Talk:Claudine Gay

Roland Fryer controversy

I added a paragraph about Gay's noteworthy role in punishing Harvard econ prof. Roland Fryer for allegedly engaging in sexual harassment against female subordinates. I put it into the "Career" section, but might move it into a separate "Controversy" section. I've provided appropriate sources from the NY Times, CNN, the Harvard Crimson, and the documentary video about the incident. Input welcome. Bricology (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles should not have controversy sections, as per WP:CRITS CT55555(talk) 00:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Point of information: WP:CRITS is an essay, and not a policy. That said, if it's not clear it's a controversy, there's no good reason to place it in a section called "Controversy." - Fuzheado | Talk 15:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I had missed that detail. I think the point made in the essay is still sensible though, so I urge editors to consider it, even if not policy. CT55555(talk) 15:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Mealy-mouthed nonsense

It's not that she 'failed to adequately condemn antisemitism' - she quite expressly failed to condemn calls for a genocide of Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.154.17 (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

While "mealy-mouthed nonsense" might be a bit strong, I agree that the word "adequately" implies that she did condemn antisemitism to some extent, which she did not do (that is, not in relation to the purported antisemitic acts on Harvard's campus). I would suggest rephrasing this to remove the word "adequately", but then specifying that this is in relation to particular acts on campus which she may or may not agree are antisemitic. Thus, eg: "failed to condemn on-campus protests which were considered to have been antisemitic"

Thoughts on this revision are welcome. Arhtech (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Quote of their exact words

I added this to the article, because for something like this, it is always best to quote their exact words, instead of just writing a summary.

At a Congressional hearing on December 5, 2023, U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY) asked, “Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?” Gay answered, “It can be, depending on the context.”

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does wiki have such a liberal bias? 2601:5CF:4380:110:75DA:6E5C:9BB9:CDCD (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Because most of the editors, essentially all of whom are volunteers, tend to the liberal side of the political spectrum. If you want to balance things out, sign in and participate, with reasoned arguments when you feel a position is not getting fair treatment. ElrondPA (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

no, it's not simply that they are on the liberal side as you are suggesting, as if it's an oversight, it's because a core of wiki editors are progressives/"movement radicals" and they coordinate and actively remove the other side of the coin whenever it shows up. An increase in participation by conservatives or even neutrals will not work as you are calling for it, because their contributions are already being reversed and removed, that's why they have abandoned the platform. What would be required is conservative brigading, because it is leftist brigading that has pushed wikipedia to where it is. This is English wikipedia; half of America voted for Trump twice and seem ready to again; half of the UK voted for Brexit. Yet we don't see that type of balance here. Honest left wing editors would add the right wing perspective because it's intellectually honest to do so. That is what is lacking. 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:12BA (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

They lock the articles and delete your comments on the talk page, thus blocking participation. 2600:1001:A110:3A5A:6521:A46C:130E:5754 (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I constantly am seeing my talk page discussions removed JuliusPilsudski (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

She plagiarized multiple sections of her Ph.D. thesis, violating Harvard's policies on academic integrity. See details on X (formerly Twitter) by Christofer Rufo on Dec. 10, 2023 2604:3D08:6F7D:B00:1CFF:C651:B5A0:2FD7 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. see WP:RSPTWITTER, if you have a better source that meets WP:RS, link to it here and reopen the request then Cannolis (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A reference from The Daily Telegraph, labeled as being a "newspaper of record": "Harvard president accused of plagiarism amid anti-Semitism row". 2A02:1210:7EE1:1200:79CC:D803:A9F2:9E0B (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)V-D S

Looks like it's been added with the telegraph and other sources Cannolis (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations

What do we need to do to "achieve consensus" on the plain fact that Gay's well-documented and widely reported pattern of academic dishonesty throughout her entire academic career, the subject of a massive scandal defining her public person, should be referenced in the opening paragraph of this article? It appears that this conversation started when the scandal was just breaking. Perhaps at that time it appeared that the accusations were politically motivated. But we're long past that point. The story has been covered extensively in the media and backed up by extensive documentary evidence. The three most important things about her are that she is the current president of Harvard, she is a serial plagiarist, and she once said that in the right context it might be perfectly in line with Harvard policy to call for the genocide of Jews. Those three things should obviously be referenced in the opening section of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccar408 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: - it's not clear to me why you removed the entire substance of Rufo's allegations, while leaving in the full responses of Gay and King. In particular, this sentence:

Rufo claimed that Gay had used "verbatim language, with a few trivial synonym substitutions, without providing quotation marks" from multiple sources.

is necessary in order to both provide proper weight to the allegations and contextualize Gay and King's remarks. Plagiarism is a very broad act that includes everything from missing quotation marks to passing another person's full work as one's own, and readers would be better served by understanding exactly what the nature of the alleged plagiarism is.

As an aside, more allegations of plagiarism in several of Gay's articles have emerged today, although they have not yet appeared in what would be deemed a reliable source here. Astaire (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As my edit summary noted, I trimmed for WP:Due weight: relative to the rest of the biography, the space previously devoted far exceeded the significance demonstrated by coverage to this point. I am not even completely persuaded it deserves the space currently accorded. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

While I understand the need for WP:UNDUE, this response does not really address my larger point: some description of the nature of the alleged plagiarism is not only justifiable, but almost necessary for context. Astaire (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Allegations were confirmed but largely dismissed as inconsequential by the board. --Mannana308 (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Allegations against her were dismissed by the board she is a member of. 2600:1005:B18A:4170:0:33:918B:6301 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: - Please explain why, in "trimming for due weight", you removed the content about the Washington Free Beacon's article, which alleges a broader pattern of plagiarism in Gay's work. The contents of this article have been covered in multiple reputable sources:

• NPR: [1]
• The Boston Globe: [2]
• The Harvard Crimson: [3]

The Harvard Corporation's statement now lacks context, as it mentions that Gay will request corrections for multiple articles, while Rufo only made allegations about plagiarism in her dissertation. Astaire (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree that there’s anything confusing about the Corporation’s statement but I’d find it acceptable to change the first sentence to: "Soon after the hearing, conservative activist Christopher Rufo and subsequently the conservative Washington Free Beacon accused Gay of plagiarizing sections of her Ph.D. dissertation and other publications." My concern is the overall length of the section. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I'm largely fine with that. If there is no objection, I will change the first sentence to:

"Soon after the hearing, conservative activist Christopher Rufo and subsequently The Washington Free Beacon alleged that Gay had plagiarized sections of her Ph.D. dissertation and three other publications between 1993 and 2017." Astaire (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the political orientation of the Free Beacon is important context; I don’t think the dates add much beyond lengthening the sentence. Specifying how many publications seems fine. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I will defer to your opinion on the use of "conservative", but the dates add important context about the nature of the alleged plagiarism - it spans the length of her career, rather than being an early-career phenomenon. Per my comment above (about how acts of plagiarism range from the inconsequential to the extreme), I also believe it's important to describe what precisely Gay is accused of. I revise my proposal to the following:

"Soon after the hearing, conservative activist Christopher Rufo and conservative news outlet The Washington Free Beacon claimed that Gay had plagiarized sections of her Ph.D. dissertation and three other publications between 1993 and 2017, allegedly failing to properly cite roughly 20 authors in her work."

Taking issue with the length of a single sentence does not seem to me to be in the spirit of WP:UNDUE. Reputable sources such as the New York Times [4] and the Harvard Crimson [5] state that the allegations may constitute plagiarism or academic misconduct, so the allegations themselves are not a fringe viewpoint. This article currently prints Gay's response to the allegations in full, and devotes another two sentences to Harvard's statement, giving these parties proper weight - so why is the timeframe not worthy of inclusion because it adds four words to a sentence? Astaire (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I’d be happy to trim more from that paragraph. For example I think we can lose, “In its statement reaffirming Gay's leadership as university president”. If you have phrasing to consolidate another part, I’m open to it. I don’t think the details you suggest adding rise to encyclopedic significance. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

— WP:TALKDONTREVERT

Removing the clause you mention would do nothing to change the balance of different POVs currently presented in this section. What does change the balance is repeatedly editing this section to "trim down" the allegations to their barest possible form, as you've done in the name of WP:UNDUE, despite being presented with multiple reputable sources that give the allegations weight and justify the inclusion of more detail.

A quick look through the "People involved in plagiarism controversies" category reveals that Wikipedia indeed contains many biographical articles that discuss the nature of the subject's plagiarism allegations in detail, up to and including entire articles such as the Guttenberg plagiarism scandal.

As I'm unlikely to change my mind on the worthiness of including more detail about the allegations, I've opened a request for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Astaire (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My argument is not about the significance of plagiarism in general (WP:OSE), but its significance in this specific biography. The entry currently barely touches on the content of her scholarship (even tho she is a widely cited scholar), so I don’t think getting into the weeds on these allegations is currently WP:DUE. As to balance of perspectives, I hoped you’d suggest a version you prefer, but since you haven’t, here’s my suggestion:

"Soon after the hearing, conservative activist Christopher Rufo and subsequently conservative news outlet The Washington Free Beacon alleged that Gay had plagiarized sections of her dissertation and three other publications. In response Gay said she stood by "the integrity of my scholarship" and the Harvard Corporation said an independent review had discovered 'a few instances of inadequate citation' in her work, but 'no violation of Harvard’s standards for research misconduct.' The Corporation also said that Gay would request corrections to add citations and quotation marks to two of her articles."

Innisfree987 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The dates do seem relevant to me, and worth a few words. I wouldn't belabor the point, but a quick mention seems fair. I wouldn't bother mentioning the Washington Free Beacon, though - unless they added a lot of heft to the allegations, that's just unnecessarily wordy. Throw a cite in, but it doesn't need to be body text. So my proposed tweak to @Innisfree987's version is:

"Soon after the hearing, conservative activist Christopher Rufo alleged that Gay had plagiarized sections of her dissertation and three other publications between 1993 and 2017. In response Gay said she stood by 'the integrity of my scholarship' and the Harvard Corporation said an independent review had discovered 'a few instances of inadequate citation' in her work, but 'no violation of Harvard’s standards for research misconduct.' The Corporation also said that Gay would request corrections to add citations and quotation marks to two of her articles."

It's both a bit shorter, and has more relevant information. Alsadius (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it tho, that’s not accurate because Rufo was focused on the dissertation. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Looked into it a bit more, and you're right. Rufo started purely by discussing the thesis, and the Free Beacon stuff was an expansion of the story, written by Aaron Sibarium. That's where the 1993-2017 timeline comes in. Alright, second draft, with links this time:

"Soon after the hearing, conservative activists Christopher Rufo and Aaron Sibarium alleged that Gay had plagiarized sections of her Ph.D. dissertation and three other publications between 1993 and 2017. In response Gay said she stood by 'the integrity of my scholarship' and the Harvard Corporation said an independent review had discovered 'a few instances of inadequate citation' in her work, but 'no violation of Harvard’s standards for research misconduct.' The Corporation also said that Gay would request corrections to add citations and quotation marks to two of her articles."

Alsadius (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Alsadius (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That works. Just for flow, I know it was my suggestion but I would change “Gay said she ‘stood by…’” to “Gay said, ‘I stand by…’” Exact same number of words, just reads better than my first idea. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Describing Rufo as a conservative activist is essentially accurate, but Sibarium is best described as an investigative journalist. As such, I think it's appropriate to either mention that he was writing for the Washington Free Beacon, or simply attribute the reporting to the Beacon without his name. Astaire (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Further plagiarism allegations being reported:

https://freebeacon.com/campus/fresh-allegations-of-plagiarism-unearthed-in-official-academic-complaint-against-claudine-gay/ Oxonwiki (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s fine to me to swap Silbarium for the Free Beacon. It also seems fine to add one sentence about the House inquiry. The other details added back are clearly in conflict with the previous discussion on this talk page. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the article is sufficient as it stands. Multiple WP:RSP sources (CNN, The Boston Globe, The Harvard Crimson) have now published articles contesting Harvard's statement and asserting that Gay violated the university's policies. It is increasingly WP:UNDUE not to represent those perspectives in the article. Astaire (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's way too early for anyone to know how these incidents will play out and what they will mean in the long term. It's especially problematic to insist that a lot of detail be added to this article with many of the allegations being made in bad faith by people motivated by politics and no lasting concerns about (academic) integrity. ElKevbo (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

https://nypost.com/2023/12/12/news/harvard-secret-plagiarism-probe-into-president-claudine-gay/ 2600:1001:A110:3A5A:59FF:14B0:C2D:7870 (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that view, but there are significant amount of statements made by relatively neutral and reliable sources. Therefore, extending the article is appropriate in this case. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean like this article?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/business/harvard-president-claudine-gay-plagiarism/index.html Marat75 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, that is the one that I quoted in my edit request. FortunateSons (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

John McWhorter argues that Claudine Gay should resign in a New York Times Opinion piece Gay has published only eleven academic pieces, 41 instances of issues have been documented by publishing (physically showing) them (hence the source is less important. The combination of the two mean the issues have high density in her work.

Whether these issues are intentional or not thus becomes irrelevant, its not representative of the work required for Harvard.

There is no mention of major donorship funds lost in the article. This seems like an important fact since her ongoing presence is costing the University significant money.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

Change “to” to “of” in the following:

… when Gay was accused[6] to not adequately condemn the attacks SeaforthOne (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Astaire (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Accused of plagiarism

The mention of the fact that Gay has been accused of plagiarism is hidden under her presidency section, there should be a section dedicated to this issue in her page as it’s related to her past work but also the accusations are coming up now.

Claudine Gay faces claims she copied sections of her thesis, she was the subject of an official review and academics have accused Harvard of trying to change the definition of plagiarism to allow Gay to come out unscathed from the review.

There’s no mention of the fact that there’s also an award winning author and retired university professor by the name of Carol Swain on record claiming Gay plagiarized her book and didn’t credit her, here’s the video of Swain’s claims in plain English:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=KW1ROzn6t86jQSfO&v=pvqifXZQOFo&feature=youtu.be

Here’s some of the sources:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/12/11/harvard-president-accused-plagiarism-amid-anti-semitism-row/

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/allegations-plagiarism-gay-dissertation/

https://www.city-journal.org/article/is-claudine-gay-a-plagiarist

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12857937/Harvard-president-plagiarism-Claudine-Gay.html

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1733976372450853222 Brooklynhytes (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think so too, a separate section is more than appropriate, and potentially even necessary to comply with WP:DUE. As there are enough sources for WP:BLP, I would be in favour of adding it. FortunateSons (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree Carol Swain’s claims of plagiarism should be added to main section. However, not able to do so as article currently locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.3 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Disagree the plagiarism allegations are insubstantial, and their inclusion would be undue Jack4576 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion on whether they’re substantial, the fact that Dr. Carol Swain claimed her work was plagiarized and such claim has been documented on video in plain English, is absolutely relevant to the discussion and information that should be included. How would dr. Swain’s claims inclusion in the article be undue? Brooklynhytes (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

They're undue because they're minor and insubstantial as far as academic misconduct goes. To refer to allegations this minor as 'plagiarism' is defamatory and not compatible with the WP:BLP policy. What Dr Carol Swain believes about the matter is besides the point. Jack4576 (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thus, no one is calling for her article to claim she’s plagiarized anyone. Rather, to reflect the fact that Dr. Swain has claimed her work was plagiarized by Gay in her own opinion Brooklynhytes (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That is far too weak a basis for a negative imputation, and clearly does not satisfy WP:BLP. The fact that a Dr Swain has made a claim that something happened, in her unqualified opinion; is far too weak to include a topic with such strongly negative connotation Jack4576 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely don’t understand the characterization of Dr. Swain’s opinion on the alleged plagiarism of her own work as unqualified. I agree that her opinion alone isn’t remotely enough to refer to the alleged plagiarism as true, but if she’s not qualified to comment on her own work and work that has been based off of it, then who is? She didn’t claim “something happened”, she claimed the book she wrote herself was plagiarized. Brooklynhytes (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Plagiarism is an accusation that is to be upheld by a disciplinary body. Hence Dr Swain's opinion is unqualified and doesn't amount to much. She is not the arbiter as to whether something is or isn't plagiarism, regardless of how aggrieved she feels. Her mere opinion is not enough for an extremely negative allegation to be put onto this bio per WP:BLP Jack4576 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail cannot be used a source. However the NYT, the Independent, The Daily Beast, and CNBC have reported on this (usually in the President’s favor). So the inclusion is warranted for the moment.3Kingdoms (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Since ALL mention of plagiarism has been entirely stricken from the article, should her name be removed from the Category:People involved in plagiarism controversies page as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.183.249 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Did she get exonerated already? Marat75 (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That is controversial; I think it is best to re-ad the controversy (including the partial exoneration by Harvard) and leave her name. FortunateSons (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Plagiarism belongs in the lede. Widely covered in RSs, focused on it specifically. And led to revisions. And did I mention - widely covered. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:F9A7:1A19:154F:2655 (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, feel free to add it once consensus is established FortunateSons (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Something is missing from Antisemitism

The entire situation was about HYOPTHEICAL genocide against Jews. There was no case of someone actually doing so. Frame it like that. But had I not known this I would think there was someone actually, at Harvard, calling for genocide. No, the genocide is against Palestinians not Jews at Harvard. Hausa warrior (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The question was never posed hypothetically, not from the first moment. This fact has been documented:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=KcRguvT4w8aHKKq0&v=5f-E6LiYReM&feature=youtu.be Brooklynhytes (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That statement is not consistent with the fact of the enquiry, both within a reasonable interpretation of the words used and the assessment by the media. FortunateSons (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegations are not "defamatory"

@Jack4576: - you recently removed all mention of the plagiarism allegations from the article, on the basis that they were "unsubstantiated" and "defamatory". This is not the case. There are multiple articles from WP:RSP sources making the argument that Gay's actions may constitute plagiarism or academic misconduct.

The Harvard Crimson [6]:

The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations. Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.

The New York Times [7]:

The Harvard Corporation’s statement on Dr. Gay does not use the word “plagiarism.” But some members of Harvard’s faculty said they were disturbed by the passages highlighted in news coverage, saying students who committed similar infractions were often disciplined, sometimes harshly.

“It’s troubling to see the standards we apply to undergrads seem to differ from the standards we apply to faculty,” said Theda Skocpol, a professor of government.

A Harvard guide for students defines “plagiarism” broadly. “When you fail to cite your sources, or when you cite them inadequately, you are plagiarizing, which is taken extremely seriously at Harvard,” it says. “Plagiarism is defined as the act of intentionally OR unintentionally submitting work that was written by somebody else.”

But not all instances of potential plagiarism are equal, particularly when they do not reflect any intention to deceive, some scholars said.

Dr. Gay’s 1997 dissertation, The Free Beacon said, “borrowed” two paragraphs from a 1996 conference paper by Bradley Palmquist, who was then a political science professor at Harvard, and Stephen Voss, a political scientist at the University of Kentucky who was in Dr. Gay’s doctoral program at Harvard.

In an interview, Dr. Voss called Dr. Gay’s use of his work, which involved changing only a few words, “technically plagiarism.” But said he considered it “fairly benign,” particularly since the paragraphs in question involved a technical description.

“If a student gave me a paper that did what she did, I would bounce it back to them,” he said.

The Boston Globe editorial board [8]:

Gay’s scholarly publications have come under a microscope in recent months, and media outlets have flagged numerous examples of what appear to be nearly verbatim copying from other sources. Last week the university’s governing board released a confusing statement that appeared to confirm a few instances of plagiarism — without using that word. It said a review by scholars had confirmed “instances of inadequate citation” in Gay’s work, but also that she did not violate “standards for research misconduct.” The statement also said she would be seeking corrections to add citations and quotation marks in two papers.

The statement seems contradictory. If Gay didn’t violate any standards of research, why would she need to correct anything? Nor does the statement reflect what many Harvard affiliates thought the rules were. A webpage on Harvard’s own website titled “What Constitutes Plagiarism?” says “it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper.” Doesn’t that mean that, almost by definition, “inadequate citation” constitutes plagiarism?

...

Stephen Voss, an associate professor of political science at the University of Kentucky and coauthor of one of the papers that Gay seems to have copied almost word for word in part of her doctoral dissertation, told a Globe reporter he wasn’t offended by Gay’s actions, but added this:

“What Claudine did is technically plagiarism and it bugs me that people now, in their rush to defend her, are trying to suggest that academic standards permit that sort of copying without quotation marks,” Voss said. It’s “just not what we teach students. I don’t treat it as acceptable with my undergrads, let alone my grad students.”

The Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed from Carol M. Swain [9]:

I write as one of the scholars whose work Ms. Gay plagiarized. She failed to credit me for sections from my 1993 book, “Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress” and an article I published in 1997, “Women and Blacks in Congress: 1870-1996.”

The conclusions of the Harvard Corporation about Gay's actions, while deserving of mention in the article, should not be taken as an excuse to dismiss the allegations entirely. The Harvard Corporation is not the sole arbiter of what constitutes plagiarism (and as the Globe article quoted above mentions, the Corporation did not use the word "plagiarism" in its statement). Multiple reliable sources have made the argument that calling Gay's actions plagiarism are indeed warranted.

As such, I have reverted your deletion. Please discuss further actions here on the talk page. Astaire (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that there should be coverage of this issue in the Claudine Gay article. Oxonwiki (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

OK Jack4576 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the allegations should be included with more detail to comply with WP:DUE FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The current wording of the plagiarism subsection is honestly disheartening. This being Wikipedia after all, I would’ve hoped plagiarism would be one thing we could all agree upon.

I know they say no one "owns" an article on Wikipedia, but there's a reason I didn't even bother trying to "be bold" and make an edit to the subsection. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that view; I understand the (hopefully human and not political) desire to protect her, but at this point, the accusation is significant enough for their own subsection in my opinion; as depressing as that is, the plagiarism is probably the second-most significant thing (only eclipsed by the hearing) she has done - at least in a Wikipedia context. We should consider it as such, despite the fact that she otherwise appears to have been a decent scholar and faculty member. FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you agree that a separate section is appropriate, and if so, would you please elaborate unter my (newest) topic? FortunateSons (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Include the accusations of insufficient corrections and extended plagiarism made by CNN and the NYT

Include the following points in the section regarding plagiarism:

- no sufficient correction of the plagiarised content (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/12/20/business/harvard-president-claudine-gay-plagiarism/index.html)

-re-ad at least some of the removed edit, now with an reliable source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/harvard-claudine-gay-plagiarism.html FortunateSons (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The first states the dissertation wasn't corrected, it since has been. The second seems covered by current text. – SJ + 20:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus required: Separate Subsection for the accusations of plagiarism

I believe that the accusations of plagiarism have met the standard to be included in their own subsection:

-there is a plethora of WP:BlP-compliant sources

-it is significant to her career as a scholar

-with such a weight and publicity regarding the claims, WP:DUE is met and exceeded significantly

-such sections are standard practice in comparable cases FortunateSons (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree, and in my opinion, the allegations should also be represented in the article's introduction. The current subsection (3 sentences long) is insufficient for multiple reasons:

• It does not explain the nature of the plagiarism. Gay is accused of copying language from other scholars, but not their ideas.
• It does not mention key facts about the case. These include:
  • The number of articles allegedly containing plagiarism has grown, to roughly half of Gay's 11 journal articles.
  • Gay has agreed to submit three additional corrections to her dissertation.
• It is simply too short. The allegations have received a level of national and international news coverage on par with Gay's congressional testimony, which currently occupies five paragraphs in this article. They are also significant enough to become the subject of a U.S. House investigation.
• It treats Harvard's word on the matter as final. In recent days, a large number of WP:RSP sources have contradicted Harvard - either by explicitly calling Gay's writing plagiarism (which Harvard did not), or by questioning the university's investigative process and the possibility of double standards in this case. WP:DUE requires these perspectives to be fairly represented in the article. Below is a sampling of quotes from reliable sources:

The Harvard Crimson:

The Crimson independently reviewed the published allegations. Though some are minor — consisting of passages that are similar or identical to Gay’s sources, lacking quotation marks but including citations — others are more substantial, including some paragraphs and sentences nearly identical to other work and lacking citations. Some appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.

The Boston Globe:

Some of the accusations look “very credible,” and others “seem serious,” said Brendan Case, associate director of research at Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program, which researches human well-being. He has been embarrassed by the Corporation’s response, he said, because it seems to undermine the school’s commitment to academic integrity... “There are few things more repellent than a top official getting and taking a pass for something they punish underlings for doing,” said Richard Parker, a Harvard Law School professor. He criticized the Corporation’s handling of the allegations as “irregular” and “opaque,” saying it was a departure from a typical plagiarism investigation.

CNN:

Both offenses appear to go against Harvard’s guide on plagiarism, which clearly states, “it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper.” ... CNN was able to verify some of the main allegations of the Free Beacon’s reporting and spoke with plagiarism experts who confirmed that Gay committed plagiarism in these instances.

The New York Times:

Wednesday’s news has raised more questions about the process by which the university board, known as the Harvard Corporation, has handled plagiarism allegations against Dr. Gay, and whether it has been overly lenient with her... The allegations against her are landing in the middle of a charged political battle. But they have also prompted some to wonder whether Harvard is treating its leader with greater latitude than it would its students.

Reason:

Rufo's initial reporting, co-authored by writer Christopher Brunet, contended that Gay's dissertation reused sentences from other scholars without adequately rewording them; she cites her sources but does not thoroughly paraphrase. This is a form of sloppy plagiarism in which credence is given but sufficient effort is not undertaken to rework the underlying material. People can disagree about how serious the charge is, but it does appear to violate Harvard's policies.

The Atlantic:

I have looked at the evidence presented in various places, none of which has been controverted, and it is clear to me that this is plagiarism... Even if, in the most tolerant and sympathetic of readings, this and similar copying merely constitute “misuse of sources,” it is disqualifying for a position of leadership at any university... President Gay is in a tough spot. The Harvard Corporation deserves to be in a much tougher spot, because it has betrayed the values that the university once cherished and that it still proclaims.

The Boston Globe:

The [Harvard] statement seems contradictory. If Gay didn’t violate any standards of research, why would she need to correct anything? Nor does the statement reflect what many Harvard affiliates thought the rules were. A webpage on Harvard’s own website titled “What Constitutes Plagiarism?” says “it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper.” Doesn’t that mean that, almost by definition, “inadequate citation” constitutes plagiarism?

Innisfree987 has argued that adding more about the allegations to the article is WP:UNDUE because the article "currently barely touches on the content of her scholarship (even tho she is a widely cited scholar)". While I strongly disagree that this makes the allegations undue, I will pose the question: how much more content needs to be added about Gay's scholarship to justify adding more content about the allegations? I will be happy to add to both sections. Astaire (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the full write up and share your view. If Innisfree987 would instead advocate for extending the scholarship section, I would consider that to be a worthy endeavour. However, shortening a significant part of an article simply because another significant part lacks details is not in the letter or spirit of WP:UNDUE; after all, many plagiarism sections are significantly longer, even for individuals who “just” have a doctorate and therefore one instance of plagiarism. FortunateSons (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The WP’s associate editor is also joined the calls for Gay’s resignation and calling out her for plagiarism:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/23/claudine-gay-harvard-resign-plagiarism/ Brooklynhytes (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen that yet, thank you. An even better argument for WP:DUE if you ask me. FortunateSons (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Astaire, your bullet points seem helpfully succinct and even better if balanced by expanding the portion (right now, one sentence) on the content of her scholarship, thanks for offering. I’m unlikely to have time this week to hammer out exact wording so I’ll defer to those who do. Happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Innisfree for your response. I will ping some other users who have been active on this page recently if they want to comment as well: @ElKevbo: @Alsadius: @Jack4576: @Marat75: @MiddleAgedBanana:. I will add that the majority of WP:RSP coverage has had a critical tone of Harvard but some coverage also includes supportive viewpoints, so those perspectives should be represented as well. Astaire (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Given the coverage of these accusations in the media, it would be irresponsible to suppress them from the article. We do need to be careful to not give undue weight to some of the accusations, however, since this is a BLP. And we shouldn't go into a lot of detail that's unnecessary for readers to get the gist of what's happening. We also need to be very careful to not naively repeat some of the poorly informed opinions that unqualified people are sprouting off because talking about Harvard gets them attention; this is doubly so in this instance where some of the central players are not qualified experts in academic honesty and are acting solely because these accusations align with their politics.

With that said, I expect that in the short term we're going to end up with a lot of detail in this article because this is getting so much press. Once the dust settles in a few months and we begin to understand how these allegations fit into the larger narrative of Gay's life, we'll be in a much better position to understand how much space to give them in this article.

I do not agree with the opinions above that assert that this information must be kept brief because other parts of the article are insufficiently developed. That is a separate problem that should also be remedied but it's not a reason to keep other appropriate, helpful, and necessary information out of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As there is general consensus and all disagreements seem to be regarding details and not the proposal in its entirety, I have made the discussed edit. Thank you to everybody who contributed! FortunateSons (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Many points above, including in those bullets, seem undue. Absent more substantive updates, the current level of detail seems fine. We do not generally need to add extensive detail to BLPs "before dust settles". Agreed that we should avoid naively repeating claims from political op-eds, which do not share the reliability of their publications. Claims should be put in context of the political environment that gave rise to the allegations in the first place; the most notable feature of what may become a protracted string of congressional hearings is the politicization of these issues during an election year, by politicians and pundits with no record of caring about the nominal issues at stake. – SJ + 20:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree. While the inclusion of context is definitely a valid concern, it would be clearly undue to just leave the length of the section at its current state. As discussed above, she is a significant scholar in her field with (as of now) highly credible -though political- accusations of plagiarism made against her.

Therefore, an inclusion (with the relevant details, which are as of now missing) is the only way to accurately create due weight. As the facts appear to be relatively clear for now, I believe that the dust has settled enough that the mostly undisputed information, particularly the extent of the copied texts and the degree of publicity received by the topic, must be included in more detail.

Additionally, particularly if the extension of the section on scholarship as discussed above happens, the concern about weight will be resolved in the long run anyway; I’m sure your help would be appreciated within that section, if you would like to contribute? FortunateSons (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly not the only way to 'create due weight'. You've been persistent in adding undue claims from a single perspective to the article, and are now pretty aggressively pushing for your new additions to have top-level sections. I haven't run across comparable examples in other bios because plagiarism cases aren't generally brought by politicians, for political purposes. These allegations are indeed getting a lot of attention because of the media visibility of the context, including (again) politicians calling for resignations &c. That doesn't make these controversies the "most significant thing she has done", that would be the sort of false synthesis that biases sources like to imply in vilification campaigns, and is the sort of implication we should not be making w/ page structure. – SJ + 23:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It is almost certainly among the most significant things she has done if we go by number of articles from reliable sources. You do not have to like the weighting, but that does not change the facts.

Also, the majority of changes made by me were on the talk page, not the actual articles, and I either waited for positive consensus or lack of disagreement, which is standard in this cases (except for a miscellaneous change on the DOB, where I wasn’t aware of the specific rules and which has since been fixed; by the way, something that is pretty clearly exclusively fact-based).

In addition, at least where I am from, these degrees of details are common even when misconduct is found for non-researchers (ex.: Franziska Giffey (in German)). And just fyi, while the primary accusations came from „activists“ (not: politicians) and said context is certainly relevant, it does not diminish the validity of the accusations.

The sources were generally uncontroversial and meet the standard set by BLP. FortunateSons (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Most significant thing she has done is arguable, certainly the most well known one by the public and the most relevant one when people look her up. Brooklynhytes (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, significant is a factual evaluation and not a moral one. FortunateSons (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Question About Birth Date

"Born 1969 or 1970" Is there confusion about her birth date, if so why? 25eanglin (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think so, it’s August 4, 1970 FortunateSons (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Claudine Gay (born 1969 or 1970) is an American political" - Interesting why it's worded this way. Someone (maybe me) should check edit history & contact whoever made the edit as to why it's "1969 or 1970". 25eanglin (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Scratch that, this was probably an instance of vandalism. In the NY Times article citing after "1969 or 1970," the publication clearly describes Gay as 52 at the time of uploading. 25eanglin (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Cited*

Blackpost also states her birth date clearly here: https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/claudine-gay-1970/

You're right. 25eanglin (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DOB Tkbrett (✉) 02:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Did she specifically suggest for wiki to not share her birth date? Or rather what are the specifics of this dis inclusion of info? 25eanglin (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree in this case; the date is already very public, and hiding it here provides no benefit. Additionally, she is not “borderline noteable”, so no higher standard of care is necessary. FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the president of Harvard is more than "borderline notable". But a reliable source is still required. Folks who want to cite blackpast.org should be prepared to explain how that site satisfies WP:RS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus regarding that fact, so there is no issue IMO.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/9837749/claudine-gay-harvard-husband-christopher-afendulis/amp/

https://blackstars.news/harvard-is-set-to-inaugurate-its-first-black-president-claudine-gay-on-september-29-here-is-what-you-need-to-know-about-her/

https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F12%2F21%2Fus%2Fharvard-president-claudine-gay-timeline.html FortunateSons (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you are fairly new to Wikipedia and might be honestly confused about several aspects here, so let me spell it out in more detail:

• Even if there was actually consensus regarding that fact as you claim, that would not suffice for including it in the article under Wikipedia's policies. Please have a look at WP:V and WP:BLP.
• Regarding the first source you are offering above, please see WP:THESUN.
• The third one (the NYT article) does not mention her date of birth. Please avoid misleading other editors by claiming that a source supports a particular fact when it does not.
• Regarding the second one: Like above, feel free to offer evidence why blackstars.news should be regarded as satisfying the criteria of WP:RS.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty new, and I honestly overlooked the source as being the Sun, thank you. The NYT article (combined with the other postet sources) simply shows that it is 1970 (by stating her age), not the actual date, and should therefore at least allow a change towards the year of birth being 1970?

Regarding the reliability of Blackpast:

https://cpcrs.upenn.edu/resource/blackpastorg

https://www.washington.edu/news/blog/uw-historian-quintard-taylors-blackpast-org-website-honored-by-national-education-association/

Does that meet the required standard, or is there something missing? FortunateSons (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I posted Blackpast; occurred to me slightly before posting it wasn't a good source, but nevertheless.

But, Claudine Gay is a borderline notable person, so therefore her DOB must be ambigious?

Am I correct in understanding this? 25eanglin (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

As said above, I think that the president of Harvard is more than "borderline notable" in the sense of WP:DOB, i.e. that once we have a RS for the birth date, we should include it.

Concerning blackpast.org, the links provided by FortunateSons are in fact helpful; it turns out that there is also an informative Wikipedia article: BlackPast.org. The site itself states that while their articles are volunteer-contributed, "All submissions by contributors are reviewed" (i.e. it is not a user-generated content website per se). Personally I don't have objections to citing it at this point; if other editors who are more familiar with the site have concerns, they are still welcome to weigh in of course. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think BlackPast feels a bit too close to being user-generated for a BLP. A better source really ought to be found. Tkbrett (✉) 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The birth edit has been reversed by someone anyway, so...

I find that, regardless of wiki policy, that not disclosing someone's very public birth date isn't a protection of privacy or anything along those lines - 25eanglin (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If it is very public then you should have no problem finding a reliable source. Tkbrett (✉) 23:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's irrelevant - someone is editing her birth date back to 1969 or 1970 instead the actual one. 25eanglin (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary; whether there is a reliable source is what this entire discussion centres on. Tkbrett (✉) 17:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that her birth date is August 4th, 1970 has huge consensus across sources (who are usually sort of unreliable). This info does not seem like its ridiculous in any way - a general principle of wiki is to have reliable sources but I think we're showing too much precaution here. 25eanglin (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It has an editorial process, a method of contacting them regarding issues, a founder with credibility in his field, references from reputable institutions, and no past issues of misconduct. That is almost certainly a higher standard than any local newspaper, which would clearly be a reliable source. FortunateSons (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Please rephrase because either due to my incompetence or your's I have zero clue what you're saying. - 25eanglin (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I am disagreeing with Tkbrett. He is saying the content from blackpast.org is closer to user-generated because of the source. I am saying that it is more like a newspaper, and am making examples of what they are and do, such as having a review process (see also: the comment from HaeB). The question whether it is user-generated (like a blog) or externally contributed and reviewed (which is common practice for many newspapers) is essential for deciding if it can be used to verify the birth date. FortunateSons (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Does that answer your question? FortunateSons (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Updated birth date per

blackpast.org FortunateSons (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The Library of Congress Name Authority File for Gay lists her specific birthdate. That should be a suitable source? Funcrunch (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of these sources are terribly widely-used, and the subject has reportedly been subject to recent harassment. I don't see an educational advantage to including the DOB, and would err on the side of leaving it out. – SJ + 11:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The 1969 or 1970 birthdate is taken from a NYT article that described her as 52 on 15 December 2022. Now there is a NYT article [10] published on 2 January 2024 describing her as 53 years old. That excludes 1969 as a possible year of birth. The two articles taken together fix her year of birth in 1970. Southdevonian (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, at least 1969 can be excluded from consideration FortunateSons (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I can’t access that, but if it does, that should meet the standard, right? FortunateSons (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to say 1970. As it is now - 1969 or 1970 - it looks odd, as if there is some confusion about when she was born. After all, her age is not in the least controversial. Southdevonian (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but let’s let someone else weigh in too. FortunateSons (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why has nobody linked the discussion on this topic at WP:RSN? [11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to do that, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Separate section for the 2023 hearing

It feels less than ideal to place the section on the hearing within the section on her presidency. I think it warrants a separate section, preferably split into at least 2 separate parts (hearing and aftermath?). Does anyone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That's why subheadings exist. 25eanglin (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That change also seems like semantics.

As long as the information is reliable and placed in correct headings that aren't too long, it's fine. From my understanding, that's a simple formatting preference, with no real impact on the article. Seems redundant as a change, but, no harm done. 25eanglin (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It is probably a question of taste, I don’t disagree on that. However, in this case, as the subheading is more relevant/public than the heading, it is better to place it separately. I will make the changes, but am happy to have it change should an issue arise. FortunateSons (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not remotely worth a separate section, let alone two. The hearings were set up as political theater, as commented on by a range of sources. Gay was targeted because of her position as president of Harvard (and Rufo et al noted they timed their publication to do 'maximum damage' to it). The public interest is driven by claims, essays, and calls for resignation made by politicians. (Some have pointed out that this is another in a line of nominal arguments by politicians used as fig leaves to attack 'academic elites', and that it was coordinated with other political narratives in an election year. Others suggested the institutions were chosen for having female heads that were new to the office and had limited support. &c) The volume of public discussion is driven by that attention and the concomitant media cycle; the sort of cycle Wikipedia doesn't need to follow, and generally tries to avoid feeding into, particularly for BLPs. – SJ + 23:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that this is your position and frustration(and I partially agree), but they both lack evidence and relevance.

Even if the claims were motivated solely out of political strategy - which is possible for the first „wave“, but certainly not the second - Wikipedia should reflect the relevant perspectives, and while including yours is valid insofar as they are verifiable with reliable sources, it is not appropriate to remove changes merely because they benefit or harm a political ideology if they are otherwise compliant with all rules.

In addition, the context you discussed (and should include of verifiable) will extend the section further and therefore requires a separate section simply to ensure legibility. FortunateSons (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore, it naturally contains information about supposed smear campaigns. Wikipedia does not provide opinions in its articles, no section of Gay's article provides that.

Are you suggesting we delete the section on her controversial hearing because its some sort of info hazard?

Nevertheless, the conversation is about whether to separate a section with subheadings, not your conspiracies. 25eanglin (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but would ask you to moderate your tone. FortunateSons (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

His simping for antisemitism just isn't especially appreciated. 25eanglin (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way, but a civil tone is essential to allow for building the consensus required to ensure that Wikipedia maintains it‘s quality.

I know the internet is not a particularly welcoming place right now, but as far as I can tell, SJ is acting in good faith, so let’s keep this civil or even polite, please? FortunateSons (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

SJ, I don’t mean to offend, but do you need a Conflict of Interest disclosure to make changes here? FortunateSons (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that SJ's arguments above are problematic and inconsistent with Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, I don't see any grounds for such insinuations. Merely being employed by or affiliated with or being an alumnus of an academic institution which is being criticized might sometimes facilitate bias, but it is usually not a conflict of interest in the sense of WP:COI. (On the other hand, just in case the above gets misunderstood: Someone employed by the Harvard Corporation's PR department would definitely have a COI here.) And just so you have some context: SJ is a longtime and widely respected Wikipedian (as you might glean from his user page), who many in the community may consider a personal friend (including myself), and in the Wikimedia movement has a well-earned reputation for speaking out or accepting others' well-founded criticism even when being a member of the criticized institution himself . So while, again, I do not agree with his comments above either, I do not doubt that he expresses a genuinely held belief here, rather than acting on some careerist incentive to curry favors with the top executive or such. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood COI, but I thought employed was covered; I meant no harm and apologise for any harm post. (Regarding intent, see the discussion above).

I do not disagree that he is acting in good faith, as I have stated above. However, I do share your disagreement about the stated opinions, and feel like his edit here and on the page about the hearing are at least partially influenced by a genuine love for the university, which is not best practice when striving for NPOV. As far as I can tell, his other edits are generally of very high quality, so this was a genuine question regarding those threads, not an expression of hostility towards your friend or an accusation of intentional manipulation, just that this topic may be a little „too close to home“. FortunateSons (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that the hearing and her role in it have attracted sufficient RS coverage in themselves that it deserves a standalone section. Subsections are for matters that have attracted less RS coverage than what we are seeing - even so far -- here. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C48C:EA20:8D74:BB31 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello HaeB, it's always good to see you around. I'm curious what particular aspect of neutrality you think is missing. As far as I can see, none of the presidents in the hearing should have separate sections for the hearing in their bios, just because the hearing dominated media channels for a time. It is handled in a reasonable way on Magill's page, for example: as part of her term as president of the school. The hearing was widely described as 'a trap', 'political theater' designed to discredit institutions and their leaders, and a 'disaster for colleges' — here's a Haaretz op-ed on the subject. The hearing and its fallout should be described in that context (and placed in the context of the position).

I do have a COI, unrelated to any university; I am allergic to disingenuous political speech being reputation-washed by supposedly-neutral outlets. We shouldn't support that practice; though many PR campaigns try to get such language into tertiary sources such as Wikipedia. The editors who have been eagerly adding references to the hearing and trying to elevate its prominence on a range of articles, are often new arrivals with very narrow editing interests, including those on this page. Defending against that (or not hurrying to gratify it) makes us more, not less neutral. 𝑊♥, – SJ + 07:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This response would seem to contradict an earlier comment of yours, which said that "we should avoid naively repeating claims from political op-eds, which do not share the reliability of their publications." Here you are selecting from a handful of op-eds to support your preferred framing of this issue. Additionally, it can be true both that the hearings were set up as a trap and that the presidents fell into that trap in a way that justifies an extended treatment in the article. Astaire (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Plagerism

Where is the discussion about here massive plagerism in the dissertation she submitted to obtain her doctorate? 173.79.110.82 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

„Hidden“ in the presidency section, there is an ongoing discussion above. Please participate there and not in a separate thread. FortunateSons (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert edit by SJ, as significant content was lost; no consensus established.

Please remove the edit which lacked consensus (hidden under cleanup) FortunateSons (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead update needed to add plagiarism per WP:LEAD

Per WP:LEAD, plagiarism should be added to the lead of the article. It’s clearly notable and has its own section. Per policy, this should be added without UNDUE weight in the lead. It could read “[antisemitism allegations]… which resulted in a review of Gay’s papers and accusations of plagiarism.” 2601:8C0:380:35C0:5D4:E9C9:B7E2:727 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, please wait for a few others to weigh and then add it FortunateSons (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Weigh in on what? Isn’t it policy that it should be added? 2601:8C0:380:35C0:5D4:E9C9:B7E2:727 (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

With your (and mine) interpretation of the applicability of the policy to the situation FortunateSons (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You just have to be patient, either someone will turn up and make an argument or you will have the consensus required to make the change FortunateSons (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and don’t forget to include at least one (better: 2 or 3) reliable sources for that claim in the new section as well FortunateSons (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I won’t be able to edit it; I’m not an editor and don’t have an account. I just wondered why it wasn’t in the lead and found the policy. 2601:8C0:380:35C0:5D4:E9C9:B7E2:727 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You should consider making an account; an interest in improving Wikipedia and an ability to read policy are generally good prerequisites, and editing can be pretty fun.

I was encouraged to start out on uncontroversial topics, and would generally encourage you to do the same, perhaps a hobby or area you are interested in? FortunateSons (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Or don't - unregistered users are welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

An account does come with some benefits in the long run, but yes, of course! Your editing and contribution is valid and appreciated whether or not you use an account. FortunateSons (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - agreed. Oxonwiki (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I made the changes you were looking for, but am open for any suggestions or criticism FortunateSons (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks great! 2601:8C0:380:35C0:4507:600:95C1:A1F2 (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this may not be a finer point. It would seem to me that the sentence, "In the aftermath of the hearing, Gay was accused of plagiarising parts of her dissertation and multiple papers.", may not capture the time sequencing of when concerns first started to surface about Gay's plagiarism. The Harvard Crimson writes that "Harvard threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation over accusations of plagiarism against President Claudine Gay in October, calling the claims “demonstrably false.” Then, the University’s own review found several instances of “duplicative language” in Gay’s work. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/25/harvard-threaten-sue-post/. As such, it would seem that concerns were already raised to Harvard in October before the congressional hearing in December. 51.154.152.231 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be right, thank you for the information. Which phrasing do you suggest? FortunateSons (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What about something like ... "Gay's role as university president came to international media attention following the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, when she was accused of not responding to antisemitism on campus and of not adequately condemning the attacks in a congressional hearing of 5 December 2023. In the aftermath of the hearing, accusations resurfaced in various media outlets that Gay had plagiarised parts of her dissertation and multiple papers." 51.154.152.231 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Slightly rephrased but otherwise good, do you agree? FortunateSons (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Resignation date incorrect in header

Says Jan 2, 2023. Should be 2024 80.74.107.118 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/business/claudine-gay-harvard-president-resigns/index.html 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:1C67:6F93:BCC0:45B5 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Claudine Gay resigned

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/3/claudine-gay-resign-harvard/ 93.172.212.53 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Section on resignation inside or outside of her presidency?

Should we split the section on her presidency into tenure and resignation for now, or is this likely to warrant a separate section? FortunateSons (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should be outside. It seems logical to me that under presidency, we should have a beginning (hiring and start date), middle (what happened while she was/is president), and end (why and when she resigned/will resign). It might get a little sticky separating some of the middle content (some of which led up to the end) and the end, but we should be able find a consensus on that. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:1C67:6F93:BCC0:45B5 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we have significant actions not covered in the other sections, which should remain stand-alone? FortunateSons (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Gay writes in her letter of resignation "As I now return to the faculty, and to the scholarship and teaching that are the lifeblood of what we do, ..." which means that she intends to remain at Harvard. As such, her resignation only applies to the presidency and not to her tenure at the university. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/02/business/harvard-president-claudine-gay-has-resigned-read-her-resignation-letter/index.html 51.154.152.231 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks right FortunateSons (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In order to close the loop and add clarity that she's only resigned from her presidency and not from the university, would it be worthwhile including a sentence that "Gay will remain a tenured professor at Harvard"? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/us/harvard-claudine-gay-resigns.html#:~:text=Dr.%20Gay%20will%20remain%20a,University%20of%20Pennsylvania%20and%20M.I.T. 51.154.152.231 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, looks good FortunateSons (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just registered as a user and therefore cannot edit this semi-protected article. Would it be too much trouble for you to make the edit? HerBauhaus (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Like this? FortunateSons (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 51.154.152.231 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome! FortunateSons (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you people are missing what's really important here

Step away from the keyboard and pet the damn kitty

Kittens. Y'all are working hard, so time for a kitty break. And don't overly worry, what matters is that we get things right, not fast. We are not a newspaper. But kittens are forever. Go find a kitty to pet (extra credit: say "who's a little mew-mew" in a squeaky voice). You'll come back with a whole new perspective. Herostratus (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Awww, that is a very cute kitty. Thank you for contributing to better labor standards :) FortunateSons (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Petted one who looks a lot like that today! :) Thanks Herostratus. – SJ + 11:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

Change "Dean of Social Studies" to "Dean of Social Sciences" 2001:5A8:6D0:A400:99D9:FC15:EFB8:D984 (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason to undo the structural changes without first archiving consensus?

The new structure explicitly deviates from what was discussed on the talk page. Unless there is a consenus for the new structure, I would like to return to the old version. FortunateSons (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A discussion between two users is not a very convincing "consensus." Gay's presidency is clearly part of her academic career. Her congressional hearing and plagiarism accusations are also clearly part of that presidency. ElKevbo (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussions between 2 users is more consensus than changing something without any discussion at all, right?

Anything an academic or executive does in a professional context is therefore part of his/her career, if we follow that logic.

I am partial to moving the presidency into the career section, but the hearing and the plagiarism should either be separate or moved into a section on controversies/criticism. If we want to follow the WP:CRIT essay, I would suggest separate sections for both, but am open to a discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRIT explicitly recommends not having "criticism" and "controversy" sections. And it's good advice because segregating related information into unrelated sections often loses critical context. The previous state of this article is a great example - until I made an edit yesterday, the hearing section didn't even mention Gay's resignation. And even now the plagiarism section doesn't mention her resignation - it reads as if those accusations had no significant impact on her career and the university.

And why in the world would the hearing and plagiarism material not be included as part of her presidency? They occurred during her presidency and are closely related to it. ElKevbo (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree (and generally like the changes made) except for this specific issue.

In this case, we have a very long subsection that does not lend itself to easy readability for someone unfamiliar with the matter, which is unfortunate, particularly as you did make positive changes.

If you prefer, a changed title that encompasses presidency, hearing and plagiarism could adress that partially.

Alternatively, we could create a separate section on the resignation that comes after Career, Hearing and Plagiarism.

I’m also open to other ideas if you have a suggestion? FortunateSons (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I'm a big fan of the work @ElKevbo did here. Everything now is pretty neatly organized under one heading. Creating a heading for every little piece of the last month will look silly in the longue duree, ten years from now. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t mind the structure in general, but everything under the same heading is bad for legibility and hides the two things people are most likely to visit the page for, the plagiarism and the hearing.

Do you have a suggestion on how to alleviate this issue without destroying the structure? FortunateSons (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is fine. There are 8 paragraphs on the two topics. Nothing is hidden and everything looks legible to me. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it’s my mobile view, but I count 18 paragraphs in total, a split into two or more smaller blocks sounds desirable to me. FortunateSons (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the use of the exact DOB

As the DOB provided by blackpast.org, which is considered a reliable source in this case (in accordance with the discussion on the reliable sources / Noticeboard), I believe that the exact DOB should be added.

Arguments in favour of the information:

-reliable per WP:RSN

-made by an academic

-consistent with the ages provided by reliable sources and the dates in unreliable/disparaged sources

-no reason to doubt accuracy

Arguments in favour of including the date

-the standards for non-inclusion from WP:DOB based on lack of significance of the subject or the request have not been met

-Inclusion of the date is standard practice for BLP (see discussion on the Noticeboard)

-the date, which is required for a precise age, is useful, such as in news articles (proof: used commonly in multiple of the articles from reliable sources used on the page. FortunateSons (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the discussion at WP:RSN. It is far from clear that there is any consensus there that blackpast.org should be used as a source for an exact date of birth. As for the rest of your comments, I have already pointed out that WP:DOB requires a better argument than the mere existence of a source, and that WP:ONUS requires consensus for inclusion, and as of now you don't have it there - something you have conveniently omitted to mention.

And since you don't get to decide when a discussion is over, it would have been far more appropriate to wait for further comments, rather than trying to shut the discussion down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I just moved it, nothing is stopping you from continuing the debate there, it’s just the wrong forum as it is now unrelated to the reliable source and primarily focussed on the details of WP:DOB.

At time of writing the first comment, there was no dissent regarding the reliability of the source, including, if I correctly interpreted the comments, you. Now, there is one; I don’t know how to link to a specific comment, but would ask you to do so for the sake of completeness.

Could you explain why the interpretation of WP:DOB is best served by discussing it on the WP:RSN? I am relatively new at editing, and am happy to return there if there is an issue with continuing it here. FortunateSons (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussing the same issue in multiple places is seldom productive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

True, but a two-person debate deep within a mostly unrelated thread isn’t great either FortunateSons (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:DOB is met at all. --Hipal (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We have a (at time of posting certainly, as of now unclear) reliable source that is used for a DOB. The sources used right now infer based on ages, which is not great. As the person is more than borderline noteable and has not requested deletion, the question is the relevance and lack of a second/third source. I agree with the latter and disagree with the former, and would appreciate an assessment wether there is a reason to exclude the date when is is generally included for others, such as the good pages quoted in the original discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hipal: Indeed it is not, especially considering reports of doxxing and harassment. – SJ + 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point, it may assist with harassment. Would it be beneficial to simply wait a few weeks until the attention hopefully ends? FortunateSons (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather than "a few weeks", "many months". --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I’ll look for good sources towards the end of the year. FortunateSons (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Gay Confirmed by One of the Plagiarized Scholars

https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/news/acclaimed-black-scholar-demands-answers-from-harvard-board-over-claudine-gays-alleged-plagiarism-of-her-work/

A distinguished black woman academic whose work was used unattributed by Gay has now come out accusing Harvard of dual standards and Gay of academic misconduct. I expect NYT etc. will have no choice but eventually to report on this. 50.230.37.66 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Can be potentially included once there is a reliable source, but this is not one. Please re-ask if there is one. FortunateSons (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/claudine-gay-and-my-scholarship-plagiarism-elite-system-unearned-position-24e4a1b1?st=evqqzaldo5l8rpg&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consider the New York Post a reliable source (see WP:NYPOST). Also, at this point I am ambivalent about whether the opinion of those whom Gay allegedly plagiarized is worthy of mention in the article, since being an academic does not mean that you are an expert in plagiarism or in Harvard's honor code. Since the opinion of authorities such as Harvard and independent WP:RSP publications is available, I believe they should be given more weight in the article.

However, this does allude to an important point that I had mentioned in a previous comment:

In recent days, a large number of WP:RSP sources have contradicted Harvard - either by explicitly calling Gay's writing plagiarism (which Harvard did not), or by questioning the university's investigative process and the possibility of double standards in this case. WP:DUE requires these perspectives to be fairly represented in the article.

In particular, there are two articles of investigative journalism from the Harvard Crimson [12] and CNN [13] which dispute Harvard's statement by stating that Gay committed plagiarism or academic misconduct. The CNN article also interviews several plagiarism experts. These conclusions are certainly worthy of mention. Astaire (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sullivan controversy

There is an entire paragraph about one of Sullivan's positions not being renewed by Rakesh Khurana, which does not directly mention or involve Gay until the end - Sullivan accused Khurana and Gay of misrepresenting why it happened, quoted in a single campus article about a talk he gave to an audience of 10 people. This wasn't a decision made by her or about her, nor a major milestone in her admin tenure at the time, nor a major administrative change. I'm inclined to remove. – SJ + 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, although the paragraph should be rewritten to make her role clearer. There are multiple articles from WP:RSP sources that treat this affair as a significant event during her tenure as dean, such as [14] and [15].

In addition, the Crimson article you mention contradicts your claim that "this wasn't a decision made by her or about her". The first sentence of the article says that Sullivan "accused Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Claudine Gay of repeatedly lying about their reasons for dismissing him". "Lying about their reasons for dismissing him" implies that she was involved in dismissing him. Astaire (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have turned into a conservative talking point in the years since it happened. But Sullivan's allegations are not an ideal source here; the administrative process was transparent and described in contemporaneous media reports, and was Khurana's decision. I see the incident was not important enough to be mentioned in even Khurana's wiki bio, nor was Gay mentioned in any announcements at the time, or in the mention in various bios of Sullivan; removing. – SJ + 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have turned into a conservative talking point in the years since it happened.

This is an unfair characterization of the NYT article I linked above, which states: "Harvard decided not to renew his appointment and Dr. Gay criticized him, sparking outrage from the law school faculty and leading conservatives who said that the university had caved to overly sensitive undergraduates."

"Sparking outrage from the law school faculty" makes this event more than a "conservative talking point." Here is a third article from a reliable source that treats the event as a significant one during her deanship: [16]:

She also spoke out against Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., a high-profile criminal defense attorney and Black law professor whose decision to represent the disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein in 2019 stirred controversy on campus. Professor Sullivan, who said at the time that representing unpopular defendants was a key tenet of the legal profession and an opportunity for conversation with students, was later removed from the student residential house he oversaw after the university conducted a “climate review” of his leadership in the house.

Also, an event being a "conservative talking point" is not a justification to exclude it from the article. The correct question to ask is: do reliable sources treat this event as a significant one for the article's subject? Here, they clearly do.

But Sullivan's allegations are not an ideal source here; the administrative process was transparent and described in contemporaneous media reports, and was Khurana's decision.

I don't agree that the decision-making process was "transparent and described in contemporaneous media reports". The sources I can find only state something to the effect that "Harvard administrators" decided not to renew Sullivan's contract, and none of them describe the decision-making process. Can you please link an article clarifying this process?

Here is another Crimson article explicitly stating that Gay was involved in the decision ([17]):

Dozens of students met with Khurana, Dean of Students Katherine G. O’Dair, and Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Claudine Gay in Winthrop dining hall Saturday afternoon. Many hugged and thanked the administrators for their decision to not renew Sullivan and Robinson.

And here are two contemporaneous articles that give more insight into Gay's involvement: [18] [19]. From the WSJ:

The dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Claudine Gay, was ominously noncommittal regarding Mr. Sullivan’s ability to rehabilitate himself. Mr. Sullivan’s efforts to date to reassure the community about his commitment to its safety have been “insufficient,” said Ms. Gay, who is also a government and African-American studies professor. Echoing Mr. Khurana, Ms. Gay asserted that “there’s more work that needs to be done,” and hopes for a conversion: “I am hopeful that Professor Sullivan is prepared to be a partner in that work.”

I see the incident was not important enough to be mentioned in even Khurana's wiki bio

This is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, and so holds little weight.

Given the sourcing I've provided, I believe there is clearly enough justification to restore this paragraph with a rewrite.

Astaire (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the necessity of a rewrite and also think the content should generally remain (unless unfit for Wikipedia for other reasons). Edit: saw the change after commenting, I think it’s acceptable, does anyone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The article section is just the usual attempts to extend BLP violations in an WP:ARBPIA topic with poor sourcing and extensive writing on what is otherwise something extremely minor. Done by the usual types of BLP violating editors, with plenty of SPAs involved as well. We're long past the point where ARBCOM sanctions should have been applied to this article. Silverseren^C 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Silver seren, I suppose this controversy did turn this into a PIA.

The following paragraph now looks factually accurate, but only tangentially about the subject, and not worth a long paragraph in a short bio. Sources give no indication that this was important in her career, or that her actions were significant to the course of events. Removing it again. – SJ + 00:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have already cited multiple reliable sources that list this event as a noteworthy one during Gay's tenure as dean ([20], [21], [22]), as well as multiple reliable sources that Gay was involved in the decision ([23], [24]). The reason that this paragraph is "only tangentially about the subject" is because you edited it to remove the mention that Gay was one of the administrators involved in the decision. Instead of replying to my comment, you acted unilaterally to remove the paragraph without consensus. If your objection is truly that the paragraph is too long for the current bio, would you object to its inclusion if the section on Gay's deanship were expanded? Astaire (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is yet another reliable source stating that Gay was involved in the decision ([25]):

DURING the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) meeting on May 7, President Lawrence S. Bacow was asked his views on the turmoil at Winthrop House, where student protesters had loudly sought the ouster of their faculty deans, Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. (who had decided to represent movie producer Harvey Weinstein in the criminal proceedings concerning his alleged sexual assaults and harassment involving many women) and Stephanie R. Robinson. Bacow said he would respect the “locus of authority” responsible for making such decisions: in this case, the deans of Harvard College and of FAS. Those authorities made their decision known on May 11...

The "dean of FAS" referred to in that article is Claudine Gay. Astaire (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In 2019, Harvard Law School professor and Winthrop House faculty dean Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. faced student protests after joining the legal defense team for Harvey Weinstein, who was on trial for rape. Gay called Sullivan's response to the controversy "insufficient," citing his "special responsibility" as house dean for the well-being of Winthrop residents. Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana decided not to renew Sullivan's contract as house dean the following term. This decision was criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Nice expansion of the administrative section it is more balanced and reads much better though it seems to selectively be culture war trivia, some of it not otherwise notable. Trimmed somewhat, added a more balanced overview from the same source. – SJ + 04:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That Harvard Magazine news brief is the one place I've seen any suggestion that Khurana didn't make the decision himself. Even there, the quote from Khurana they reference about it starts "My decision not to renew the faculty deans was informed by a number of considerations"[26]. Another source interpret Bacow's "locus of authority" quote as meaning Khurana,[27] which is also my understanding from the range of sources. The most one could say is that sources differ about her involvement; but even that seems a stretch, as Khurana made many public statements at the time that seem unambiguous. The other sources you cite say only that Gay was present for conversations with students about it afterwards.

The one aspect we can agree is less minor is that leading conservatives have made a talking point out of Gay's involvement, and have tried repeatedly to exaggerate her role in their references to it, always making a point of her race. The NYT suggests it was significant in Gay's tenure because she criticized him, sparking outrage from some law school faculty and "leading conservatives". I don't really think that merits inclusion in a short bio, but if it does it should provide that context, as the latest article you cite[28] provides. – SJ + 17:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Returned that para to a more consensus version. Please don't restore synth claims made nowhere else, without discussion. – SJ + 04:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Bill Ackerman

Shouldn't this entry include the role of Bill Ackerman, who according to many WP:RS was one of Gay's the leading detractors? For example,

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/business/bill-ackman-harvard-antisemitism.html

Bill Ackman’s Campaign Against Harvard Followed Years of Resentment

The billionaire investor has mounted a high-profile battle against Harvard president Claudine Gay over antisemitism and threats to Jewish students on campus, but long-held personal grudges play a part, too.

By Maureen Farrell and Rob Copeland

New York Times

Dec. 12, 2023

... Mr. Ackman, by his own admission and according to others around him, resents that officials at his alma mater, to which he’s donated tens of millions of dollars, and its president, Claudine Gay, have not heeded his advice on a variety of topics

Most recently, this includes how to respond to complaints of antisemitism and the specter of violence against supporters of Israel on campus.

Other Harvard donors like Kenneth Griffin have worked behind the scenes. (Chris Rufo, of the Manhattan Institute, has taken credit elsewhere for organizing the media campaign against Gay.)

Ben Eidelson, a professor at Harvard Law School, described Mr. Ackman as "an interloper." "We can’t function as a university if we’re answerable to random rich guys and the mobs they mobilize on Twitter," he said.

Many WP:RS defended Gay and accused Ackman of double standards after Business Insider magazine checked the publications of Ackerman's wife, Neri Oxman, and found the same kind of plagiarism in Oxman's work.

Chris Rufo also gave an interview with Politico in which he explained his motivations for the plagiarism campaign. Nbauman (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Presentation of unvalidated allegations

Unvalidated allegations are given a lot of credence in the plagiarism section, despite coming from adversarial sources aiming to maximize perceived scope.

Most of these allegations have not been deemed significant by an RS analysis: which analyses may mention the total number of claims, then describe how many are minor and a few seem significant. This feels like an instance where our BLP standards should be higher than those of RSes: especially in our condensed context, statistics about the number and breadth of raw allegations ('almost 50', '5 of 11 articles'), presented next to descriptions of the strongest ones, grants them a significance they may not be due.

I would leave out such stats and focus on what has been validated [recognized by peers / acknowledged / corrected]. – SJ + 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This has all been well covered by independent sources and there is plenty of analysis validating what you claim are not significant.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/20/business/harvard-president-claudine-gay-plagiarism/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2024/01/04/claudine-gay-plagiarism-examples-harvard/

Meanwhile, Harvard has not released the results of the investigation it did, resulting in it's continued support for her. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed to updating the numbers once the “dust settles” and believe it will end up being lower than it is now, insofar as we get new reporting by RS. However, I believe that we should stick to the ‘consensus’ by reliable sources until we have a better picture than we do now.

Therefore, I disagree (for now) FortunateSons (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Your logic is circular. The consensus of the above sources I highlighted is quite clear and it is not reflected in the WP article. As there is this consensus amongst RS which is what you suggest is what is required, what are you waiting for? If the situation changes then it can be reflected. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I am agreeing with you (for now), but I think SJ is right that once we have better info, we should change it to reflect a more accurate numver FortunateSons (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sj@FortunateSons this one has sit for a while Harvard came out in its investigation and confirmed Gay plagiarized using the common definition they didn’t fire her because they said what she did wasn’t intentional. However, the standard for plagiarism, including how it’s represented on Wikipedia does not require intentionality.

see this source: https://apnews.com/article/harvard-president-plagiarism-claudine-gay-14330935453134c7c9c9a9c496020568

so what is holding us back from concluding she committed plagiarism? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We aren’t allowed to conclude in general, we can only talk in wikivoice about what is or isn’t reported by RS. FortunateSons (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

Clarify the charges made by the committee on Gay's Plagiarism & change the line "Faced accusations of plagiarism" to "is revealed to have plagiarised" KanishkScience (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Cannot action Clarify the charges... as edit requests must provide the exact prose to be added/removed/edited. Will not action Faced accusations of plagiarism -> Is revealed to have plagiarized as the source that I presume would support this provides multiple perspectives and does not assert whether it was plagiarism one way or another. I would want sources to declare or argue that specifically to alter the text as requested. —Sirdog (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Free Beacon

Alsadius on 19 December 2023 inserted a cite to Washington Free Beacon with edit summary = "tweaked wording on plagiarism allegations, per agreement on Talk page.". This matches Alsadius's edit in talk page section "Plagiarism allegations" on 14:18 19 December 2023 which included the cite of freebeacon.com. David Gerard on 18 February 2024 removed the Free Beacon cite with edit summary = "WP:FREEBEACON is generally unreliable and specifically not safe for use on BLPs or for politics". I believe the cite is appropriate because (a) the sentence mentions the Free Beacon author and the cite is what supported the mention so WP:WHYCITE applies (b) the Free Beacon article had a role in this story (c) The WP:FREEBEACON reference only means several editors said so in 2020 without considering circumstances here, the "generally unreliable" reference is to an essay-class page. Accordingly I advocate restoring the cite per the agreement on 19 December. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:FREEBEACON, it is not a reliable source to use and is only a very short step away from deprecation due to its frequent and blatant falsity and misinformation spread in its articles. I see no reason or need to include the citation directly in this article. Secondary coverage of said Free Beacon article is already enough. Silverseren^C 17:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it made sense at the time because of the relative lack of other coverage (well, other coverage that wasn't just repeating what it said - IMO, no reason to link a secondary source like that when the primary is freely accessible). But four months later, there might be better links available. Might be worth linking in the context of "Here's where the allegation was first made", since that kind of archival breadcrumb is useful, but I have no strong feelings either way about it being a source for where things stand today. Alsadius (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Especially on a BLP like this, the WFB is the sort of source that should be specifically avoided for even the slightest whiff of controversy - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)