort to remove any semblance of credibility from this man's life in the collective, unofficial, (but notable in its cultural importance as a historical record) that is Wikipedia. He's a sad man, I get that, but is erasing history really the right way to handle this? CryptoQuick (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything accurate, cited, noteworthy, and relevant should be restored. The two controversial articles can then go into a "Controversies" section at the bottom. Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take the time to go through and recover some of the more relevant, noteworthy, and cited stuff that was lost in the history. I'll put a link here to my revision once I'm done. My editing skills are rusty, and I also don't know if this was a good idea, but I also asked for temporary semiprotection here. Not sure if that was a good idea, but there were a TON of edits within the last 24 hours. CryptoQuick (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've gone through and made the edits. Can you take a look, User:Softlavender? I also noted I need to double-check I didn't accidentally remove helpful edits made between the two revisions I compared. Here is a link to the revision I made. CryptoQuick (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed my redundant request for temporary semiprotection, since it was redundant. CryptoQuick (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-removed everything that wasn't cited with an inline citation. I've also re-removed items in the "Awards" section that were not awards. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

The current reference for education states that he attended the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Identity Theory source); however, his former employer stated he attended the University of Chicago (Northwestern source). Any idea about the discrepancy here? --Engineerchange (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, he attended Illinois, then joined the military, then graduated from Chicago. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Current version states he "and received a Bachelor of Arts in absentia from the University of Chicago in 1959." quoting as source Epstein, Joseph (2020-12-11). "Opinion | Is There a Doctor in the White House? Not if You Need an M.D." Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-12-12. Source is not a third party but an article written by the individual of the bio himself. Should not count as source. Meridian00 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His former employer lists the same BA from UChicago on its website; however, that page is now archived given the university deleted it recently. Perhaps that would merit as an alternative source: Northwestern source. --Engineerchange (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading his essays. He attended U of Illinois his first year and then transferred to U of Chicago for the next 3 years. So it is accurate to say that he attended U of Ill and U of Chicago, both statements are factually accurate. Mdukas (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time of service at The American Scholar[edit]

Multiple sources cited by the article have him beginning and ending at different times. He either started in 1974 or 1975, and he either finished in 1997 or 1998. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYT article appears to be the most reliable because it was written at the time of his replacement by Fadiman. The February 1998 article says "Mr. Epstein edited the journal from 1974 until the end of last year." Doubtful they got the time of his leaving wrong, and IMO the only way they could have gotten the time of his starting wrong is if Epstein fudged things and he was actually appointed in 1974 but didn't start till beginning of 1975. Softlavender (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably the case. I've changed to 75-97. It matches this reference, which seems solid [1] along with encyclopedia.com, etc. Would be nice to have some info in the article about what he did from 1960 to 1974... Bueller 007 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Source[edit]

I only came across this article after Epstein's opinion piece on Jill Biden. With a quick search, I found this article that appears to be an RS that looks at Epstein's work... it might be worth adding for anyone who can access the full text. EdChem (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020[edit]

To avoid confusion (the confusion may arise because Epstein is now widely known as defending the proper use of the prefix "Dr", readers may assume incorrectly that Epstein is a doctor (i.e. a PhD or an MD)), please edit the "Early life and education" section by adding the following sentence after the last sentence in the current version:

"Joseph Epstein is not a doctor (neither a PhD nor an MD)." Ldcelkind (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I don't see the confusion here. Why would we describe something that he's not? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Please add replies at the very bottom. Again, I don't see the confusion at all, and I don't think most readers will jump to that conclusion. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It actually seems like a very natural inference to draw. It is hard to see why someone would be moved to write such an editorial unless they were defending their own prefix.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldcelkind (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His education is in his info box, and his his entire rant is about the perceived uselessness of an academic doctorate, I don't think it needs to be mentioned again. Bkatcher (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Google News[edit]

There is no need to list the academic degrees not received by a person. Yes, this is a current event but parroting news headlines is not what Wikipedia was made for.74.69.81.62 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair and Balanced[edit]

This article appears to give overwhelming weight to the complaints of Mr. Epstein's radical left-wing opponents, with little if any sense of his actual accomplishments over a decades-long career. Here, for example, are several quotations, from the same sources cited in the main article:

"Mr. Foard said he found the sudden flurry of letters somewhat puzzling. “Prior to that there had been nothing but 15 years of kudos,” he said. from https://www.chronicle.com/article/american-scholar-editor-draws-fire-for-remarks-about-feminists

""Ms. Fadiman is sympathetic to those mourning Mr. Epstein. Most of the rather dire predictions have come from people who are justifiably sad that the great era of Joseph Epstein is coming to a close and who disagree with Phi Beta Kappa's reasons for making it come to a close, she said. AND "[Epstein's] own quixotic musings -- both in The Scholar (under the Greek pseudonym Aristedes) and elsewhere -- have earned him a reputation as one of the country's most skilled essayists." https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/28/arts/fresh-vision-for-an-intellectual-journal-diversity-brevity-even-a-cover-picture.html

"Joseph Epstein is perhaps the smartest American alive who also writes well." AND "As it turns out, historically women and Afro Americans and gays have thought and written a great deal of the very best in western culture. But I do think most of those genuinely superior women, Afro Americans and gays — people such as Willa Cather, Ralph Ellison, W.H. Auden — would have little or nothing to do with current notions of “diversity” as they are practiced in the contemporary university. They would only have been content to be recognized as among the very best, tout court, with no diversity labels added, thank you very much." https://forward.com/culture/11682/uncle-joe-the-exquisite/

Fair and Balanced 2[edit]

The comment immediately above this one does not state its author at the end, or its date or contain [reply]. Therefore I will make this reply a separate comment. I agree with the opening sentence of the above comment, except for the phrase "radical left-wing opponents," which is a phrase that only a Republican would use and would use it to score a political point. Must we politicize everything? Must opposition to homophobia and misogyny be a political issue?

Sorry for the digression; I'll get to my point. Epstein published a book review in the WSJ the other day. When I paste in the URL it comes out: ‘All the Knowledge in the World’ Review: The Encyclopedia Eternal - WSJ. A reader posted the following comment to the article; I suggest that we take it seriously and make Epstein's entry more fair and balanced. (I mean that literally; I am not alluding to the Fox News slogan.) The remainder of this comment consists of the comment I found in the WSJ:

Mr. Epstein writes "that my own Wikipedia entry makes me out, in a heavy-handed bit of academic wokery, to be a misogynist and homophobe, though not yet a racist." As a frequent editor of Wikipedia, I believe that Wikipedia makes no one out to be a misogynist or homophobe. Rather, it might note published accusations of that sort, backed up by citations. It would also typically note published disagreements with such accusations, also supported with citations. Yet, having just read Epstein's Wikipedia entry, I think that he has grounds to complain.

Epstein's Wikipedia entry has a section about a 1970 article he wrote that was accused of being homophobic. The section also quotes a 2015 article by Epstein in which Epstein said, "I am pleased the tolerance for homosexuality has widened in America and elsewhere."

The Wikipedia entry also has a section on Epstein's WSJ article about Jill Biden and quotes a statement that it was misogynistic. The entry's discussion of Epstein's years as the editor of "The American Scholar" focuses on accusations of misogyny. Neither the discussion of the WSJ article nor that of his editorship of "The American Scholar" reports counterstatements.

Significant is the disproportionate space devoted to these accusations. More words are devoted to them than to the rest of his career of more than half a century. Of course, they may have received more media attention than anything else, but that doesn't make them more important than anything else. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Army service[edit]

Recommend adding rank, positions held (military occupational specialty or branch), duty stations, and units served in if ascertained in reliable sources. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Google search of Joseph Epstein produces an image of him in 1960 wearing an army uniform with the rank of Private Second Class. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Epstein_(writer)&oldid=1206472167"