Biography: Science and Academia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Classical Greece and Rome

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The page from the Princeton Classics department has become unavailable. Please use the archived webpage found here: [1] Thriley (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is for me now: https://classics.princeton.edu/ and https://classics.princeton.edu/people/faculty/core 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:ED2F:6084:B27D:FC82 (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the page for Katz used in citing this article. It appears to have been deleted. Thriley (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is some near-edit-warring going on between anonymous editor 149.169.81.81 and GuardianH. The anonymous editor (not me!) added a personal life section. GuardianH removed part of it, noting that the detail was extraneous. Anonymous editor restored it. I was doing some independent editing, which created an edit conflicted, and included some material simila rt o the anonymous editor. Since GuardianH raised an issue, I figured best to discuss here.

The critical piece discusses his wife's description of their relationship when she was a student, and not personally involved with him. Normally, this might be considered unnecessary. However, without doing OR, it does allow the reader to recognize how the subject may have had many relationships with students that went beyond pure academics. This does shed light on the original sexual conduct inquiry. It does not tar him with anything by implication, it just gives the reader a fuller piuctiure of how he may have dealt with students on a personal level, albeit in a way that to some may raise concerns. Therefore, I believe it is relevant in a soft way to other material in the article.Dovid (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier. If you think it should be included, then I think it's fine to add—I was just being cautious because that particular detail seems more in line with Katz's controversy regarding his relationship with former students rather than an unbiased description of his personal life. GuardianH (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, seems kinda interesting/relevant bit of info that's he's described as "nocturnal". Don't see why it has be excluded? Maybe it was just how it was included in the edit before by 149.169.81.81 that it could've been done better. Mathmo ^Talk 04:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that any future edits may not be reversible automatically because of intermediate editing (according to the system). As such, if any serious overhaul is done to the article, other editors will have to manually reverse those changes. This is a problem as the article has gained a lot of popularity in the last few days and is vulnerable to edit-wars. All big changes should be discussed first here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Your removal of the entire second paragraph of the main article with reasoning: "Disagree. previous version was better, certainly the lead was" and "this is mostly fluff and certainly should not be in the lead--and note the primary sourcing" are subjective changes based on your own opinion and should be discussed in the talk page FIRST! The changes you made are very difficult to reverse by any editor because the "intermediate editing" (whatever that might be) prevents those changes from being automatically reversed. The introduction of Katz's academic background which you labeled as "fluff" is standard for most academics and provides a basic background. I'd be willing to discuss with it more if the bunch of editors could stop carpet bombing a lot of the paragraph sections... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 02:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The papers needed citation. I would support the list if it was entirely cited. Thriley (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley, as I noted in my edit summary, articles need secondary sourcing. GuardianH, you were writing up a resume; that is not acceptable. I've edited hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles on academics. We do not list every article someone published: that would be ridiculous. Also, feel free to use the ping function. And four tildes to sign your posts. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would ten or so widely read articles be warranted? It doesn’t appear Katz has written any books. Thriley (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drmies about including articles based on secondary, not primary, sourcing. Preferably they would be discussed contextually in the article instead of in a list. Llll5032 (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: "fluff" here is not unjustified--and the sourcing is of course unacceptable for a BLP. No, it is not standard for every academic. No, it should not be in the lead. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with removing the section and implementing the changes you have suggested (I have no need to, as it seems, because you have already done so) nor did I insist that your "fluff" should not be in the lead. The issue I had at the time with your two edits—dated 02:22, 25 May 2022 and 02:23—was that they were based on subjective reasoning (i.e. "Disagree. pervious version was better, certainly the lead was") which, as you can imagine, came across as extremely blunt and invasive during a time when other edits were flooding in. It would have been best if you discussed it in the talk page before you completely removed the entire second paragraph.

I agree with your critique that stating Katz's educational background is likely unnecessary for the main paragraph. I think the paragraph needs further background on the political controversy Katz faced regarding his denouncement of supposed cancel culture on the Princeton campus—he asserts that it is primarily because of this reason that the university conducted such a thorough investigation in order to use it as a pretext for his removal. GuardianH (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what he himself has to say on that topic isn't really the most relevant thing. Everyone has opinions. What matters is what reliable sources say, etc. His response is of encyclopedic value but it should be brief. More importantly, it was very, very difficult to figure out exactly what you did in those two huge edits. Please make smaller edits, which will have the additional benefit of allowing more specific edit summaries--big edit, less precise summary, as with my edit (didn't mean to be brusque: meant to be concise). Drmies (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not come to the same conclusions about one particular issue—for example, though The Daily Princetonian is a reliable source, the publication is, after all, largely beholdened to Princeton University and thus is subject to influence from the President or other faculty members which will likely point a more negative view of Katz than, for example, The Wall Street Journal. To reiterate, Katz believes that the university deliberately misrepresented his views and used the sexual misconduct allegation as a pretext to remove him for political reasons—that should at least be worth mentioning in the main paragraph. I'm not making value judgements on Katz's views, just stating the main paragraph could be more objective.

I sympathize with your edits made and with your intent to be concise. However, as you can imagine, "Disagree. previous version was better, certainly the lead was" did not come across as such. GuardianH (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I think it is going to be difficult to make the case that a campus newspaper such as that one is beholden to the administration--on larger (and more "liberal") campuses they are much more likely to be critical on the administration. Nor am I always convinced of the neutrality of the WSJ--but that's really by the by here. As for the other thing, add a sentence, or add two, with a good source--but if you make huge edits that reshuffle half the article, do not be surprised if other editors can't follow what you are doing, and int the end seek to revert, possibly out of an abundance of BLP caution. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to revert the "Political controversy and sexual misconduct allegation" back to its state before user Dovid rearranged the entire section (the edits done on 21:16 May 2022). Dovid's "restructure" removed a lot of the original citations and broke up an otherwise perfectly readable section. The problem is that these changes, it seems, have to be done manually.

User:Llll5032 Your recent changes to the section based on chronological order is backwards. Though his relationship with "Jane" started in the 2000s, controversy surrounding it began after his political controversy. Because his political controversy happened first, it should thus be put first as per chronological order. Otherwise your reorganization of the "Jane" relationship might be better put into his Personal Life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion, GuardianH. The sexual allegations were a controversy inside the university administration in 2018 (or before), long before they were made entirely public. So I think 2018 or the mid-2000s is the correct date to start the chronology. Does anyone else disagree? Llll5032 (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GuardianH, I see you removed the parentheses around the Princetonian report. If we want to keep it entirely chronological, we could move that sentence to the next paragraph about 2020-2021 events. Llll5032 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reorganization of the section cuts the sexual misconduct allegations in two different descriptions. It introduces to readers Katz's relationship with the "Jane" figure first and thus influences the effect of his political controversy which follows after that section (which, as I mentioned, occurred after the sexual misconduct allegation happened), possibly disputing the neutrality of the article as his sexual misconduct allegation and his political controversy are two relatively separate issues. By placing the context behind his relationship first, you conflate the two unrelated issues. GuardianH (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the chronology should follow the real sequence of events (rather than the order in which they were made public), but I agree that it needs clarity. Does a chronology with three sub-headings bring us closer to a WP:CONSENSUS? Llll5032 (talk)

I re-added quotation marks around "cancel culture" because the cited RS have used them. [2] Llll5032 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Llll5032 'Cancel culture' does appear without quotes in more than one of the cited articles.

Furthermore, 'cancel culture' and 'political correctness' are perfectly ordinary and understandable parts of modern English that generally need no special punctuation around them. Wrapping them in quotes suggests that the phrases are being used ironically, as if to call into question their legitimacy as concepts. This would seem to violate adherence to a neutral point of view Omnisciarch (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BESTSOURCES in the article [3][4][5] tend to put the phrase in quotation marks when it is used. Llll5032 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Llll5032 I don't see what makes those sources superior. I would take the fact that they wrap ordinary parts of the English language in scare quotes as evidence that they are not very good sources.

Given that the Daily Princetonian is so closely involved in the controversy and has an obvious stance on it, it seems particularly strange to rely on them as a model for editorial matters. Omnisciarch (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]