# Talk:Neri Oxman

"In late 2023, Oxman's husband, Bill Ackman, joined calls to remove Claudine Gay as president of Harvard over plagiarism accusations."
This line seems inaccurate as the focus of criticism of Gay primarily of DEI and reaction to Gaza protests not of plagiarism, at least from Ackman.
Shown here:
[1]https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1742441534627184760
He said so in this his interview with Lex Fridman.
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgGKhsWhUu8
Ackman's criticism of Gay predates allegations of plagiarism. He published the following letter on November 4 2023, in this letter are no mentions of plagiarism. Gay was accused on December 10 2023 of plagiarism.
[3]https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1720987581549080965
source for when Gay allegations were released. [4]https://archive.is/pkeMh Garvey 96 (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Does it bother anyone else that the info box image is basically a glamor photo? There really ought to be an equivalent, opposite  policy to WP:MUG that says we should use these kinds of shots. NickCT (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

While I may sympathise on some (instinctive, visceral) level, we do have folks who are actively engaged in various attempts to improve the quality of our BLP photos (see this, this, and this, as well as this article, to highlight a few examples). Also, as the photographer seems to be a notable artist in his own right (no surprise, really), on another level, it makes sense that we use this photo (or, if the photograph is in fact "art" unto itself, then perhaps the uncropped version). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
In my mind, the fact the photographer is notable makes it worse, not better. Even if we could, we wouldn't use Richard Avedon's photos to represent politicians (e.g. these). Sure, they're beautiful photos, but they obviously don't give a "real life" sense of the subject. NickCT (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
It does not. jp×g🗯️ 08:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Well points for succinctness I guess. I thought WP was all about presenting stuff in a neutral light. Not promoting things.... NickCT (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
We have other images of the subject of the article, but the quality isn't comparable or they're out of date (lower resolution / black-and-white / etc.). Speaking more broadly, this is a media-savvy person, and while I agree that the current picture is probably not an everyday representation, most other pictures are similarly "promotional". Some people are just better at this than others. TucanHolmes (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in that. Most official images are like this. And without them we would have a hard time getting high quality free images for most present day people articles in Wikipedia. EntropyReducingGuy(I talk, but can reply slowly)💧♾️➡❄️📚 11:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)