Talk:Thomas Pogge

Terrible NPOV

This article reads like an advertisement for Pogge's books. It needs to be shortened and made neutral with more citations. It makes him seem more notable than he actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.24.47 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations

The sexual misconduct accusations now have a reasonably credible source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yale-professor-sexual-harassment_us_573df25be4b0646cbeec673fHow about now? https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/yale-ethics-professor — Preceding unsigned comment added by MennoMan (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I argue for including the allegations presented in the Buzzfeed article (including a PDF of the document that Yale paid Lopez Aguilar 2000 $, so she'd stop talking). I find the argument that the wikipedia is not the National Inquirer to be inaccurate regarding the issue at hand. Several people have spoken out on mainstream media about Pogge's alleged misconduct, among them Christa Mercer, Martha Nussbaum and Fernanda Lopez Aguilar. Also, there are emails from Pogge publicly available that strengthen those allegations This, I find, a strong enough case to include into Pogge's article. 141.2.134.77 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, removing the buzzfield article is little more than vandalism by Davidcpearce.71.174.138.144 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It was not vandalism, a sentence like that should have been supported by a high quality article or two.WP:PUBLICFIGURE He should have cited a better reason though. The Buzzfeed article should probably be looked at in the Reliable Source Noticeboard WP:RSN When dealing with a BLP it is better to air on the side of caution and seek consensus. If anybody chooses to post there then they should link to that discussion from this talk page Jadeslair (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I put the reliability of buzzed article up to discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Thomas_Pogge141.2.134.77 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yale Daily News also has an article. http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/05/21/philosophy-professor-accused-of-sexual-harassment/ They have looked at affidavits, and so forth. A cautious approach might (at a minimum) describe what Yale has decided so far, as reported by both Buzzfeed and Yale Daily News. Fanyavizuri (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone's questioned here whether Buzzfeed is a reliable source. I think it is, in this context. They publish a lot of silly clickbait stuff, but also some serious journalism, and this piece falls into the latter category. I think it's enough to at least serve as evidence of the existence of these allegations; of course we have to be neutral on the subject, but it doesn't seem to violate BLP to mention them, as the article does at the moment. Robofish (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly this is time to take the reporting more slowly and carefully, and request semi protection? Fanyavizuri (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Buzzfeed editorial columns are not reliable for "claims of fact." Any "news article" which has "Can someone fight tirelessly to balance the inequities of global power while at the same time abusing his own power? And can a discipline built on the quest to describe a just society — and suffering from a major diversity problem — afford to ignore these issues? " has become an editorial column, and thus not usable for claims of fact on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• There is another independently researched article on the allegations out now. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yale-professor-sexual-harassment_us_573df25be4b0646cbeec673f?ycgjz09x6ybhwd0a4i In this article, the reporter does not issue his opinion, nor does he ask suggestive questions. Also, the article features Pogge's view on the allegations. Given the fact-based and balanced presentation of the issue in this source, the allegations need now to be integrated into Pogge's wikipedia entry. 5.146.100.86 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia entries of countless educators and academics from classical antiquity to the present could be spiced up with salacious material or varying degrees of (un)reliability. Would the Wikipedia entry on Socrates, for example, be improved by adding a section "Controversies: allegations of grooming teenage boys"? Rather than turning Wikipedia into a downmarket scandal-sheet, a Comments/Criticisms/Controversies section might do better to focus on the work for which Prof. Pogge is notable. --Davidcpearce (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I find your argument invalid. You claim that there is a certain normalcy to Pogge's behavior, since many academics have behaved this way in past, which makes such information irrelevant. I agree with you that Pogge's action is embedded in a certain academic culture, where such behavior has been tolerated and in a sense normalized. However, I don't think the Wikipedia should continue such normalization, given the circumstances. There are many initiatives in the academic community to change this culture of looking the other way. I think the Wikipedia should reflect the social facts, and among these, the fact that the title IX complaint has been filed by three individuals against Pogge. To my knowledge, Pogge's case differs from other cases, because his accusers took legal action with an outstanding support of other philosophers. And those formalized accusations are what makes this controversy wikipedia worthy. It's not about who dated whom, it's about his allegedly lacking of professionalism. On a different note, I wouldn't mind the addition to Socrates' entry that you consider unnecessary. The article on Socrates in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, is way more critical of Socrates than the wikipedia is. I would like to add, though, that there is no young teenage boy alive considering to attend Socrates' classes. Pogge, on the other hand, is still working. I think we are doing all philosophers and the academic community a favor if we, next to valuing them for their thinking, treat them as human beings capable of mistakes, remorse and forgiveness. 5.146.100.86 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreeing with much of what 5.146.100.86 has written: the title IX action takes this up a notch. I think a few days of waiting for some of the dust to settle is reasonable; bigger journalistic outlets may take this up in a careful way in coming days. Life may be difficult for everyone involved in this event in the time ahead. No criminal conviction has taken place, but a newsworthy and wikipedia-meriting event may indeed have happened. Let's simply be prudent. Fanyavizuri (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm okay with waiting for a couple of days for an official statement of Yale. In the meantime, other journalists spoke with Buzzfeed's sources and confirm the existence of the allegations. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/05/23/yale-philosopher-named-harassment-complaint5.146.100.86 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
        • A couple of additional posts and a follow-up have appeared, no major outlet though:

http://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2016/05/initial-reflections-on-pogge.html http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/05/another-creepy-thomas-pogge-incident.html https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/yale-professor-responds-to-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Just want to add my voice to those who think this deserves some mention in the article.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note about policy: this discussion is covered by our WP:BLP policy, and specifically by WP:BLPTALK, which says:

When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?

By all means discuss sources and whether there is a sufficient number of high-quality sources to add material to the article. But please don't discuss your view of the issues. All discussion should be geared toward making decisions about article content. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article because the material was restored again. Whatever is added has to be based on reliable secondary sources, such as high-quality newspapers. It can't include blogs and similar. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This link now provides discussion of the same articles and content that have appeared previously: http://www.refinery29.com/2016/06/112571/thomas-pogge-yale-sexual-harassment Fanyavizuri (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Over 160 academics have signed an open letter regarding the allegations of sexual harassment and professional misconduct of Thomas Pogge, Leitner Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Political Science at Yale University, including at least 16 of his colleagues at Yale. http://dailynous.com/2016/06/20/open-letter-regarding-thomas-pogge/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/open-letter-pogge%7C62.143.111.208]] (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made an edit to the article. Fanyavizuri (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

But I see that my edit was reverted. I thought the Chronicle of Higher Education was reputable. Did others disagree? Fanyavizuri (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's reputable. Your edit was excellent; these people are being willfully obtuse. Carry on.Eminent Jurist (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia adopt a Buzzfeed-driven agenda? Yes, adding a titillating section "Controversies: Sex Life" to a string of well-known academics would boost traffic and popular interest. If a notable figure is convicted - or exonerated - of a criminal offence (cf. Trial by Buzzfeed) this fact should be included in their WP entry. But as parts of this Talk page illustrate, sex stirs stronger passions than global health and poverty. Wikipedia can (and does) do better. --Davidcpearce (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is specious. Because sex stirs more passions, therefore Wikipedia cannot mention the controversy? If there is something that Wikipedia can do better about it's ensuring that articles about persons are not dominated by the persons friends and/or admirers. The fact that a considerable number of academics have published an open letter regarding the subject is newsworthy and an important event in the subject's life, no matter whether the charges are true or not. It's absurd that Wikipedia is allowing the unreasonable to stonewall on this. Nancymc (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the article for three days because of the reverting. The way to proceed is to write up the edit here on talk, with the sources, and try to gain consensus for it. Note that the article must adhere to WP:BLPSOURCES. That means using secondary sources for the most part; primary sources can be used only to augment the secondary coverage. No self-published sources, no personal websites or personal blogs; newspaper columns that are called "blogs" are regarded as reliable so long as the newspaper is. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Outrageous. You have litearlly none, ZERO idea of what you are takking about here and obviously have not read any of the sources, given your ridiculous mischararcterization. Your conduct and abuse of power is a scandal in and of itself, with your repeated sneer about "blogs" as if this is mere gossip. 200 members of his profession signed it, he wrote a 36 page response, it is in the Chronicle of education, the primary and most reliable source for professional news of this sort. Can you possibly be serious to call the Chronicle a 'blog" of no importance or are you this intellectually corrupt? Is Pogge's own 36 reply not notable? Affidavits from tenured faculty? A signed statement of 200 faculty , a substantial proportion of the entire field, including all of Yale's philosophy faculty? Disgraceful.Eminent Jurist (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Eminent Jurist, I have read the sources. It's a question of choosing the best sources, writing the text carefully, and gaining consensus. The first step is to produce a draft, then propose it here on talk. If you fail to gain consensus here, there are noticeboards where you can ask for help, and other processes you can use, such as a request for comment that will draw in uninvolved editors. But first try to gain consensus here. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Plainly you have not; let's not bullshit each other. Pogge himself has written a 36 page response, there is an affidavit, and a signed letter written by 200 philosophers. Thereis no way you would have written something so manifestly ignorant had you read even one of those items before giving us your considered opinions on the Pogge misconduct controversy, which you decree from on high is unfit to be in an encylopedia despite your total ignoramce of any details of the case, against 3 editors today who tried to include it. Readers will see Pogge's response, will see the letter, and will see the affidivit and want to see more, and they will learn Queen Sarah decided in her infinite wisdom that thr controversy was not encyclopedic enough for mentiom for zero, absolutely zero reason- without even the courtesy to pretend to have a reason, your position is so manifestly unsupportable.

Please, how is it, tell me again, that a controversy which Pogge saw fit to devote 36 pages to, and which 200 members of his profession saw fit to sign a letter to condemn him for, is unworthy of even a 2 sentence paragraph in the blandest most neutral phrasing possible, or even inclusion of the primary sources which I took the time to add for our readers' interests? Are readers somehow better off with access to less sources and no link to the philosopher's letter, or Pogge's response? Just outrageous. Abuse of power is universal, apparently. Eminent Jurist (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on consensus. When people object to an edit, we're expected to make our case on the talk page before taking things further. If you can't gain consensus here, I will show you how to access the other processes.

Self-published sources are not allowed in biographies of living persons, unless written by the subject without mentioning third parties; see WP:BLPSPS. The section will have to be based on reliably published secondary sources (such as a newspaper report), perhaps with some reliably published primary sources augmenting it. So propose your edit, and if you gain consensus and if it complies with the biographies of living persons policy, you can add it to the article when protection expires. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

'Wikipedia is based on consensus" if so, the restore the material. I count a consensusof 6 editors plus 2 IP editors against you and Pearce who think it "isn't relevant", absurdly and ignorantly. And 1) you shouldn't be voting because you're the administrator 2) neither should David Pearce be voting here. Ergo, it's 8-0. We have the consensus. I was merely restoring the edits of others, and dding sour es to them, when you placed your thumbs on the scales of consensus.Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

I hope you enjoy your law degree in Wikipedia lawyering. your position is absolutely indefensible and insupportable by reasons, evidence, or logic. You should truly be ashamed of the level of intellectual dishonesty and misdirection in your statements. You and I both know that I presented credible reliable secondary sources in addition to primary sources (released from Pogge himself in one case, and from the columbia professor giving the affidivait in another, and from the signatories in the third.) In addition, secondary sources were copiously provided to you numerous times, though you couldnt be bothered to read them, but you outrageously mischarteri e them as "only blogs" and "primary sources"--proving you have not read a single source I sent you but see fit to pronounce on a case which you couldn't be troubled to learn anything about. Why don't you go read tne sources before sharing further comments on a case you haven't familiarized yourself with whatsoever?Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an outrageous abuse of your administrative powers

There are scores of sources documenting this and the paragraph was added by 3 different individuals against 1 bad faith editor who provided no reason and broke 3rr. Outrageous and shameful behavior. A sad day for Wikipedia. Did you even bother to look at the sources before taking your absurdly obtuse and unaccountble action? Just truly an outrage. If the following isn't enough for you to restore the mild paragraph imdicating a controversy, you are fundamentally intellectually corrupt. Is Pogge's own 36 page response not worthy of note? I've given you scads of primary sources. What have you done? Nothing but hollow, risible argumentsEminent Jurist (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC).

http://dailynous.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pogge-response-to-the-allegations-by-fernanda-lopez-aguilar-1sve570.pdf
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2866712-Mercer-Affidavit-about-Pogge-Redacted.
https://sites.google.com/site/thomaspoggeopenletter/
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/06/20/philosophy-community-signs-open-letter-in-striking-rebuke-of-pogge/
http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/fellow-philosophers-criticize-yale-scholar-for-alleged-sexual-harassment/112312
http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/campaign-raises-money-to-aid-lawsuit-accusing-yale-philosopher-of-sexual-assault/77555
http://dailynous.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pogge-response-to-the-allegations-by-fernanda-lopez-aguilar-1sve570.pdf
http://dailynous.com/2016/05/21/thomas-pogge-responds-to-accusations/
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/05/21/philosophy-professor-accused-of-sexual-harassment//
https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/open-letter-pogge
http://jezebel.com/hundreds-of-professors-condemn-yales-thomas-pogge-after-1782309495
http://dailynous.com/2016/06/20/open-letter-regarding-thomas-pogge/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thomas-pogge-open-letter-sexual-harassment_us_576710a7e4b015db1bc9b49a
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/06/160-faculty-including-almost-all-yale-philosophy-faculty-sign-open-letter-of-protest-about-thomas-po.html

Those are all news reports, and in history (which a biography is, by definition) news reports are primary sources. Biographies must depend on what the secondary sources say, if for no other reason than determining what's significant in the long run. Proven charges of sexual harassment may be long-run significant, and a long trial concluding in exoneration just might be significant, but we have no business deciding that mere accusations are going to be significant in the long run. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As a point of clarification: Not everything in a newspaper is a primary source. Newspapers do sometimes run articles that contain significant evaluation or critical thinking, rather than reporting facts. Reporting facts is the mainstay of news sources, but an analytical piece is still secondary even when it happens to be published in the news media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Current newspapers are secondary sources about current events while old newspapers become primary sources about historical events. To provide an example, if one were writing an encyclopedia article about the Second World War, one would use modern scholarship, since they have had decades to determine what happened. Contemporaneous newspapers would be full of details that have since been found to be inaccurate, and would have missed much that was not known at the time. Their real value would be for researchers to determine how the war was reported. But if one were writing an article about the Brexit referendum today, one would rely on news coverage. TFD (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversy text proposals

Though I may agree with some editors' views and disagree with others, I call on fellow editors for a calmer tone in this discussion.

I propose this. Thoughts?

After allegations of sexual harassment at both Columbia and Yale were made public, 200 philosophers signed an open letter criticizing Pogge's actions towards women.

Fanyavizuri (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree; it is truly an outrage that credible sources were repeatedly removed for absolutely no reasons. I hope the editors involved are ashamed of their own misconduct.Eminent Jurist (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks, Fanyavizuri. That is the least that's necessary. It's pretty bizarre to look up Pogge on wikipedia after hearing about the allegations and finding no reference to them whatsoever in the article. How about:

In October 2015, one of Pogge's former students, Fernanda Lopez Aguilar, submitted a complaint against Pogge at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. These allegations were made public in an an article on Buzzfeed in May 2016. (Buzzfeed) Pogge swiftly denied the accusation.(NHRegister) In June, 200 philosophers signed an open letter criticizing Pogge's actions towards women.(Chronicle)

Thoughts? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Themightyquill, I see no value in including the name of the alleged victim. WP:Don't be evil applies here: including her name could make this article appear high in the list of web searches about her for years to come. Think about that for a moment: every time she applies for a job, the employer will be thinking "Oh, she's a victim of sexual harassment". Or maybe even, "Oh, here's someone who is risky to hire. She might accuse one of our employees the same way. Hmm, and it looks like they decided her evidence was thin. I don't know if I want to hire someone like her."

Namechecking Buzzfeed (=a primary source for the existence of the allegations) and these other publications is irrelevant. An encyclopedia doesn't do play-by-play descriptions of who said what on which dates in which publications. An encyclopedic summary is quite simple: He was accused of X, and the university found Y.

I also recommend WP:PRIMARYNEWS to all of you. While some of those publications are reputable, and while they are independent, breaking news (e.g., the Chronicle piece) is a primary source. (Also, WP:Secondary does not mean independent.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to become involved in the editing here, but it isn't correct that the newspaper reports are primary sources because they are recent. That's a mistake of that essay, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and I'm sorry to see it cause confusion here. The policy is at WP:PRIMARY.

Wikipedians routinely regard newspapers as secondary sources for the purpose of establishing notability, namely deciding whether an article should be deleted or retained, and whether material should be added or removed.

Historians treat older, contemporaneous newspaper reports as primary sources, because those sources are close to the event relative to the historians, and they tell the historians a lot about how events were viewed at the time. But that is not the situation for us regarding this contemporary event. The idea of what is primary and secondary changes with time. The story in the Chronicle of Higher Education is, at this point in time, a secondary source because (we assume) the author is uninvolved in the event. That story is reporting the existence of a primary source, namely the letter signed by the philosophers, who are involved. The Buzzfeed story is also a secondary source (again, assuming that the author is uninvolved in the event), although I don't know whether it's a high-enough quality source for these allegations.

If editors here want to find uninvolved editors to help, a good place to ask is at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that we've had this discussion before. It is unlikely that any historian will treat a news story that says "breaking news" at the top as anything other than an (independent) primary source. WP:Secondary does not mean independent. Secondary means "presence of critical or analytical thinking", not "absence of personal involvement or personal COI". There's a list of reliable sources on this point right in that essay, and they say things like "Examples of primary information: A current news report that is reporting the facts (not analysis or evaluation) of an event."". That sounds exactly like this seven-sentence "article", which says:

• Some people signed an open letter to criticize Pogge.
• Pogge was accused of sexual harassment.
• Brief quotations from the letter (four sentences).
• A boilerplate disclaimer that Pogge's employer didn't provide any comment.

There's no analysis there, and the head on the page actually uses the words "Breaking news" to describe the article. This is exactly the kind of source that's meant when they say that merely "reporting the facts" without any analysis or evaluation is a primary source.

(On "the Buzzfeed article", it depends which one you're talking about. Also, "primary" is not another way to spell "unreliable"; primary sources can be used appropriately.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Personally, I imagine the long, detailed and widely circulated story by Buzzfeed has already made Aguilar's quite public. I also feel that the fact that accusations have been made public is very much noteworthy, and is essential to explain the significant public response. I only thought to include the name Buzzfeed because the New Haven register felt it was important to mention by name. The primary/secondary nature of these sources seems hardly relevant because they are being use to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. But if your primary objections are the use of those two names, then we're okay to include this:

In October 2015, one of Pogge's former students submitted a complaint against Pogge at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. These allegations were made public in the media in May 2016.(Buzzfeed) Pogge swiftly denied the accusation.(NHRegister) In June, 200 philosophers signed an open letter criticizing Pogge's actions towards women.(Chronicle)

Can we agree to include that? - Themightyquill (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that is good text. I agree. edit: Optionally, Themightyquill, you could also cite Yale Daily News as a second source on that last line, alongside the Chronicle of Higher Education: ([1]) Fanyavizuri (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's better not to include her name, but what's the encyclopedic value of the rest of this? Does the number of signatories matter? Does the speed of his denial matter? Does even the existence of the open letter matter (to the biography, not to how people feel about the academic field)?

It might be useful to compare your proposal to what's written in another BLP that includes a famous sexual harassment case. There are far, far better sources available in that case, and yet there is nothing in that biography about how quickly he denied the accusation, how many people published letters on the subject, when the media published the first story, or anything like this. There's even an entire article about that case, and even the full article doesn't have anything about the accusation's first appearance in media or the other trivia that you're proposing here.

An encyclopedic summary states the important facts. The important facts for this BLP are: Several of Pogge's former students have accused him of sexual harassment. Yale's investigation found evidence of "unprofessional" behavior but concluded that there was "insufficient evidence to charge him with sexual harassment". All of that could be sourced to this Buzzfeed article (not the other one), which I'm willing to accept as sufficiently reliable for this purpose.

(BTW, when a newspaper names another media outlet as their source, it usually means "We didn't do much, if any, actual reporting here. We're just telling you what someone else reported". It doesn't mean that the original story is actually important.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well, that's at least a start. SlimVirgin, can we put that in asap, and continue to discuss if anything else needs to be included? Thank you. WhatamIdoing I don't find this article and the Bill Clinton article to be a reasonable comparison. The latter story is nearly two decades old, involved a far more prominent figure, and likely has a number of full-length books written about it at this point. It's unreasonable to expect that number/level of sources about a event that is recent and ongoing, but that doesn't make a recent controversy unimportant to this biography (though, of course, it should be kept in perspective). Moreover, the fact that that scandal has a full length article of its own obviously means there is less need to include details in the biography article. Why would the newspaper publish multiple articles (the one linked above is over 1000 words long) on an story that it doesn't feel is important? Your argument doesn't make sense to me. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The first business of a newspaper is to stay in business. They publish things that bring in revenue, not things that are important to society. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you want a source that sounds "fancier" Buzzfeed, then the first proposed sentence could be sourced to the second sentence in this article in the news magazine JSTOR Daily. If you read Portuguese, then this story in a Brazilian daily newspaper might be acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Important to society" is pretty arbitrary, isn't it? If members of society don't find certain news important, it wouldn't provide any revenue, would it? Are you going to argue simultaneously that this story is only being printed because it brings in money not because it's important, but also that it's not being published more widely in other commercial newspapers, because it's not important enough to generate money? Seems like a contradiction to me. Anyway, I'm fine with the Buzzfeed article for the sentences we agreed on for now. I wasn't worried about fanciness, just additional details not covered in the buzzfeed article. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Themightyquill, please open a new section with the {{Edit fully-protected}} template and post your text there, along with the sources as you'd like to see them formatted in the article, and saying where you'd like to see it placed. Then any admin can make the edit for you if there are no objections. Alternatively, I can lift the protection if it's no longer needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: My thought is that we can lift the protection. There seems to be a clear consensus, and I think we can safely block editors who edit war against it now. I'm watching the article too, and I'll be happy to take of care problems if I'm the first to see them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: done, and thanks for helping out. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't let you take all the abuse on your own - I wanted my share of it too ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no shortage of it, so you've come to the right place! SarahSV ^(talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the sentence agreed on for now.

Several of Pogge's former students have accused him of sexual harassment. Yale's investigation found evidence of "unprofessional" behavior but concluded that there was "insufficient evidence to charge him with sexual harassment".(Buzzfeed)

Where should it go? In the lede or in its own section? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, particularly WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPGOSSIP, we should demand very strong sources for allegations of misconduct like this, and be sure that the material "is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Currently we don't have good sourcing. Buzzfeed fails RS generally, and is certainly not acceptable for something potentially incriminating. While being condemned by 200 philosophers sounds significant, that's not a legal process. The allegations have not made it into mainstream papers and don't belong in Wikipedia at this point. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Sammy1339: that the guidelines are important. I have looked at the guidelines. This is not unsourced or poorly sourced at this point (Chronicle, Yale Daily News, among others). This is not conjectural interpretation. This does not rely on self-published sources. This is not circular reporting of Wikipedia. This is not weasel wording attributing to anonymous sources. Is there a specific aspect of the guidelines @Sammy1339: is appealing to in this case? My read of the guidelines is that it is time to include this in the article. Though I disagree with the tone of some and even substance of some earlier comments by @Davidcpearce:, I do agree with @Davidcpearce: that this article should not devote itself to a Buzzfeed agenda. That said, both the current and former chairs of the Yale philosophy department have either signed a public letter or made statements to the press. This now goes beyond any Buzzfeed agenda, I believe. I also disagree with @Sammy1339: that the allegations have not made it into mainstream papers; I think that is exactly what the Chronicle and the Yale Daily News are. I think @Themightyquill: and @WhatamIdoing:, alongside other editors, have also tried to carefully discuss and satisfy the requests of other editors on this topic. I propose the following text.

Option 1:

Former students and employees at Columbia and Yale have accused Pogge of sexual harassment. After these allegations were made public, along with a formal civil rights complaint, more than 100 philosophers signed an open letter criticizing Pogge's actions towards women.(Chronicle of Higher Education) (Yale Daily News)

Fanyavizuri (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Option 2: Fanyavizuri (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Former students and employees at Columbia and Yale have accused Pogge of sexual harassment. Yale's investigation found evidence of "unprofessional" behavior but concluded that there was "insufficient evidence to charge him with sexual harassment." Nonetheless, after these allegations (along with a formal civil rights complaint) were made public, more than 100 philosophers signed an open letter in June, 2016 criticizing Pogge's actions towards women.(Chronicle of Higher Education) (Yale Daily News)

I oppose including anything about the letter, until there's a source that analyzes the letter. A source that says the existence of this letter is important because <fill in the blank> would be perfectly adequate to change my mind. However, so far, what we've got about the letter is:

• breaking news: Please go read Breaking news#Criticism to figure out why you should be hesitant to source any sort of controversial information about any BLP to breaking news. Breaking news is practically shorthand for "poorly researched journalism that could be retracted or contradicted at any time". In this case, the source is essentially breaking news about a self-published press release. The publication is great overall, but the specific source itself is distinctly weak.
• a student newspaper: Last I heard, we don't normally use student newspapers with their amateur journalists and amateur editors to support controversial statements about BLPs. Let's save ourselves a trip to RSN and bring some of the regulars here: User:Blueboar, User:Doug Weller, User:The Four Deuces, User:Dlabtot, User:Collect: What do you think? Is a student newspaper generally a good kind of source for contentious matter about a BLP?

There are some good sources to support the claim that these allegations were made, and that the university's reaction was limited. However, these sources (breaking news and a student newspaper) ain't them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with what WhatamIdoing said, on both the breaking news issue and the quality of sourcing issue. Given that this is a BLP, it is vital that we be cautious. There is an old adage on Wikipedia... our job is to get it right, not to get it "right now". If the sources that discuss something are not high quality (and a student newspaper is not), wait until high quality sources do discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The secondary sources for the story are an in depth analysis in BuzzFeed, an article in a student paper and one in a trade journal for education professionals. To me that does not rise to the level of significance required in neutrality policy: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." If, as the headline in the BuzzFeed article says, he is "world famous," then one would expect substantial on-going coverage in mainstream media. We need to avoid reporting any aspect of the individual beyond what reliable secondary sources do. So I would leave it out. TFD (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's getting more coverage. Cosmopolitan (magazine)[2], Huffington Post[3], the New Haven Register which has Pogge's response[4], even JSTOR[5] which is an eminently respectable source and for me strongly suggests something should be included. I'd also argue that, attributed, the Yale Daily News can be used.[6] I'm dubious about the Chronicle just as I would be about Glen Beck's Fusion website. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been widely covered in multiple unambiguously reliable sources. Therefore I have a hard time understanding how anyone could credibly and in good faith argue that it should not be included. Dlabtot (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this one, since the New York Times seems like it might carry weight in this discussion: NYT Live at nytimes.com Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I think that whether "it" should not be included depends upon exactly what "it" is. I'm in favor of including the allegations, but not necessarily (at this stage) in favor of including the existence of a self-published "open letter" (aka press release).

"NYTLive" is not The New York Times. In particular, this piece, which contains three paragraphs followed by "Read the full story at BuzzFeed", is published by Women in the World, which says it "got its start in 2009 as an offshoot of The Daily Beast, an IAC (company) digital news site created by Tina Brown in 2008". NYTLive is a conference platform; WITW is just one of the participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Those are good points. Do you have proposed text that might include the allegations but demur from the open letter issue? Fanyavizuri (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently all the sources except the open letter seem to simply refer back to Buzzfeed uncritically. We need to wait for professional journalists to report on this. There is probably a reason it hasn't appeared in NYT proper, and for a sensitive issue like this, the best practice is to wait until it appears in a high quality reliable source. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed editorial column was not usable in the past, and remains not usable for any claim of fact in any Wikipedia article. Sources using an opinion column for claims of fact suffer the same defect - a faulty source does not magically get cleansed by being quoted. Collect (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems unreasonable to me that we would have higher standards than the Chronicle of Education or JStor, and stubbornly refuse to even mention that the accusations have been made until it has been independently investigated by the likes of the New York Times. Buzzfeed may not be the best source, but given that Pogge has personally responded to the accusations, I can't see that there's any debate that accusations have been made. I'm fine with further discussion, as proposed by Fanyavizurii, but I hope we can all agree to add the most basic and neutral of of information immediately. Further changes should be discussed, but I again suggest we now add the following text, proposed by WhatamIdoing (with facts not subject to debate)::

Several of Pogge's former students have accused him of sexual harassment. Yale's investigation found evidence of "unprofessional" behavior but concluded that there was "insufficient evidence to charge him with sexual harassment".(Buzzfeed)

Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

So " Gossipsite.com reported in an editorial that Famous Actor had raped and strangled a 13 year old badger, which Actor calls a lie" would be acceptable in a BLP? Really? Collect (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Collect, there are other sources that can support the claim that accusations have been made. Do you think that this piece in particular is an editorial? It's 5,000 words written by a "national reporter" and called a "story" by them (in a note that explains a factual correction made after the initial publication). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It is absolutely an opinion piece, by any standards known to man. Consider:

Ethics and the Eye of the Beholder is not a "statement of fact" for a news item

The allegations against Pogge are an increasingly open secret in the international philosophy community is clearly a statement that these are "allegations." Not "statements of fact."

Can someone fight tirelessly to balance the inequities of global power while at the same time abusing his own power? And can a discipline built on the quest to describe a just society — and suffering from a major diversity problem — afford to ignore these issues? is not a coda to a "news article" but clearly a "statement of opinion."

Do you see why the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive240#Thomas_Pogge was so clear? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_93#BuzzFeed is also clear. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#May_Buzzfeed_sometimes_be_an_RS.3F_.28Article_about_Chris_Epps.29 is also clear. Sorry folks, Buzzfeed fails. Fortune magazine says: Results from a Pew Center survey show just 4% of millennials trust the site to give them news about politics, which is something it very much wants to do. Collect (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone proposed actually saying that Pogge is guilty? I believe that the proposal is to write that he's been accused. I believe the exact words under consideration are "former students have accused him". Generally, a reliable source (which, of course, this might or might not be) that talks about "The allegations against Pogge" ought to be reasonably reliable for a statement that accusations have been made. Don't you think so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Allegations and accusations which are poorly sourced are the bane of any BLP. If strong reliable sources provide a named accuser and evidence of prosecution of a crime, or a trial, or something a bit more concrete than "accusation", then we can revisit the issue. I recall one person wanted to make sure a person (in another article) was said to have been masturbating in public in a BLP - and the best sources did not back up such a claim. Best to be conservative where harm can befall a person where the source is not bullet-proof. Collect (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Collect, I don't think my question was clear. Hypothetically, given a gold-plated reliable source, and given that said bullet-proof source uses the exact words "The allegations against Pogge" – and goes on about the content of said allegations and the accusers and the circumstances for just as many screenfuls as you like – do you think that, in that hypothetical case, that such a source would be reliable for a statement that accusations have been made? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:BLP still is in force. Allegations of crimes require strong sourcing. Period. So far there is insufficiently strong sourcing to warrant the claims to be asserted here. Collect (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the existence of BLP is the least bit unfortunate.  ;-)

I'm taking your comment as evidence that your objections are limited to the question of whether the sources are strong enough.

Also, I might be wrong, but sexual harassment seems to be a civil issue, not a criminal one (although, of course, some actions could be both sexual harassment and a crime). Therefore, strictly speaking, a special statement about crimes might not be applicable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Themightyquill, I'm perfectly willing to have higher standards than any piece labeled "Breaking News", even if it's on the front page of The Times itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Need I remind you that it's your proposed text that is under discussion here? - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I support including the text; I do not support citing the "breaking news" piece as support for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This is just astonishing. I had no idea Thomas Pogge had so many good friends with nothing better to do than troll his Wikipedia page to ensure that nothing negative is placed upon there!

Friends, I offer the following compromise: let us not even mention the allegations. We shall simply mention the letter of condemnation by 200 of Pogge's colleagues. SURELY, no reasonable person can say that it is not-notable or a BLP violation to point out that 200 philosophers signed a letter of condemnation of Pogge? Will a member of the lunatic fringe who opposes any mention of the allegations (mind you, no one has even thought to propose noting in the article that Pogge is guilty of anything, merely that there have been notable allegations of improper conduct towards students) explain how there can be an objection to mention of the philosopher's letter?63.143.198.219 (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

We have particularly weak sources for the self-published letter. Every source agrees that it exists, but no source seems to be interested in writing a paragraph or two to explain why (or even "if") it matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:RS are official Wikipedia policies. It is not a "lunatic fringe" position to follow the policies here, and I find your posts here to be remarkably insensitive to the reasons why the policies exist. Collect (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Today, the second largest weekly newspaper in Germany DIE ZEIT published a lenghtly article on the issue with original statements from Pogge himself. (30th june, issue n° 28 p.61). This publication meets the quality standards for sources to be used in the wikipedia. Sofar the article has only been printed and isn't available online without a subscription. The text both in German and translated into English by google is here http://pastebin.com/WjJA8HME 79.194.33.104 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is probably enough to include mention of the misconduct allegations and the letter. I haven't been able to find the ZEIT article online, but if that can be sourced other than to pastebin, it would be worth using also. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The author of the ZEIT article posted the article's headline on twitter https://twitter.com/doc_scholz/status/748447557152546816 79.194.33.104 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it not published online? --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not necessary for any source to be published online. However, it is usually necessary for at least one Wikipedia editor to read a genuine copy of the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

While this is not the same as reading a genuine copy, it looks like this is a scan of the article: http://dailynous.com/2016/07/01/benhabib-on-pogge/ 2003:88:692F:40A5:F465:B5AF:8EE3:D8A9 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've briefly semi-protected this talk page to stop User:Eminent Jurist continuing with their aggressive personal attacks while logged out. Hopefully the protection will be able to be lifted soon. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting edits

Just in case editors here reach consensus before protection ends, you can ask that it be lifted by pinging me or asking at WP:RfPP. Or you can ask that an admin make the edit for you by posting {{Edit fully-protected}} on this page and posting the proposed edit below it, with sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is going on?

Pogge is facing allegations of misconduct, from very reliable sources. If the allegations of financial misconduct with a Huffington Post source can be included, then the ongoing sexual harassment allegations which have been around for years and are now reaching high levels of attention, including from the 100 philosophers, is worth including. You can quibble about the meaning of reliable source but in this case, by failing to mention the harassment suite even in a sentence, you're being disingenuous and failing the victims of this abhorrent behaviour. Add me to the growing consensus in favour of changing the article. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ollyoxenfree: There's been active POV editing regarding this issue, along with sockpuppetry and polemics. If there are solid reliable sources regarding this issue, that would help. The HuffPo reference is about a project, not claiming that the BLP in question committed a crime. That's a big difference. But again, if you got some good sources, this is the right time and place to raise them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

People have already provided good news sources, news articles are not ruled out by anything in the wikimedia policy on reliable sources for the biographies of living persons. You can read through the entire policy: it's short, and nowhere does it rule out sources like Daily Nous written specifically by academic philosophers for academic philosophers. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ollyoxenfree: One person (a sockpuppeter) was adding stuff to the best of my knowledge. That material was removed in part per WP:EVADE. Can you please point me to which sources you think should be used? If Daily Nous is an academic newsletter, that would be okay (like "Footnotes" is for sociology). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Scroll up, at least half of the sources listed by Eminent Jurist are reliable. The Daily Nous primarily quotes the open letter sent to him and the original article, but there's also sources with the Huffington Post and Yale News among others.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to concur with the preceding. There are reliable sources, this is notable, and it should be in the article, reported neutrally and factually.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur as well. The New York Times has a detailed article today. After a Professor Is Cleared of Sexual Harassment, Critics Fear ‘Cultural Silence’ at Yale Fanyavizuri (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Where the allegations are not backed up, and the person is not notable for those allegations being raised in the first place, it seems UNDUE to say "these are a bunch of allegations made. By the way, he was cleared of them" at the end of any WP:BLP. Note that "sexual harassment" is a "crime" in the venue in which it was claimed to have taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Pinging Bernie44 who made edits related to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir. I'm unclear how this article in the New York Times is not a notable source. I've been trying to add a summary of the allegations against Pogge and keep getting reverted by Davidcpearce, who is directing me to random pages that don't back up his point - first WP:BLP, which actually says here that allegations can be added so long as they are written in a neutral tone (check) and have a good source (check). On his second revert, he directed me to the WP:BLP talk page, which doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but it seems pretty silly to try and keep out a significant story like this.--Bernie44 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pogge is a very good and strong man Luyanda mashezi (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2016 text proposal

The following proposal does not focus on unsubstantiated allegations. Rather it focuses on notable public developments in relation to professional and unprofessional behavior at Columbia and Yale.

@Ollyoxenfree, Philosophy Junkie, EvergreenFir, WhatamIdoing, Sammy1339, and Bernie44: do you, or others, concur with this proposal, or have suggestions on the wording, appropriateness, or placement of the text below?

 As a professor at Columbia University in the mid-1990s, Pogge was disciplined by the school following allegations of sexual harassment. (New York Times) In relation to a young woman at Yale, Prof. Pogge has also admitted to "inappropriate" behavior, and has been formally criticized by Yale for "unprofessional" conduct. (New York Times) Details of the events in question, the subject of an ongoing Title IX complaint, were made public in 2016, prompting rebuke from hundreds of professors, including the chair of Pogge's department at Yale. (Chronicle of Higher Education) (Yale Daily News) (New York Times) (Dailynous (Benhabib))

Also including the full text that Bernie44 had suggested in the article, as an alternative to the proposal above, though the proposal incorporates the same first sentence that Bernie44 had provided.

 As a professor at Columbia University in the mid-1990s, Pogge was disciplined by the school following allegations of sexual harassment.  In 2010, he was accused by a recent Yale University graduate of sexual harassment, alleging that he had groped her and made inappropriate sexual comments. Pogge acknowledged that he had engaged in “some definitely inappropriate” behavior, but denied the harassment charges. She brought the case to Yale's University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct. The committee found “substantial evidence that Professor Pogge engaged in unprofessional conduct” but “insufficient evidence to support the charge of sexual harassment.” The student's appeal was also rejected. A civil rights complaint filed with the Department of Education in October 2015 is pending. After BuzzFeed reported on the matter in May 2016, hundreds of university professors signed an open letter to "strongly condemn" Pogge. (New York Times) 

Fanyavizuri (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for drafting this. I like the first version somewhat better, I think both are acceptable and conform to the appropriate Wiki rules.--Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The first option looks good to me, it's appropriately concise. In the second sentence I would consider changing "young woman at Yale" to "former student of Pogge's at Yale".--Bernie44 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bernie44's proposed edit. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the first, and we need to have something in the article no matter what so put it in. At this point removing the source would probably require an ulterior motivation, anyone know how to see how many of the IPs are based in or near Yale? -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User DavidCPearce has now reverted the agreed-upon text three times. Anyone here an admin? He needs to be blocked from further editing since he also does not participate in the discussion here and disregards the consensus. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy Junkie, I'm mystified why you say I don’t participate in the discussion here. See my observations on the risks to Wikipedia of a Buzzfeed-driven agenda above. The problem with being causal about the truth of little things is it excites the suspicion one might be casual about the truth of big things too. [Apologies, I stopped further commenting because of the level of personal abuse from (now banned) sock puppets. The admins seem to have done a bit of judicious tidying.]--Davidcpearce (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"Agreement" requires an actual "agreement" - I find the added text to be excessive, of undue weight, referring to a source specifically found to be "not reliable" in the past ("Buzzfeed"), and using a single reliable source (NYT) to support claims it does not make as a claim of fact in its own voice. I note also that the NYT source has had subsequent corrections regarding some statements in the article made as "claims of fact." The most which I had suggested before which would be usable is that

"A Yale student accused Pogge of acting inappropriately, and an internal review which used a former judge, Beverley Hodgson, as a fact finder did not support the accusations. Pogge was noted to have 'inappropriately used Yale stationery in vouching for her (the accuser's) employment.' After articles appeared on Internet websites, several hundred professors signed an "open letter" condemning Pogge."

The Buzzfeed material and reaction thereto is out of place in this BLP as far as I am able to determine.Collect (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is an article in the New York Times, on a subject initially reported on by BuzzFeed News. Just because BuzzFeed News reported on it first does not mean it is not of note. BuzzFeed News reports on plenty of mainstream topics. The article on Pogge was independently reported on by the New York Times, and published in the print edition of the July 9 Sunday paper. This is not some blog, it is one of the most respected papers in the country. The corrections you refer to are minor as it relates to this issue, they concern information incorrectly provided by Yale about who at the school was responsible for hiring Pogge and reviewing harassment claims against him. The proposed addition (the first one, above) as drafted by Fanyavizuri clearly interprets what was written in the NY Times, and has other sources as well, all of which are notable.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur again with Bernie44. I do not know how we are supposed to respond to assertions like the proposed passage is "excessive." What does that mean?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Davidcpearce has been warned by an admin for his excessive reversions. Hopefully that will change his tune.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) @Collect: I'm assuming good faith because I believe your motivations are in the right place (to prevent undue libel). If you would like to propose an alternative version of the sexual harassment section, please post it here as we have been doing for quite some time now in order to get something into the article. It took a great deal of discussion to change the article in order to include it, please join in the discussion in order to change it now that there is general support for its inclusion. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that I have, indeed, proposed language in absolute concord with the NYT article, and not bringing in Buzzfeed, and sticking to the actual finding by the arbiters at Yale. And also note that this is what I have supported in the past, as well.

I find the edit-warring disheartening as it appears to be aimed at shouting the "truth" about Pogge, and disregarding the strict use of WP:BLP to be conservative in our wording of claims about living persons.

Where the NYT specifies: "A note was filed in his permanent record saying only that he had inappropriately used Yale stationery in vouching for her employment." This is the only quoted official Yale statement using the word "inappropriate" in the Times article. Going beyond this appears to be a desire of editors who feel, apparently, that the task of Wikipedia is to make sure evildoers are properly shamed in Wikipedia's voice.

This is not, alas, how the Wikipedia policies are worded. Thus the muted language of my suggestion rather than the National Enquirer-esque language borne by the "Buzzfed" sources (past tense intentional). Collect (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the paragraph now in the article is fully supported by the Times article. If the New York Times writes about sexual harassment allegations against a faculty member, surely it is noteworthy, isn't it?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The claim as phrased in Wikipedia's voice is not made as a claim in the NYT voice as a statement of fact.

After BuzzFeed reported on the matter in May 2016, hundreds of university professors signed an open letter to "strongly condemn" Pogge

Refers to statements of opinion made by Buzzfeed, not to claims of fact by Buzzfeed (which has repeatedly been found on Wikipedia to not be a "reliable source" for such claims). In fact the NYT carefully uses the word "alleged" with regard to the Buzzfeed claims. Thank you for noting my position on this, as this is what WP:BLP and WP:RS require. I suggest you also read the SPS to see what the person admits to and what he specifically does not "admit to." Collect (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC).

So should it read, After BuzzFeed reported on the allegations in May 2016, hundreds of university professors signed an open letter to "strongly condemn" Pogge? I'm fine with that, as it's more accurate. Also, with all this talk of BuzzFeed not being a notable source, let's keep in mind that we are talking about an NY Times article. The professors signed the open letter following the BuzzFeed story, which is simply a fact that is noted in the NYT article.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The conciseness was indeed misleading. I agree with @Collect:; point well-taken. How about this, modifying Collect's wording:

 As a professor at Columbia University in the mid-1990s, Pogge was disciplined by the school following allegations of sexual harassment. (New York Times) More recently, a graduate of Yale University accused Pogge of acting inappropriately; the internal review that followed, however, concluded only that Pogge had 'inappropriately used Yale stationery in vouching for her (the accuser's) employment.'  (New York Times) After articles appeared on several websites, hundreds of professors, including the chair of Pogge's department at Yale, signed an "open letter" criticizing Pogge. (Chronicle of Higher Education) (Yale Daily News) (New York Times) (Dailynous (Benhabib))

Fanyavizuri (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Revised text looks fair to me.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Much better - though the DailyNous cite seems unnecessary, and possibly does not meet the RS level required for a claim of fact either. Collect (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The revised text seems fine. I agree that there should not be a cite to Daily Nous, which is a prominent philosophy blog, but still only a blog.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is enough to say accused of acting inappropriately, he was accused of sexual harassment. He was disciplined for acting inappropriately.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ollyoxenfree makes a good point.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Following suggestions by @Collect, Philosophy Junkie, and Ollyoxenfree: one might even go so far as to say it is actually inaccurate to say the accusation was of inappropriate behavior. So perhaps this will meet approval. Further suggestions?

As a professor at Columbia University in the mid-1990s, Pogge was disciplined by the school following allegations of sexual harassment. (New York Times) More recently, a graduate of Yale University accused Pogge of sexual harassment; the internal review that followed, however, concluded only that Pogge had 'inappropriately used Yale stationery in vouching for her (the accuser's) employment.'  (New York Times) After articles appeared on several websites, hundreds of professors, including the chair of Pogge's department at Yale, signed an "open letter" criticizing Pogge. (Chronicle of Higher Education) (Yale Daily News) (New York Times)

Fanyavizuri (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Demur - one must deal with what the Yale investigation supports only. As we already use "sexual harassment" in the prior sentence, and as the investigation does not support implying guild in any way, WP:BLP strongly suggests the version we have just agreed upon and which you had yourself proposed is as far as we ought to go. Collect (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the new version, and I disagree that we are left with what the Yale investigation supports only, especially considering the great degree of doubt cast upon Yale's investigation by sources such as NYT, which do count as RS and do mention that the original accusation was sexual harassment. No reasonable person would read that and assume the Yale investigation found him guilty of sexual harassment. -- Ollyoxenfree (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ollyoxenfree here.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A proposed revision below does not go into detail on the newer allegation, but leaves the impression that the new allegation was not focused on stationary. Is this acceptable to all editors present, and in accord with BLP? Fanyavizuri (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

As a professor at Columbia University in the mid-1990s, Pogge was disciplined by the school following allegations of sexual harassment. (New York Times) More recently, after new allegations were made by a graduate of Yale University, an internal review concluded only that Pogge had 'inappropriately used Yale stationery in vouching for her (the accuser's) employment.'  (New York Times) After articles appeared on several websites, hundreds of professors, including the chair of Pogge's department at Yale, signed an "open letter" criticizing Pogge. (Chronicle of Higher Education) (Yale Daily News) (New York Times)

I would accept that.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks good to me too, but I would consider changing the penultimate word to "condemning" instead of "criticizing", which is the language used in the NYT article and is significantly different.--Bernie44 (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is also acceptable to me, though I recommend the word change Bernie44 proposes.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Condemning" is, IMHO, a fairly strong term, considering that we do not afford Pogge any space for his rebuttal at all. Would someone support adding some of his comments at this point? Elsewise, I would not support anything stronger than "criticize" here. Rather a case of at least partially equal time. Collect (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding a sentence summarizing Pogge's response, even if it's sourced to his blog/website. But I do feel (regarding the above) that "condemning" is accurate.--Bernie44 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The word change to "condemn" accompanied by additional text on the response seems reasonable. But before embarking on new text, what if I just put in the existing version--do we have agreement on that? Fanyavizuri (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think adding this section is ill-advised. I'm not going to do any more editing after having received off-Wikipedia abuse. But let's not pretend there is consensus when several editors, at least, disagree that inclusion of such material in Wikipedia is appropriate.--Davidcpearce (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we should pretend that you agree when you do not. I believe that this contribution is well-sourced, not original research, and pertains to a public figure. It is notable that these events have transpired, including the philosophy department chair's condemnation of the subject of this page. I agree that this is a controversy, and that it does not cast subject of this page in a positive light. However, in the case of public figures, allegations, when well-sourced and neutrally described, should be included. (See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures.) Much of the discussion on this page preceded the news coverage by the Chronicle of Higher Education, New York Times, Die Zeit, etc. Those sources change the salience of the issue, I believe. So, at risk of repetition, what is the basis upon which you disagree with the inclusion of the text proposed above? Thanks, Fanyavizuri (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the skeptics still won't explain the basis for their skepticism, shouldn't we make the changes? Or are we hostage to objectors who do not state any reasoned objection?Philosophy Junkie (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It is done: Collect went ahead and made the change back on 22 July. Enough for this thread. Fanyavizuri (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, sorry for not noticing.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

SPS

http://thomaspogge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Response-to-the-Allegations-by-Fernanda-Lopez-Aguilar.pdf is clearly SPS, but does not appear to state on his part that he engaged in improper sexual behaviour or admits to any such behaviour. Collect (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)