Talk:Jeffrey Elman

message: Oops, on 8/20/2011 the vandalism was repeated, this time by ErrantX (possibly the same person as Chichimilpas).  Get a clue, little Brezhnevs: well-sourced important controversial news stories cannot be censored out of Wikipedia!  The funny thing about ErrantX's edits is that there was a sequence of several edits, only the last of which actually deleted the whole section, with the lame explanation "rm for review".  What the heck does that mean?  Review by who?  Sheesh.  If you have more well-sourced info to add on the topic, add it in there!   — Preceding unsigned comment added by EugeneV1 
Vandalism was repeated (and has again been corrected-next time this will be reported up the Wikipedia chain).  Wikipedia stories do not wait for "final disposition of the matter" in any realm (should Amanda Knox page be empty?).  They are to be kept as up to date as possible.  If something is "incomplete", then add supported material that completes the picture. The mention of "defamatory" makes no sense here--check Wikipedia page on defamation.  In the unlikely event that the newspaper articles cited here contain defamation, that is a matter to bring up with them.  (Note that by Wikipedia rules, subjects of bio articles are not supposed to be editing them--is that happening here?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EugeneV1 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked to review the material in line with our WP:BLP policy - after fiddling with it for a bit I personally concluded the sourcing was weak and needed review. As the material was quite controversial we usually remove it pending discussion. If I get time tonight I will do a source search for backing material; EugeneV1 if you have further material feel free to present it. --Errant (chat!) 17:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand your point about weak sourcing. The main point seems to have been made in an RS. Perhaps it was the "was much discussed" that you objected to? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well to start with the current material; the UC San Diego Academic Senate overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning actions by Elman is inaccurate, the Senate's statement doesn't mention Elman (although the investigation was inspired by his actions) - the source used does say this, though it is not clear, and doesn't support what we have. The heading is undue and should be removed. I addressed these concerns in this version which I think is what we should return to (it presents a clearer approach to the material). The remaining issue is that extra context to the sending of the letter (i.e. Elman's viewpoint) isn't dealt with, and neither is the follow up. Although, with that said, if Inside Higher Ed is a real publication (my mistake; I took it for a blog :S sorry) then we can probably use that to flesh out those details. --Errant (chat!) 15:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I made those changes, pending additional discussion) --Errant (chat!) 15:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've improved the structure, which is good, but have backed off the criticism too far. I've used a different quote from the article, from the lead para, which expresses things succinctly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement in Campus Controversy 

message: Elman not only is an Inaugural Fellow of the Cognitive Science Society, but also was its President, from 1999-2000. This should probably be mentioned in the article.
Epsiloner (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  President of the [[Cognitive Science Society]] 

message: The article should probably include something about the recent scandal involving Elman & Nathan Fletcher, which has caused Elman to resign from his position as Dean of the Social Sciences dept. Here are three sources that can be used: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Nov/16/nathan-fletcher-college-transcript-ucsd/ ; http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2013/oct/29/ticker-ucsd-conceals-fletchers-graduating-late/ ; http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/feb/17/ticker-dean-ucsd-money-laundering-case-step-down/ . If no-one else volunteers, I'll try to draft a paragraph soon. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money laundering scandal leading to his resignation as Dean 

message: To make it easier to follow the discussions, I'm linking to the two WP:BLPN discussions about this article: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive225#Jeffrey_Elman_biography (more recent) and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive207#Jeffrey_Elman. For my part, I thank Professor Elman for presenting further context about the situations, and have no complaints about the current state of the article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLPN]] discussions 

message: April 9, 2024
I added this paragraph, which is extremely well sourced, and I believe, unbiased. Nomoskedasticity reverted the change without any discussion at all, which does not follow wikipedia policies, nor does it seem justified.
:"The Committee on Academic Freedom of the UCSD Academic Senate initiated an investigation of Elman's letter to Biernacki. In their report, the Committee summarized Elman's letter in part as directing the professor "... to cease pursuing a critical re-examination of the other professor’s research and data", including a quote of the relevant section of Elman's letter.  Additionally, however, the Committee found that "... the dean’s letter did not prohibit just slander, libel, or personal disputes; the dean’s letter prohibited utterance, research, and publication within the academic field of study."[Letter dated May 24, 2011 regarding "Conditions Affecting Academic Freedom at UCSD" from Hall Pashler, Chair, UCSD Committee on Academic Freedom, to Professor Frank Powell, Chair, UCSD Academic Senate]   Furthermore, the Committee also reported that lawyers representing the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs had contributed to drafting the letter, and it had been reviewed by the Office of Research Affairs and the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Due to these findings, the Committee stated: "We cannot avoid the conclusion that the dean’s letter contains clear and unacceptable violations of core academic freedom rights, violations that were apparently implicitly or explicitly supported by others in the university’s administration at the time." "
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.7.4 (talk • contribs) 
: The edit comment of WP:BLPPRIMARY seems clear enough William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Nomoskedasticity revert an edit I made