Jump to content

Talk:Claudine Gay

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElKevbo (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 12 December 2023 (→‎Plagiarism allegations: way too early). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Rimonhay (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add a link to the entire congress hearing https://www.c-span.org/video/?532147-1/university-presidents-testify-college-campus-antisemitism-part-1

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Shadow311 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.”[1]

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

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
A reference from The Daily Telegraph, labeled as being a "newspaper of record"[2]: "Harvard president accused of plagiarism amid anti-Semitism row"[3]. 2A02:1210:7EE1:1200:79CC:D803:A9F2:9E0B (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)V-D S[reply]
Looks like it's been added with the telegraph and other sources Cannolis (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism allegations

@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.[4] Astaire (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Allegations were confirmed but largely dismissed as inconsequential by the board.[5] --Mannana308 (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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