This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
@Jjazz76: If, as you say, Sorett's role in this controversy has "gotten pretty significant coverage" to the point that his text ought to be included in an encyclopedia article about him, why would you not include those sources? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last NYT source does not support the statement in the article. The statement by Shafik is referring to texts sent by the admins who were removed, not the text sent by Sorett. I am still concerned about including this in the article, given Sorett's fairly minor role. The coverage cited has been almost exclusively to do with the more substantive text messages, not Sorett's involvement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it deserves a mention. Even if a one liner at this point. There is a whole statement on it from both the President and the Provost of the University that mentions him a number of times:
I am in agreement with your removal of his statements related to the April protests in which he played a very very minor role, but here he plays a rather central role, even if the whole story is mostly concocted by the Washington Free Beacon, which I believe it is. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: do you feel that the incident involving antisemitic text messages and deans being removed and all that ought to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Or that Sorett's text deserves a mention? Because this seems rather like a WP:COATRACK to discuss the messages and the removal of the other deans. If it's the former you're hoping to achieve, there's probably a better article for it than this one. Full disclosure: I haven't been following this at all outside of Wikipedia, so I'm mostly going off the sources you've suggested thus far — hence why it's important to cite sources rather than just allude to broad coverage existing out there somewhere. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Sorret's participation (and as a consequence his text) deserves a mention on his wikipedia page. I take no position on the incident more broadly on if it rises to the level of being encyclopedic. From what I can tell it involves a a number of people who don't have wikipedia pages, and really aren't public figures, or even limited public figures. Maybe it deserves a mention on the broader protest page at Columbia, and aftermath, IDK.
I do take your concerns about Coatracking seriously, but I think it is also important to make sure we capture some of the tumult in higher education in the US over the past year, particularly as it continues over the summer. (I also track developments at a variety of closing higher educational institutions, as you can see by my posting history.) Jjazz76 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying about the tumult, but this seems like a really weird place for it. Why here, rather than the page about Columbia? Edit: Ah, sorry, missed the first paragraph of your reply. Perhaps it's worth a mention at BLPN, just to get some outside opinions on whether the coverage warrants a mention here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally fine with that as an approach! Again a week or two ago, as you can see, my comment was like "I'm fine if this gets deleted." I still think this is in general a manufactured story, but it continues to get press and coverage in RS. Most of my editing is in more mundane pretty neutral fact-based stuff that originates in RS which isn't the case here. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here from BLPN, the content in the article seems excessive. I don't know if any mention is warranted, but it should be brief if at all, 1-2 sentences max (e.g., "He replied LMAO to an inappopriate text chain and later apologized"). I removed some of the excessive use of quotes that were in the article, but I still think the remaining paragraph is too much given his involvement appears to be limited to a few one-word text replies. – notwally (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I undid your edit before realizing you made a Talk comment. I don't think the text or quotes are excessive, especially given how much mainstream media attention this has gotten and how important this issue is for higher education and students. Saying just that it was an "inappropriate text chain" does not accurately represent the sources. Many RS reported that the three officials in Sorett's administration were placed on leave and removed from their positions due to what seemed to be their texts that used antisemitic tropes during a panel discussion for Jewish Columbia University alumni, and the subject of the panel discussion was campus antisemitism. Sorett acknowledged this and apologized. So the issue isn't just inappropriate texts; it is antisemitism and racism. Sorett's exact comment of "LMAO" is only important to mention insofar as it shows exactly how he engaged with the text messages of his staff. It is important that the article clearly reflect the aftermath of what happened, because this wasn't just a matter handled internally by Columbia College. The Columbia University President and Provost were both involved. This issue is directly connected to Sorett's earlier statements to students and alumni about campus antisemitism, Islamophobia, and racism in his roles as Columbia College Dean, Vice President of Undergraduate Education, and Chair of Columbia University's Inclusive Public Safety Advisory Committee. His quotes show his perspective and good faith efforts to build a more inclusive campus community through dialogue. Please copy edit relevant text/refs rather than simply completely deleting them. 2600:1700:E050:8120:F0C6:C0F8:9C8A:CB01 (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed three of the quotes again. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a press release for article subjects. Content that is actually useful to presenting an objective biography of the article subject should be paraphrased rather than using extensive quotes, and independent sources should be preferred over statements made by article subjects or those who work with them about themselves. When nearly 50% of the article's sentences are using quoted material, that is excessive. – notwally (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is not "important that the article clearly reflect the aftermath of what happened" unless that is actually relevant to encyclopedic biography of this particular article subject. Most of the content in that paragraph still looks excessive to me and like a WP:COATRACK. – notwally (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
