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 the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kevin M. Kruse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Should some article vandalism protection to be added? Since 17:54 on 25 October 2019, this article has had the following sentence added, twice after being reverted (the vandalism was bolded by me for clarity:)
Outside of academia, Kruse has attracted substantial attention and following for his Twitter threads where he provides historical context and applies history research to current political events. I.e. constantly dunking on Dinesh D’Souza. [1]
While Kruse has had interactions with D'Souza on Twitter, they've neither not been serious enough to warrant media attention (i.e., coverage from a reliable source) or otherwise worthy of being added to the article. Despite this, the unnecessary mention of D'Souza keeps being re-added. I propose that the article be given temporary vandalism protection. -- Praefect94 ( talk) 12:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I removed some text that, in my view, needs to be workshopped before it can be included: "extensive" is POV (who decides that?), as is "limited and superficial rewording" (how much rewording does one have to do before it stops being "limited" or "superficial"?). Moreover, the "was noted" language disguises the fact that we just have one person saying it's ironic. Nothing in principle rules out covering this topic here, but we lose nothing by waiting a few days for more sources; in fact, we gain by having more than one person's opinion to follow in judging how much to say. The website that published the source, Reason, is regarded as generally reliable "for news and facts", with the caveat that it "primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles". The cited source runs the edge between "news" and "opinion" (the conclusion takes it towards opinion-column territory), and "Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight." Regardless of the politics of all involved, we need to play it cautious with all accusations of academic misconduct. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
In an emailed statement, Michael Hotchkiss, a Princeton spokesperson, writes that the university is “committed to the highest ethical and scholarly standards” and that it’s “carefully reviewing the concerns that have been shared with the university, and will handle them in accordance with university policy.”And this is what their reporter has to say about having contacted the authors:
Bayor told me he doesn’t consider what Kruse did, at least with regard to the sentences from his book, plagiarism. “There are a few introductory sentences he used that are almost verbatim, and they’re not important in my book,” he said. “I attributed it to sloppy note-taking.”And, to my eye, an important parenthetical:
(I contacted Sugrue, a historian at New York University, but haven’t heard back.)I'm still in a wait-for-the-dust-to-settle mood on this one. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
what Kruse did in those instances is, by almost any definition, plagiarism. And it is certainly plagiarism under Princeton’s guidelines, which specifically say that sloppiness is not an acceptable excuse.Izzy Borden ( talk) 20:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Even if this becomes a thing it doesn't harm the goals of Wikipedia to wait 6 months or a year to see how things shake up; I haven't changed my opinion on that, either.) Their story has more details than we had before, but less than I'd hoped for. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
might eventually have a useful report. Fourth, imagining what I might do in the future and getting angry at your imaginary version of me doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
we generally want multiple high-quality sources for such negative WP:BLP material, which I don't believe we have so far. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
we generally want multiple high-quality sources for such negative WP:BLP materialis correct. Multiple. High-quality. That is indeed the bar, and it is high for good reason. If more sources like Chronicle of Higher Education discuss the issue then we will include, and if not we won't. Pretty simple really. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Add a reference to this. A sentence or two of negative news doesn’t violate BLP; Reason, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Princetonian are solid sources. Craft the sentence or two to be NPOV and it should pass any fair Wikipedia reader’s muster. TuckerResearch ( talk) 21:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
attributing Kruse’s alleged missteps to “sloppy notetaking” and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated). I'm wary of using it, however, particularly given the lengthy correction they've already had to issue, which sends a "the dust hasn't settled yet" message. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
might eventually have a useful report, not that any given report they actually produced would be useful. Nor did I say that we should reject news sources because they issue corrections (that would be silly); I said that a substantial correction is an indication that waiting a little longer for the details to get sorted out would be prudent. Really, what's the rush? XOR'easter ( talk) 17:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It's additionally worth noting that Professor Kruse, who derives much of his notoriety from his social media activity, hasn't used Twitter at all in over two months since the Reason article about allegations of plagiarism were published. Setting aside the discussion about whether the amount of media coverage is sufficient to warrant inclusion (in my view it is), this issue has clearly has had a significant and ongoing impact on his involvement in political discourse, which further makes me think that the controversy merits discussion in the article. RogerSheaffe ( talk) 21:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Here is the wording and citations I suggest. It uses proper reliable sources, does not violate any rules relating to biographies of living persons, and strives to be written in a neutral point of view.
In June 2022, in an article in Reason Phillip W. Magness, senior research fellow at the libertarian think tank American Institute for Economic Research, accused Kruse of plagiarism in his 2000 doctoral dissertation, his 2005 book White Flight, and other works. [1] [2] [3] According to The Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton University, "Kruse expressed 'surprise' at the allegations and attributed the lack of citations in one instance to an inadvertent oversight." [2] Ronald H. Bayor, one of the scholars Kruse was accused of plagiarizing, "expressed skepticism around the allegations... attributing Kruse's alleged missteps to 'sloppy notetaking' and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated." [2] The Daily Princetonian notes that "Magness and Kruse maintain a history of fraught academic exchanges." [2]
References
- ^ Magness, Phillip W. (2022-06-14). "Is Twitter-Famous Princeton Historian Kevin Kruse a Plagiarist?". Reason. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
- ^ a b c d Ciceu, Amy; Rupertus, Annie (2022-08-02). "Princeton professor Kevin Kruse accused of plagiarism in Cornell dissertation, 'surprised' by lack of citation". The Daily Princetonian. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
- ^ Bartlett, Tom (2022-06-24). "This Historian Doesn't Shy Away From Fights Online. Now He's on the Defensive". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
I think that is fair, and if Princeton or Kruse offer any further information or determinations in the matter, we add another sentence, another citation, and be done with it. TuckerResearch ( talk) 18:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I see two nos and two yeses in this section. Pretty same numbers in the section above. If the Chronicle of Higher Education is good enough for news lauding his political tweets, it should be good enough for bringing attention to his political squabbles. The whole idea of "let the dust settle" and a "10 year test" is anathema to the whole point of Wikipedia. TuckerResearch ( talk) 13:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Suggested wording or plagiarism accusation and response that was boldy added and reverted (on August 15, 2022), slightly changed from above:
In June 2022, in an article in Reason Phillip W. Magness, senior research fellow at the libertarian think tank American Institute for Economic Research, accused Kruse of plagiarism in his 2000 doctoral dissertation, his 2005 book White Flight, and other works. [1] [2] [3] According to the student newspaper at Princeton University, The Daily Princetonian: "Kruse expressed 'surprise' at the allegations and attributed the lack of citations in one instance to an inadvertent oversight." [2] Ronald H. Bayor, one of the scholars Kruse was accused of plagiarizing, "expressed skepticism around the allegations... attributing Kruse's alleged missteps to 'sloppy notetaking' and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated." [2] The Daily Princetonian notes that "Magness and Kruse maintain a history of fraught academic exchanges." [2]; The Chronicle of Higher Education noted this animosity between the two as well. [3]
References
- ^ Magness, Phillip W. (2022-06-14). "Is Twitter-Famous Princeton Historian Kevin Kruse a Plagiarist?". Reason. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
- ^ a b c d Ciceu, Amy; Rupertus, Annie (2022-08-02). "Princeton professor Kevin Kruse accused of plagiarism in Cornell dissertation, 'surprised' by lack of citation". The Daily Princetonian. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
- ^ a b Bartlett, Tom (2022-06-24). "This Historian Doesn't Shy Away From Fights Online. Now He's on the Defensive". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
For your perusal. TuckerResearch ( talk) 13:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Should a plagiarism accusation against Kruse and his response be noted in his biography? (See suggested wording and arguments for and against above.) TuckerResearch ( talk) 13:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I added some conclusions on the plagiarism accusation. TuckerResearch ( talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
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 the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kevin M. Kruse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Should some article vandalism protection to be added? Since 17:54 on 25 October 2019, this article has had the following sentence added, twice after being reverted (the vandalism was bolded by me for clarity:)
Outside of academia, Kruse has attracted substantial attention and following for his Twitter threads where he provides historical context and applies history research to current political events. I.e. constantly dunking on Dinesh D’Souza. [1]
While Kruse has had interactions with D'Souza on Twitter, they've neither not been serious enough to warrant media attention (i.e., coverage from a reliable source) or otherwise worthy of being added to the article. Despite this, the unnecessary mention of D'Souza keeps being re-added. I propose that the article be given temporary vandalism protection. -- Praefect94 ( talk) 12:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I removed some text that, in my view, needs to be workshopped before it can be included: "extensive" is POV (who decides that?), as is "limited and superficial rewording" (how much rewording does one have to do before it stops being "limited" or "superficial"?). Moreover, the "was noted" language disguises the fact that we just have one person saying it's ironic. Nothing in principle rules out covering this topic here, but we lose nothing by waiting a few days for more sources; in fact, we gain by having more than one person's opinion to follow in judging how much to say. The website that published the source, Reason, is regarded as generally reliable "for news and facts", with the caveat that it "primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles". The cited source runs the edge between "news" and "opinion" (the conclusion takes it towards opinion-column territory), and "Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight." Regardless of the politics of all involved, we need to play it cautious with all accusations of academic misconduct. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
In an emailed statement, Michael Hotchkiss, a Princeton spokesperson, writes that the university is “committed to the highest ethical and scholarly standards” and that it’s “carefully reviewing the concerns that have been shared with the university, and will handle them in accordance with university policy.”And this is what their reporter has to say about having contacted the authors:
Bayor told me he doesn’t consider what Kruse did, at least with regard to the sentences from his book, plagiarism. “There are a few introductory sentences he used that are almost verbatim, and they’re not important in my book,” he said. “I attributed it to sloppy note-taking.”And, to my eye, an important parenthetical:
(I contacted Sugrue, a historian at New York University, but haven’t heard back.)I'm still in a wait-for-the-dust-to-settle mood on this one. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
what Kruse did in those instances is, by almost any definition, plagiarism. And it is certainly plagiarism under Princeton’s guidelines, which specifically say that sloppiness is not an acceptable excuse.Izzy Borden ( talk) 20:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Even if this becomes a thing it doesn't harm the goals of Wikipedia to wait 6 months or a year to see how things shake up; I haven't changed my opinion on that, either.) Their story has more details than we had before, but less than I'd hoped for. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
might eventually have a useful report. Fourth, imagining what I might do in the future and getting angry at your imaginary version of me doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
we generally want multiple high-quality sources for such negative WP:BLP material, which I don't believe we have so far. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
we generally want multiple high-quality sources for such negative WP:BLP materialis correct. Multiple. High-quality. That is indeed the bar, and it is high for good reason. If more sources like Chronicle of Higher Education discuss the issue then we will include, and if not we won't. Pretty simple really. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Add a reference to this. A sentence or two of negative news doesn’t violate BLP; Reason, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Princetonian are solid sources. Craft the sentence or two to be NPOV and it should pass any fair Wikipedia reader’s muster. TuckerResearch ( talk) 21:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
attributing Kruse’s alleged missteps to “sloppy notetaking” and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated). I'm wary of using it, however, particularly given the lengthy correction they've already had to issue, which sends a "the dust hasn't settled yet" message. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
might eventually have a useful report, not that any given report they actually produced would be useful. Nor did I say that we should reject news sources because they issue corrections (that would be silly); I said that a substantial correction is an indication that waiting a little longer for the details to get sorted out would be prudent. Really, what's the rush? XOR'easter ( talk) 17:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
It's additionally worth noting that Professor Kruse, who derives much of his notoriety from his social media activity, hasn't used Twitter at all in over two months since the Reason article about allegations of plagiarism were published. Setting aside the discussion about whether the amount of media coverage is sufficient to warrant inclusion (in my view it is), this issue has clearly has had a significant and ongoing impact on his involvement in political discourse, which further makes me think that the controversy merits discussion in the article. RogerSheaffe ( talk) 21:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Here is the wording and citations I suggest. It uses proper reliable sources, does not violate any rules relating to biographies of living persons, and strives to be written in a neutral point of view.
In June 2022, in an article in Reason Phillip W. Magness, senior research fellow at the libertarian think tank American Institute for Economic Research, accused Kruse of plagiarism in his 2000 doctoral dissertation, his 2005 book White Flight, and other works. [1] [2] [3] According to The Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton University, "Kruse expressed 'surprise' at the allegations and attributed the lack of citations in one instance to an inadvertent oversight." [2] Ronald H. Bayor, one of the scholars Kruse was accused of plagiarizing, "expressed skepticism around the allegations... attributing Kruse's alleged missteps to 'sloppy notetaking' and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated." [2] The Daily Princetonian notes that "Magness and Kruse maintain a history of fraught academic exchanges." [2]
References
- ^ Magness, Phillip W. (2022-06-14). "Is Twitter-Famous Princeton Historian Kevin Kruse a Plagiarist?". Reason. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
- ^ a b c d Ciceu, Amy; Rupertus, Annie (2022-08-02). "Princeton professor Kevin Kruse accused of plagiarism in Cornell dissertation, 'surprised' by lack of citation". The Daily Princetonian. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
- ^ Bartlett, Tom (2022-06-24). "This Historian Doesn't Shy Away From Fights Online. Now He's on the Defensive". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
I think that is fair, and if Princeton or Kruse offer any further information or determinations in the matter, we add another sentence, another citation, and be done with it. TuckerResearch ( talk) 18:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I see two nos and two yeses in this section. Pretty same numbers in the section above. If the Chronicle of Higher Education is good enough for news lauding his political tweets, it should be good enough for bringing attention to his political squabbles. The whole idea of "let the dust settle" and a "10 year test" is anathema to the whole point of Wikipedia. TuckerResearch ( talk) 13:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Suggested wording or plagiarism accusation and response that was boldy added and reverted (on August 15, 2022), slightly changed from above:
In June 2022, in an article in Reason Phillip W. Magness, senior research fellow at the libertarian think tank American Institute for Economic Research, accused Kruse of plagiarism in his 2000 doctoral dissertation, his 2005 book White Flight, and other works. [1] [2] [3] According to the student newspaper at Princeton University, The Daily Princetonian: "Kruse expressed 'surprise' at the allegations and attributed the lack of citations in one instance to an inadvertent oversight." [2] Ronald H. Bayor, one of the scholars Kruse was accused of plagiarizing, "expressed skepticism around the allegations... attributing Kruse's alleged missteps to 'sloppy notetaking' and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated." [2] The Daily Princetonian notes that "Magness and Kruse maintain a history of fraught academic exchanges." [2]; The Chronicle of Higher Education noted this animosity between the two as well. [3]
References
- ^ Magness, Phillip W. (2022-06-14). "Is Twitter-Famous Princeton Historian Kevin Kruse a Plagiarist?". Reason. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
- ^ a b c d Ciceu, Amy; Rupertus, Annie (2022-08-02). "Princeton professor Kevin Kruse accused of plagiarism in Cornell dissertation, 'surprised' by lack of citation". The Daily Princetonian. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
- ^ a b Bartlett, Tom (2022-06-24). "This Historian Doesn't Shy Away From Fights Online. Now He's on the Defensive". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 2022-08-08.
For your perusal. TuckerResearch ( talk) 13:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Should a plagiarism accusation against Kruse and his response be noted in his biography? (See suggested wording and arguments for and against above.) TuckerResearch ( talk) 13:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I added some conclusions on the plagiarism accusation. TuckerResearch ( talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)