Talk:Claudine Gay

Roland Fryer controversy

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

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

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

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

Mealy-mouthed nonsense

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

Quote of their exact words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

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

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

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

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

Plagiarism allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— WP:TALKDONTREVERT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further plagiarism allegations being reported:

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

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

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

Change “to” to “of” in the following:

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

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

Accused of plagiarism

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

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

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

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

Here’s some of the sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something is missing from Antisemitism

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

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

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

Plagiarism allegations are not "defamatory"

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

The Harvard Crimson [6]:

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

The New York Times [7]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Boston Globe editorial board [8]:

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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