Talk:Dorian Abbot

Criteria for proposed deletion

• concern was: No indication or evidence of notability as required by notability guidelines, or What Wikipedia is Not.Oceanflynn (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • NACADEMIC is easily met. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Also, once an article has been unprodded, it cannot be prodded again (only a full AfD is possible), so further discussion of prod rationales is pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure that the citation profile would be a slam-dunk pass of WP:PROF#C1; there are some long author lists in there, and it might be a high-citation-count field overall. But it's at least promising enough that a full AfD would be necessary to sort it out, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

        @TrangaBellam, David Eppstein, and XOR'easter: Apologies for resurrecting this old thread. Having taken a look, I am also inclined to say that Abbot fails NPROF, including criterion 1. Tranga and David, could you shed light on which criterion you believe he meets, and why? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

        In practice, criterion C1 is always handled by looking at citation counts, preferably with reference to some knowledge of authorship and citation patterns for the particular field of study. Abbot has 9 publications listed by Google Scholar with over 100 citations each; the author order appears to be meaningful and he is first author on two of them. For most fields this would be easily enough; the exceptions would be fields where citation counts are high enough to make these numbers unexceptional. So I checked, by doing a search for keywords climate and exoplanets (the combination of interests that marks Abbot's research) and did not see very high citation counts (almost all only double-digit). My conclusion is that he has good citations for his field and does indeed pass C1. There is some case for the "Hero of Intellectual Freedom Award" meeting C2 or his public outreach meeting C7, but I think those are weaker. And of course, there is still ongoing interest in his cancellation, and many many publications about it, some going into some depth about Abbot, so whether or not you might think that he has done anything to deserve it, I think by now he also has a case for GNG. (GNG is not about deserving anything, it is about fame and publicity.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Does Dorian Abbot meet Wikipedia notability requirements as a geophysicist

Could you clarify how NACADEMIC has been met? "Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work." I realize Google Scholar report that Abbot has been cited by 3737. I have not seen Google Scholar citations list used as criteria before?

Which one of the following criteria applies to Abbott and which independent reliable sources confirm this?

"Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable."

• The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
• The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
• The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
• The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
• The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
• The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
• The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
• The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

My concern is that the way the article is currently written assumes Abbot merits an article because of his contributions as a geophysicist, which I challenge. He is evidently competent, and has been widely published and cited, but this is not enough to merit an article.Oceanflynn (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

+ "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I would think that a large number of citations is prima facie evidence of significance. Maybe this idea should be discussed for this person and in general. Kdammers (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Abbot meet notability guidelines as a free speech advocate?

Is it too soon to tell?

The content of the RS coverage included here focuses entirely on his involvement in a free speech and academic freedom controversy at the University of Chicago and more recently at MIT. From October 13 to October 15, 2020, Abbot posted a series of videos—since removed—in which he expressed his opposition to affirmative action on his YouTube channel. After receiving complaints about the videos, Robert J. Zimmer, the President of the University of Chicago defended the right to share "opinions and scholarship that provoke spirited debate and disagreement" in his November 29, 2020 "Statement on Faculty, Free Expression, and Diversity", which reiterated the Chicago Principles. In their August 12, 2021 opinion piece published in Newsweek, Abbot and co-author Marinovic, "drew an analogy between today's climate on campus and Germany of the 1930s and warned of what happened when an ideological regime obsessed with race came to power and what it did to free thought." In their October 20, 2021 article, The New York Times wrote that MIT had "reversed course" on September 30, 2021, and disinvited Abbot, who had been named in August as the 2021 lecturer in the annual public outreach John H. Carlson lecture series in the Lorenz Center at MIT. While an MIT professor continued to respect Abbot's scientific work, he said that Abbot had the right to draw "analogies to genocide" in his Newsweek opinion piece, but it was "inflammatory and stifles the very respectful discourse we need".

References

Oceanflynn (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of this is about the event and its cancellation, and not about Abbot. I think the case for WP:PROF-based notability is clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Affirmative action

Please discuss at the talk-page, and refrain from WP:SYNTH. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added quotes. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You have twice introduced false statements into a WP:BLP about Abbot, claiming that his Newsweek piece opposed affirmative action. In fact, it does not even mention affirmative action. This sort of behavior can cause you to be blocked. It is important, and especially important for articles about people you might happen to disagree with, to represent their views fairly, accurately, and honestly. You did read the linked sources, alleging that Abbot was being unfairly demonized? We don't want to make that become true, by exaggerating or misrepresenting his beliefs, especially not here. If you can't make an effort to describe what he says in clear, neutral terms, then you should not be editing his article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, and I was going to expand on how different people have reacted to his views? Go ahead and block me, if you believe you can justify it.

Multiple sources - NYT, The Atlantic, NBC, THE - clearly note that the center of this controversy is Abbot's opposition to affirmative action. In their own voice. They then proceed to explain how that is indeed a fair opinion to have etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

False. In fact, as my edit summaries clearly state, only one of those three sources, the NBC one, even mentions affirmative action. And what it states is that Abbot "has been criticized for opposing affirmative action". This is not a statement that he does oppose affirmative action. It is a statement that opposition to affirmative action is what he has been criticized for. It does not state whether that criticism is an accurate reflection of his views. And of course I am not going to block you; see WP:INVOLVED. But if you continue violating WP:BLP I am likely to bring your attention to others who might. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Really? Have you even seen that I had inserted new sources?

NYT, arguably the most famed newspaper of USA: Dorian Abbot is a scientist who has opposed aspects of affirmative action.

The Atlantic: Back in August, Abbot and a colleague criticized affirmative action and other ways to give candidates for admission or employment a leg up on the basis of their ethnic or racial identity in Newsweek. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw, I agree that NPOV shall be our goal and we need to mention all the criticism of Abbot's cancellation in our article. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] "Opposed aspects of affirmative action" and "criticized affirmative action and other ways" are also not the same thing as "opposed affirmative action". Also, they provide no insight into his reasons for opposition: Does he aim for diversity but think that affirmative action is an ineffective way of achieving it? Does he oppose it because of all the Asian-American students that were historically screwed over by affirmative action in order to avoid hurting white students? Does he oppose it because he's strictly law-abiding and it's illegal (as it happens to be where I live)? Does he oppose it because he's a white supremacist and it would be counter to that cause? Does he oppose it because he has philosophical reasons for thinking that that diversity should be handled on an individual rather than collective race-based level? Or does he oppose it because he thinks race is a fictional concept and we should avoid using it wherever possible? I can imagine people having any one of these rationales, and obviously which one they hold would affect my opinion of those people. But instead you want to put everything in terms so simplified that we can't get anything useful out of it, just us and them, allies and enemies. That's not a useful world view. But more importantly, it's not useful content for a Wikipedia article. If you want to oversimplify someone's political views, Wikipedia is not the place. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You continue to exhibit that you weren't really reading what you were reverting in a whack-a-mole way. My version went, citing a Newsweek editorial in which he argued against aspects of affirmative action.

Your patronizing lecture notwithstanding about what WIkipedia is for, you are shifting goalposts. You started by saying that I was introducing false statements. Now, when pointed to high-quality sources, you are saying that the summaries/observations of NYT/Atlantic are too shallow for us to carry.

I was going to expand all the content and criticism from NYT, The Chronicle of Higher Ed. etc. but you have twice-reverted me. Please carry on.

Your version runs, he argued for prioritizing equal opportunity over equality of outcome. May I know which of the sources support this line? In controversial op-eds like these, we need to either quote the op-ed or summarize the op-ed from high-quality sources. We cannot interpret the op-ed.

You seem to oppose mentioning that Abbot compared current DEI efforts to Nazi policies, something which has been described by atleast four reliable sources. Why? Obviously, we need to add multiple commentators mentioning how such hyperbolic comparisons were in poor taste but a tool of rhetoric, and not worthy of cancellation. Etc.TrangaBellam (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the Newsweek editorial (which, again, doesn't actually mention affirmative action) certainly supports it. Anyway, in your zeal to make this article be all about this controversy, please also keep in mind that this is a biography of an academic's life, career, and work, and that giving or not giving a talk is a small part of that career. It should not take over the whole article; it's possible that the controversy over the invitation is separately notable, but at some point it stopped being about Abbot himself and would make more sense as a separate article. Also re Nazis: Abbot's comparison to some of the bad effects of Nazism was a clumsy mistake, in the sense that it ended up inflaming more than it informed, and he should have been able to guess that it would have that effect. But it's also a distraction from the point. Are we going to call out anyone who ever compared Trumpists to Nazis now too? Is this about political beliefs, or is it about imagined name-calling? Because that doesn't seem encyclopedia-worthy to me. If it's about a poor choice of analogy in a piece of his writing, rather than an accurate description of his political beliefs, then I don't see the point in mentioning it here. Our standards for what to include are different from news magazines with subscribers to get agitated so they stay subscribed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If the Newsweek editorial supports it, you need to cite it and as I said, quote it. That is Wikipedia_101.

That I have written multiple articles concerning academics, I know that our article shall cover his life, career, and work. Which I plan to incorporate in my next edit.

Comparing Trumpists to Nazis and DEI efforts to Nazis aren't exactly the same? His political belief is that that no woman is oppressed in STEM and all the efforts to increase female participation in science are rubbish. That speaks a lot to me. Obviously, your personal opinion can be different from mine but at the end of the day, neither shall affect the content of this article.

We, as editors, shall only cover what reliable newspapers (who do not engage in gossip) choose to cover. If five/six of them found Abbot's comparison to Nazi fit enough for coverage, so do we. NOTNEWS really does not apply here.

I suggest that you allow me to edit, without blanket-reverting, and contribute with improvements wherever you deem fit. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You cannot remove sourced content (which is official MIT correspondence) under flimsy pretexts of who cares. If you believe the added content to be a misrepresentation of the letter, please edit than revert. It goes without saying that if Abbot has responded, a summary of the response shall be added too. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, you (plural) are grossly oversimplifying by writing in the article that he compared wokeism to Nazism. The actual comparison was between what he imagines wokeism's consequences on academic quality to be, and the actual consequences of Nazism on academic quality in Germany. The reason it was a bad comparison to use is because of exactly your reaction, people seeing wokeism and Nazism on opposite sides of a comparison, thinking he's calling them Nazis, and missing the actual point of the comparison because of all the other unrelated things Nazis did that were far far worse than squandering the academic reputation of their universities. Repeating the same mistaken misreading in our article text is still a mistake.

Or, we could explain all of this in excruciating and accurate detail, and totally overwhelm the article about Abbot with material about a single moment in a 20-year academic career. That's not exactly appropriate either. But it's where the article is headed with the kind of edits you are pushing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit war: MIT's rationale for cancelling Carlson lecture and Prof Abbot's Nazism reference

There is currently an EDITWAR going on regarding the inclusion in this article of two topics.

The first topic is MIT's rationale for cancelling Prof Abbot's Carlson Lecture. The question is whether to add the following text:

MIT justified the cancellation by explaining that the John Carlson Lecture is "not a standard scientific talk" but rather a special lecture to highlight a "role model" who can "inspire young people to consider careers in STEM", and they worried that the debate over Abbot's "manner of presenting" his views on diversity was "overshadowing the purpose and spirit of the Carlson Lecture", so they replaced Prof Abbot's Carlson Lecture with an invitation to give a departmental seminar "directly to MIT faculty and students".

The second topic is whether to mention Prof Abbot's Nazism reference. As mentioned in Inside Higher Ed., in his Newsweek Op/Ed Prof Abbot "did liken academic wokeism to Nazism, saying, 'Ninety years ago Germany had the best universities in the world. Then an ideological regime obsessed with race came to power and drove many of the best scholars out, gutting the faculties and leading to sustained decay that German universities never fully recovered from.'" The question is whether to add to this wikipedia article's discussion of the Newsweek Op/Ed that the author "likened academic wokeism to Nazism".

I have twice tried to insert mention of these points, editing the article like this. Both times David Eppstein has reverted my edits. He gives justification in the page history, and I don't doubt that he's editing in good faith, but in my assessment he is violating the Neutral point of view guidelines with these reverts.

Input from a third party would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student92093 (talk • contribs)

The phrase "likened academic wokeism to Nazism" is not very informative. A year from now, when everyone has moved on to new culture-war bogeymen, would any reader be able to parse it? XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point. To this end, "likened current academic diversity efforts to Nazism" would probably be far more informative. Student92093 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Coming here from the BLP noticeboard, I agree that the content does not seem appropriate to be included. If the MIT letter is relevant to include, then it should be based on how independent sources describe the letter, rather than selectively choosing quotes from the primary source. The comparison to Nazism does not seem appropriate if only sourced to a single article. If it is relevant, then I think having additional articles that discuss it makes that type of contentious content easier to summarize. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate the measured and thoughtful comment from the visitor from the BLP noticeboard. I'd like to respond, though. Abbot's comparison to Nazism in his Newsweek Op/Ed has actually gotten quite a bit of media attention, even though only one article had been mentioned. Inside Higher Ed wrote that Abbot "compared academe’s diversity 'regime' to Nazism" and "he did liken academic wokeism to Nazism" and that "the general comparison of the DEI mind-set to the Nazi mind-set is what upset some at MIT most of all", Newsweek wrote that some academics criticized Abbot for "saying Nazi Germany also 'drove scholars out'" in the Op/Ed, and The New York Times wrote that "even supporters of Dr. Abbot's free speech rights saw the comparison to Nazi Germany as overdrawn". My worry is that to mention the controversy following the Op/Ed without including any mention of what was to many the most contentious part of the Op/Ed, the Wikipedia article would appear to be biased or incomplete. I will do a new edit to the article now that more explicitly includes how these three references covered the Nazi comparison. Student92093 (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think if the Wikipedia article mentions that MIT cancelled his lecture, it seems relevant to mention why MIT said they did this, especially since many of the news articles about this controversy included MIT's stated rationale for the cancellation. I will try to enter a new edit now that is based on how independent sources describe MIT's rationale. Thanks wallyfromdilbert for these suggestions. Student92093 (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The current phrasing doesn't seem to be neutral or appropriate for BLP. "He likened academic diversity initiatives to Nazism" is singling out the most inflammatory interpretation of the most inflammatory part of their op-ed, and also seems to be a mischaracterization. Facts that seem to be more relevant to Abbot's biography than details of MIT's rationale, like that he gave a talk at Princeton instead to a large audience, or that he received a Hero of Intellectual Freedom Award from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni aren't mentioned at all. That MIT was harshly criticized for its decision isn't mentioned either. Let's take a look at the sources.

On Abbot and Marinovic's op-ed: They advocated a regime based on “Merit, Fairness, and Equality (MFE) whereby university applicants are treated as individuals and evaluated through a rigorous and unbiased process based on their merit and qualifications alone”. They argued that scrapping legacy (family) and athletic admission advantages - which favour white men - would do more for diversity than enforced inclusion. (The Sydney Morning Herald, [1]) Newsweek published a column (...) that called for revamping affirmative action and equity programs. They also supported doing away with legacy admissions — which gives preferred admission to the children of alumni — and athletic scholarships. Both programs disproportionately benefit white well-to-do students. In the last three sentences of that column, the professors drew an analogy between today’s climate on campus and Germany of the 1930s and warned of what happened when an ideological regime obsessed with race came to power and what it did to free thought. (NYT, [2])

On talk at Princeton: Robert P. George, director of Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, invited him to give the speech there on Thursday, the same day as the canceled lecture. (NYT) Over 8000 people signed up for the virtual event, a huge turnout that Abbot acknowledges was driven largely by anger at his MIT cancellation rather than demand to hear about the potential for life on other planets. (SMH, [3]).

The American Council for Trustees and Alumni recognized Abbot as a 2021 Hero of Intellectual Freedom (Newsweek, [4])

On criticism of MIT: MIT’s decision is not just another in a long series of campus controversies, then. It sets a precedent that will, unless it is forcefully resisted, pose a serious threat to the maintenance of a free society. (Atlantic, [5]) In a letter to MIT, the Academic Freedom Alliance, a group formed earlier this year to promote free expression on college campuses, said the episode represented an “egregious violation of the principles of academic freedom and an abnegation of MIT’s own stated commitment to freedom of thought”. (Sydney Morning Herald, [6])

I agree that we don't want this controversy take up the whole space. But we need to make the phrasing more balanced. Eliokim (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the points raised by Eliokim. I certainly agree that it's important to mention the talk at Princeton, the harsh criticism MIT received, and the Hero award. I'll add these points to the article now. I do think it's important to mention the Nazi reference, because it played a central role in igniting the whole controversy (it was "the most inflammatory part of their op-ed" as mentioned above), but that it's important to mention it in a neutral way. In terms of how much space this controversy takes up, Prof Abbot is clearly a major scientist in his field and presumably would meet notability standards based on that alone, but his involvement with this controversy is considerably more notable. This controversy is the only reason people outside his scientific field know his name - the only reason he was on Tucker Carlson's widely watched talk show, etc. This controversy has gotten so much attention in the news media. Surely it's ok that it takes up a bit of space in this article. Student92093 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you for adding this! I edited the part about Abbot and Marinovic's oped to make it more neutral and closer to how reliable secondary sources describe it (SMH and NYT). Do you think the part about Abbot appearing on Fox News and CNN is sufficiently important to be included? Eliokim (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Eliokim! I think your edit really improved this article: It's an important point that the Nazi comparison (which was arguably one of the things at the heart of the controversy blowing up) was not actually to the holocaust but rather to the "purging of academics," as you put it in the edit. I just revised to clarify that he made a "comparison" to this, rather than the more vague language that he made a "reference" this. And it's nice to mention the Smerconish CNN show next to the Tucker Carlson Fox show. I don't know if the guest appearances on those shows needs to be included, but it struck me as noteworthy because it's extraordinarily rare for a non-political science professor like Abbot to be on Tucker Carlson, which is one of the most watched talk shows in the country. Student92093 (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)