Talk:Claudine Gay

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. Gay will remain a,University of Pennsylvania and M.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 [1] and CNN [2] 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 [3] and [4].

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: [5]:

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 ([6]):

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: [7] [8]. 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 ([9], [10], [11]), as well as multiple reliable sources that Gay was involved in the decision ([12], [13]). 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 ([14]):

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"[15]. Another source interpret Bacow's "locus of authority" quote as meaning Khurana,[16] 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[17] 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)

"documented instances of on-campus antisemitic violence"

ElKevbo (talk · contribs) removed this phrase with edit summary "rv POV edits". Pleas answer True or False: antisemitic violence on campus was documented? True or False: Gay was pressured over her responses to questions about antisemitic violence per sources cited?

The user replaced the text with "responses to alleged antisemitism on their campuses." So once again, was this antisemitism described as real or alleged in the sources cited?

One cannot delete texts upon one's gut feeling that it must be POV pushing without solid evidence, especially in the highly public cases as this one. --Altenmann >talk 01:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You can't cite sources from April and May to make retroactive claims about what was documented several months prior when she resigned. At that time there were indeed still allegations. And a fair number of the claims remain contested and highly politicized. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There are 6 footnotes after the disputed statement. You must be specific. Also, I asked three specific yes/no questions. I can give a leeway with the first question. Since the issue at point is resignation, I agree that older sources may be deleted. --Altenmann >talk 02:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You did rise a valid point about dating. Right above in lede the text "In December 2023, Gay and two other university presidents faced pressure from the public" is footnoted by refs dated by October 10 and 11. One has to verify whether the pressure indeed started in October and whether the text must be modified accorddingly. --Altenmann >talk 02:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

At this point I am resigning from this article. It indeed has problems, but I don't really care about political topics. It was brought to my attention by the aggressive behavior of Steven1991. --Altenmann >talk 02:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)