Talk:Neri Oxman

Lead edit war - Mentioning plagarism

There seems to be a edit war in the lead over the plagarism allegations. I'm not involved in it, and I'd encourage others not to be either. The debate seems to be over mentioning the plagarism stuff in the lead. If you have feelings on this topic, you should discuss here on the talk page. My personal feeling is that I oppose mentioning the plagarism in the lead, b/c that would seem like WP:RECENTISM to me. That coverage belongs in the body. Not the lead. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

agree, and oppose as well. This is all way too recent, and is in no way so definitive of the subject of this article that it warrants inclusion in the lead, see WP:WEIGHT. TucanHolmes (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s a significant controversy. Seems worth including as it is in Claudine Gay’s lead. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

More comments on this in the Talk:Neri_Oxman#Plagiarism_controversy thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but WP:LEAD WP:MOS/LEAD suggests for the inclusion of ‘significant controversies’. Based on the media coverage, this surely is. It seems strange to include it in Claudine Gay’s lead, but not Neri Oxman’s. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I undid Matza Pizza’s removal because their reasoning is faulty. Wikivoice doesn’t claimed it’s ‘proven’, it says she is ‘accused/alleged’. Wikipedia includes mentions of allegations against Donald Trump in the lead too. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Allows for, but content doesn't get extra lead-points for being called a controversy. There is some differences in the details, afaik there's no Congressional committee or resignation here yet, and WP:OTHERCONTENT applies (that essay is an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes but WP:RECENTISM is also an essay and users here are citing it to justify the removal. Did Claudine gay go before a congressional committee for plagiarism? No, it was accusations of anti-semitism on campus. So you’re blurring lines to make a rather questionable argument. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean on Gay having 2 controversies in that lead, they do seem a bit bundled up though: "In response to the allegations, the Congressional committee that held the hearing on antisemitism said it would examine Gay's work". But I stand corrected, she did not go before a congressional committee for plagiarism. Yet, anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a considerable amount of information in high quality publications about this event that is currently not in the article. If the section on the subject were further fleshed out, mention in the lead would be justified per WP:LEAD. Thriley (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a possibility, but WP:PROPORTION still applies below the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In response to Oxman’s alleged plagiarism, her husband, an influential billionaire, has said he is funding a plagiarism review of the entire MIT faculty’s work. Some mention of this event certainly seems like the kind of thing that would be mentioned in the lead assuming the details were fleshed out in the body. Thriley (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the comments on BLPN seem to suggest that further expansion and mention in the lead is fine. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed w/ NickCT. Lead inclusion is questionable in Gay's case, but it was linked to her stepping down, a tenure change that does usually get mentioned in a lead. No similar significance here, making it clearly unsuited for the lead. Recent edits by Zenomonoz seem like clear BLP violations. Comments by or about Ackman seem likewise out of place unless directly related to Oxman's career. – SJ + 00:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sj - why did you remove the Epstein donation? That’s explicitly referring to Neri and the content was already on the article? Huh? Zenomonoz (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean it’s discussed in a WP:RS and the quotes were taken from an MIT report. Why delete it? Not sure how that qualifies as a BLP violation. As for location, ‘Works’ is obviously not the correct location for it. It’s a part of ‘career’, and her communication with her students about the donation et al. is in an RS and thus worthy of inclusion. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You added two undue section headings, I restored the previous state and previous mention of it (referenced above in the relevant section). It was a donation to the group, in the section about the group. – SJ + 18:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

We can’t lump together the coverage on the alleged plagiarism with the Epstein association. The two subjects must be debated separately as they have nothing to do with each other. Thriley (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah okay — but SJ+ did remove them at the same time and then said I’m engaging in BLP vios so wanted an explanation on that. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: - There's a pretty obvious difference between Gay and Oxman in relation to this controversy. Gay is primarily notable as having been president of Harvard. Therefore, the reason for her resignation from that position is pretty key to her notability. Oxman is notable for a whole bunch of stuff that is in no way related this controversy. She played, at best, a peripheral role in the controversy. That's why the controversy is WP:DUE in Gay's lead, but not WP:DUE in Oxman's. NickCT (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It is way too soon to say if it is due or not. This all started a week ago. Thriley (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty strange given Oxman plagiarised in several peer reviewed papers, and has been on the cover of magazines for her art and academic career. Harvard also *cleared* Claudine on charges of plagiarism and her resignation was unrelated to it. But sure. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Having sections devoted to criticism is generally not appropriate for BLPs. – SJ + 14:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a criticism section as I understand it. They are just reflecting what has been reported in mainstream reliable sources. We must address the Epstein link and the plagiarism allegations separately. A separate post on the BLP noticeboard is warranted for the Epstein link. Thriley (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I don't really think Gay plagarized and I agree with Harvard "clearing" her. That said, if you think her resignation was "unrelated" to the plagarism stuff, I think you've lost the plot. There was clearly pressure campaign to have Gay removed, and the plagarism charges were obviously part of that campaign. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a section focused on a recent controversy, in the news but w/o other significant impact, which does not preserve neutrality. If it is "way too soon to say" if something is due, it shouldn't have a section in a BLP; or blow-by-blow coverage of allegations and counter-allegations. Aside from undue weight in article structure, a section invites trivia and filler, such as multiple direct quotes, second-order controversy about significance, third-order controversy about reporters reviewing their editorial processes, &c. – SJ + 18:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced based on my experience often reading controversial BLPs being discussed on noticeboards. This has been covered in multiple reliable sources. It seems really subjective to say it 'lacks impact'. We often cover far less consequential controversies on BLPs. I say that it has been covered in multiple high profile outlets and thus is absolutely due. Subjective assessment isn't a great method here. Plagiarism is a major controversy (just like retraction) in any academics career. Also, it seems due to include responses from the publisher and the accusations from Ackman given he has essentially been 'leading the ship' with Oxman's response. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the plot is getting a bit long:Toxic Wife Guy, Slate. And for the interested, A Wikipedian explains Wikipedia to Bill Ackman, video by Molly White. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Whatever impressive honors she has won, at this point I would say Oxman is best known as a plagiarist. If that’s what she is most famous for, it is what it is. Jsmathematics (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. However Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and there is WP:NORUSH. If the story persists over time, there will be a stronger case to be made for inclusion in the lead. I will say: thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for those links. "Toxic Wife Guy" was a humorous (if also distressing) read. Generalrelative (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I just removed this from the WP:LEAD again:[1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not an experienced editor but I've been following this story closely and I'm surprised at this given that it got to the point of being reported in the Financial Times of all places when Axel Springer announced their internal review validated the journalism done by BI. I don't want to take a whack at it myself but could someone incorporate this source?

cc: @Zenomonoz

https://www.ft.com/content/9bc0cfac-d59d-414f-aaf8-743f6d7b7c7a Arsonatdennys (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is this even a good article?

I have no concerns about the article's coverage of plagiarism or Epstein. I *do* have concerns about redundant content and too much jargon / woo verbiage. It makes it difficult to figure out what she is notable for. She used a 3D printer to make "optically transparent glass", but there's no explanation as to why this is significant, or even what optically transparent glass means. Is all glass that you can see through considered optically transparent? She also makes "wearables". Is that like digital clothing, i.e. it lights up like a mood ring? I've read about that sort of thing, but I'm not sure if that's what the article is referring to.

I'm itching to carve out big sections that repeat the same sentence (every time with wikilinks which is not WP:MOS compliant) and do some WP:BOLD editing. I'm a bit hesitant; I read through the talk page quickly and it seems to suggest (implicitly) the need to tread lightly. If I do nothing else, I am going to remove her from the Judaism wikiproject. Every Jewish person for whom there is a BLP doesn't need to be included, nor does every Israeli Jewish person. I realize she's Bill Ackman's wife, but this BLP is uh um well...uncomfortably faunning. FeralOink (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Many (most?) of the article sources are to the subject herself, including her own blog posts. Needs better referencing.--FeralOink (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, be bold. I also think the article doesn't really get across what she actually does, it's just a collection of words about projects. (Before anyone misinterprets what I write, I do not think she isn't notable or that her work is meaningless. I think the article does a poor job at explaining her work.)

The article is overly long, focused at times on just listing a string of projects, each of which probably wouldn't be notable on its own. That's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize content.

From skimming the article, I gather that there are a number of unifying threads running through her work and the work of her lab/firm. Maybe the article should focus on explaining these, and not so much the individual projects. Could probably be trimmed down by about one third of its current size. After that, a Good Article reassessment would also be appropriate. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, be bold, FeralOink. Indulge your itching fingers. Note that the article became a Good Article in March 2017. That's some time ago (even though on a quick read of the March 2017 version, I think that suffers from pretty much the same flaws that you mention). Anyway, it does say, in amongst the top matter on this page, that "If it no longer meets these criteria [the Good Article criteria], you can reassess it." Perhaps you may want to do that, as TucanHolmes suggests? Bishonen | tålk 14:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC).

I had the same thoughts about some of the issues you mention @FeralOink, specifically the jargon, puffery and opaque tone of some of the wording. I considered doing a major trimming myself, but please do be bold. Agree with both @TucanHolmes and @Bishonen's comments about the need for summarization, and for a GA reassessment. Netherzone (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you so much, Bishonen and TucanHolmes and Netherzone !!! I feel reassured and validated now. I have lots of experience with BLPs that need trimming so as to avoid a non-encyclopedic tone. By the way, this is an early example of a wearable via my tumblr blog from 12 years ago. I wasn't trying to be deprecatory of the BLP's achievements. I presume this is the sort of thing she does, but with more finesse. Note how when the girl touches him, the vest changes color, like a mood ring. I wasn't being snarky above! I'll get to work on more trimming soon, and if energetic, try to figure out how to express what she does in terms that don't read like art gallery kruft.--FeralOink (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A great deal of the content of the article comes from SM at OXMAN, a paid COI editor. Thriley (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)