Talk:Marilee Jones

message: I'm smelling an edit war in the distance, and I'd rather not have that happen.  So I'd like to try to establish a consensus of editors here about whether or not the categories belong in the article, so we don't have to go back and forth a million times.  I'll go first.
*Strongly oppose the inclusion of Marilee Jones in CAT:IMPOSTERS and CAT:FRAUDSTERS.  Jones is qualitatively distinct from the other members of CAT:FRAUDSTERS, and only the most rigid, undiscriminating criteria allow her to be hoisted on the same scaffold as this guy.  Ford MF 22:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is she a scandal? I'll go unlink Fraudsters from Criminals -- Y not? 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll agree that scandal doesn't entirely fit either.  As a separate conversation, FRAUDSTERS should probably be unlinked from CRIMINALS in any case, since it's chock full of people who were never prosecuted in criminal or civil court for their alleged frauds (which is the prerequisite for inclusion in the CRIMINALS category in the first place).  Ford MF 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a pretty big undertaking.  Not only is :Category:American fraudsters still a subcategory of :Category:Crimes, but there are lots of other "Fraudsters by nationality" categories as well.  This might require some action at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.  --Allen 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. This is a straightforward BLP issue within my admin powers - and I am already halfway done. -- Y not? 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Rob Pilatus was not a criminal :) A straightforward BLP issue I say. -- Y not? 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  I'm curious to know how being an admin makes a difference in this case; please explain.  --Allen 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back when they promulgated WP:BLP, Jimbo sent out an edict whereby he gave admins "wide latitude" or something of the same import to deal with BLP issues on a speedy undiscussed basis. -- Y not? 02:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I thought we all had that latitude.  You must be talking about a different edict.  Do you have a citation?  Really, I've never heard of this before, and I try to keep abreast of such things.  --Allen 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ja, natürlich, we all have the latitude to remove stuff. Of course. I conflated that with the permission to block and/or protect for BLP without going through discussion. -- Y not? 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Y, I for one have no problem with unlinking fraudsters from criminals, but I'm mildly concerned that you chose to act unilaterally on a relatively signifigant issue like this.  Whether or not BLP is even applicable is debatable and Allen is right that admins have no authority on the project above that of regular users.  Canderson7 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone who was once indefinitely banned by Jimbo Wales for WP:BLP, I think it's safe to say that admins don't have greater BLP authority, but clearly a more present responsibility to deal swiftly with issues as they arise.  Even a whiff of BLP violation is pretty much carte blanche for any admin.  (And I don't mean that in a bitter way; that's as it should be.)  Ford MF 04:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually think :Category:Scandals would be a good addition (regardless of the decision on the other categories).  Many of the items listed there are people who have been involved in scandals as opposed to scandals themselves.  For example, we have Alice S. Fisher, Ricardo Asch, Elecia Battle, and Randy Weaver just to name a random four.  This Marilee Jones incident could certainly be described as a scandal, so I'll go ahead and add the category to the article.  Canderson7 (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, Cruch, you agree with Djcastel that the "fraudster" category should be only criminal fraud.  Do you also agree that Jones has not been convicted of a crime, and should therefore not be in the "fraudsters" category?  If so, I think that would mean everyone but Y is in favor of removing the "fraudsters" category, which I think amounts to consensus.  --Allen 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My main point was that the Impostors category should not be a sub-category of the Fraudsters category. They are separate, not subsidiary relationships. Regarding fraud, I do think by some broad definitions -- see fraud -- Jones probably committed fraud. She likely would not have been promoted to Dean of Admissions at MIT if they had known she was not the "trained scientist" they believed her to be and would not have had the credibility to back up her popular book without those credentials. So, while I am more adamant that we retain the Impostor categorization for her, I can accept removing a category that implies a legal (criminal or civil) violation.  I have read reports that some rejected applicants from MIT are talking about taking legal action against Jones and/or the school  for misrepresentation of her credential and therefore misjudgment of their applications. If this comes to pass, we can revisit this. --Crunch 10:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna solicit some third opinions I think... Don't close this one for a bit. -- Y not? 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Regards to you, Jersyko, from Rob Pilatus and Fab Morvan. :) I just love pokemon arguments! -- Y not? 10:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Y, I understand you're soliciting more opinions, and I know that the tentative consensus emerging here could yet change.  But for now, it looks like opinion leans heavily against inclusion of the fraudsters category.  Would you agree with me that the best course of action is to remove that category now, with the understanding that it could be re-added if consensus changes?  --Allen 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing the category, Y.  By the way, what is a pokemon argument?  --Allen 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see WP:POKEMON. -- Y not? 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I think this whole discussion points up a potential BLP problems with the FRAUDSTERS and IMPOSTERS categories as a whole (whether or not they are linked or de-linked from CRIMINALS).  Not just as applied here, but as applied to all living subjects within the category.  Ford MF 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there are potential BLP problems.  One of the questions we have to answer is whether we have sources to back up her being called a fraudster or impostor.  I think the sources for the article assert that she is a fraudster. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the hierarchy of the cat already, Mus. -- Y not? 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you have.  I fully support her being placed in the fraudsters category.  Again, I assert that sources back up this use of rhetoric.  Look here, for example.  " MIT dean of admissions confesses fraud, resigns". --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referendum on fraudster and imposter categories

message: Crunch, you added a reference saying that Jones' daughter's last name is Bussolari, but we already have one reference saying it's Jones.  Why don't we just remove the last name, since we have conflicting references?  --Allen 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some unnecessary and private information about Nora Bussolari-Jones per WP:NPF. It is not important to the article from which high school she graduated or what college she is now attending as she herself is private citizen, non-notable, and does not contribute to the article. Madcoverboy 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; that's much better.  --Allen 16:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that all the personal information about her daughter may not be necessary, but there is some crossover content that is relevant.  I added back in the reference to her daughter's high school graduation and comments that Jones made in a speech given at the event. I believe this is relevant to Jones and to her later resignation from MIT.   --Crunch 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  daughter's last name 

message: I was surprised at how both the “featured article” description of this page, and the page itself, misrepresent the media coverage of Marilee Jones. 
The New York Times called Marilee Jones “the guru of the movement to tame the college-admissions frenzy” only in the context of reporting her revealed fraud... the sourced material is about the controversy.  But the introductory sentence on yesterday’s main page read:
“Did you know that Marilee Jones, the disgraced former dean of admissions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was called “the guru of the movement to tame the college-admissions frenzy' by the New York Times?”
This implies that the description pre-dated her fall from grace, and makes the story about the Times’ reporting, not the woman herself.  Furthermore, it misrepresents that reporting.
The article itself is even more misleading. It begins with a background on Jones, especially her popular book on college admissions.  The article it mentions that the book received critical praise and was featured in a number of media outlets, including The Boston Globe and The New York Times. This is followed by two quotes from the mentioned newspapers, each glowingly positive-- implying that these quotes are from when Jones was on the top of her game.
But both the Times’s “guru’’ comment and the Globe's description as “the most celebrated and outspoken admissions dean in America” are from reports of her revealed fraud. This seems unfair and unusual for a Wikipedia entry.  Is there a way to change the order of information to seem less biased? Or perhaps we can include older quotes from the earlier, supposedly positive, coverage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.210.64 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Columbia person, for your comment. The one-liner on the front page was basically calculated to attract attention - which it did. On the 'guru' issue, the NYT was essentially stating what her reputation was before the scandal broke. We could and maybe should go and get the earlier supposedly-positive coverage, but why is the article "biased" in its absence? I encourage you to try and eliminate that bias yourself. If you get the formatting wrong, I'll fix it up later. -- Y not? 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Coverage 

message: From having had articles deleted before because subjects were considered to be of merely transitory significance, I wonder about the rationale for retaining this one. What this individual is noted for is her abrupt resignation because of claiming degrees which turned out to be fraudulent. Without that single event, would she still be profiled in Wikipedia? My personal proclivity is to be more generous with acceptance and retention of articles. But, under the restrictions currently enforced, what criterion of longstanding significance qualifies this article for retention? Rammer (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash-in-the-pan? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marilee Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108071207/http://www.wickedlocal.com/concord/news/lifestyle/columnists/x1640568211 to http://www.wickedlocal.com/concord/news/lifestyle/columnists/x1640568211
*Added  tag to http://www.kean.edu/forms/Admissions/Counselor%20Conference%20Booklet.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121210648/http://www.nacacnet.org/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.nacacnet.org/Pages/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified