![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Claudine Gay article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the
Main Page in the "
In the news" section. You can visit
the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from
reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 3 January 2024. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
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)
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)
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)
Why does wiki have such a liberal bias? 2601:5CF:4380:110:75DA:6E5C:9BB9:CDCD ( talk) 00:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. [4] Astaire ( talk) 00:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Allegations were confirmed but largely dismissed as inconsequential by the board. [5] -- Mannana308 ( talk) 13:29, 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:
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)
The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
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)
John McWhorter argues that Claudine Gay should resign in a New York Times Opinion piece
[9] 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
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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 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 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [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?
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)
References
"Born 1969 or 1970" Is there confusion about her birth date, if so why? 25eanglin ( talk) 14:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
consensus regarding that factas 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please remove the edit which lacked consensus (hidden under cleanup) FortunateSons ( talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/3/claudine-gay-resign-harvard/ 93.172.212.53 ( talk) 18:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Petted one who looks a lot like that today! :) Thanks Herostratus. – SJ + 11:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
Hipal: Indeed it is not, especially considering reports of doxxing and harassment. – SJ + 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
It seems to have turned into a conservative talking point in the years since it happened.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. Silver seren C 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
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...
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.
References
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,
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.)
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)
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
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 plagiarizedas 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)
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)
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Claudine Gay article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the
Main Page in the "
In the news" section. You can visit
the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from
reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 3 January 2024. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
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)
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)
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)
Why does wiki have such a liberal bias? 2601:5CF:4380:110:75DA:6E5C:9BB9:CDCD ( talk) 00:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. [4] Astaire ( talk) 00:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Allegations were confirmed but largely dismissed as inconsequential by the board. [5] -- Mannana308 ( talk) 13:29, 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:
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)
The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.
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)
John McWhorter argues that Claudine Gay should resign in a New York Times Opinion piece
[9] 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
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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 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 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [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?
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)
References
"Born 1969 or 1970" Is there confusion about her birth date, if so why? 25eanglin ( talk) 14:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
consensus regarding that factas 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please remove the edit which lacked consensus (hidden under cleanup) FortunateSons ( talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/3/claudine-gay-resign-harvard/ 93.172.212.53 ( talk) 18:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Petted one who looks a lot like that today! :) Thanks Herostratus. – SJ + 11:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
Hipal: Indeed it is not, especially considering reports of doxxing and harassment. – SJ + 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
It seems to have turned into a conservative talking point in the years since it happened.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. Silver seren C 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
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...
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.
References
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,
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.)
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)
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
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 plagiarizedas 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)
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)