Talk:Josef Sorett

Texting controversy

@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)

I just did. Added cites for two NY Times articles and WNBC 4 NY. If you would like more, happy to include them. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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:

https://president.columbia.edu/news/messages-president-shafik-and-provost-olinto

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cool, I've just stuck a section at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Josef Sorett to hopefully get some outside eyes. I totally see your side of this also, and I can see plausible decisions in both directions — I just want to be cautious when it comes to BLPs. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Since the last discussion of this issue on July 11, the issue of the allegedly antisemitic texts has continued to be widely discussed. Here are some examples from recent days: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/08/us/columbia-deans-resign-antisemitic-texts/index.html, https://www.jta.org/2024/08/08/ny/3-columbia-university-deans-resign-after-sending-disparaging-text-messages-during-panel-on-campus-jewish-life, https://www.jta.org/2024/08/08/ny/3-columbia-university-deans-resign-after-sending-disparaging-text-messages-during-panel-on-campus-jewish-life, https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/08/08/three-columbia-deans-resign-after-controversy-surrounding-leaked-texts-sent-during-panel-on-jewish-life/, https://www.universityherald.com/articles/79181/20240809/columbia-deans-resign-update-antisemitic-text-group-chat-one-staying-on-staff.htm, https://www.axios.com/2024/08/08/columbia-deans-texts-antisemitism-resignation, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/08/08/columbia-deans-involved-texts-evoking-antisemitic-tropes-resign/, https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/3-columbia-administrators-resign-over-controversial-texts/, https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/08/09/columbia-university-administrators-resign-antisemitism-scandal/, https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4819664-columbia-deans-resign-over-texts-antisemitic-tropes/. The claim that attention to the controversy is "undue" is no longer tenable, if it ever was.Knowitall369 (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A few more: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/08/09/three-columbia-university-deans-resign-anti-semitism/, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/columbia-unviersity-deans-resign-antisemitic-b2593651.html, https://jewishinsider.com/2024/08/columbia-university-deans-antisemitic-text-messages-resignations/, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/education/3116089/columbia-university-deans-resign-after-antisemitic-tropes-scandal/. notwally, please feel free to read and add citations as you feel necessary.Knowitall369 (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. The texts are already discussed, and the details you are added are excessive and undue, for the reasons stated above. Most of those news articles also only mention this article subject in a single sentence or two. Excessive details about other people who are not this article subject are not due, see also WP:COATRACK. You need to gain consensus to readd those details, per policy WP:ONUS. – notwally (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The edits you keep reverting make essentially four changes. They correct the existing material about the nature of the controversy concerning the allegedly antisemitic texts by including a larger (and more relevant) portion of the already quoted comments of the President. They add more material on the disciplinary consequences which has been widely discussed in recent months (try Google search for Josef Sorett and see what comes up). They delete an irrelevant section about an email sent during protests (talk about UNDUE!). In addition, the edits fix some of the sourcing (more work can be done on that). Contrary to your gaslighting claims, the edits do not substantively alter the existing discussion of the allegedly antisemitic texts themselves. One gets the impression that you are not even bothering to read the material you are deleting. There is a name for that: vandalism.Knowitall369 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, in rereading the previous comments here, it appears that you previously engaged in editwarring on a similar claim of undue attention and excessive detail (mostly about different details, since your earlier deletions were a month ago). It does not appear that anyone agreed with you then or since. What consensus are you talking about?Knowitall369 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

notwally, why don't you decide if this deserves inclusion:

Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) today released the following statement regarding the resignations of three Columbia University deans who exchanged disparaging text messages about Jewish students and colleagues.

“About time. Actions have consequences, and Columbia should have fired all four of these deans months ago. Instead, the University continues to send mixed signals, letting Columbia College Dean Josef Sorett, the highest-ranking administrator involved, slide under the radar with no real consequences. These administrators had a responsibility to ensure Jewish students are able to thrive safely on Columbia’s campus, and they failed miserably, showing contempt for the Jewish community and engaging in antisemitic tropes. I hope that Columbia continues to sever ties with anyone who has been complicit in the antisemitism that’s overrun the campus since October 7."

https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=411849

Knowitall369 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jjazz76: Just a word of thanks for the edits --- the streamlining is excellent. Knowitall369 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Knowitall369 - for sure. I'm pretty happy where we've landed. I think that with these sort of "developing stories" lots of fluff can get added that ultimately takes us in all sorts of unnecessary tangents. I see it quite a bit on Wikipedia, where I'm often left scratching my head if there is a direct connection to the subject. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I made some trims to the excessively long section mostly to remove the unnecessary quotations [1]. Posting here to see if any others besides Knowitall369 think any of the content should be restored. Also pinging recent editors Jjazz76 and GorillaWarfare. The two quotes removed are (the second and third are sourced to press releases):

• Columbia Provost Angela Olinto announced a series of steps to "hold those involved in the incident accountable."
• Minouche Shafik, then President of Columbia University, stated that the messages "revealed behavior and sentiments that were not only unprofessional, but also, disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes" and were "unacceptable and deeply upsetting, conveying a lack of seriousness about the concerns and the experiences of members of our Jewish community."
• The Provost announced that he would apologize in writing to the Columbia College community and that he would be given "the support and partnership of the deans with whom he works closely to shape and deliver our undergraduate academic programs."

Knowitall369, please note that WP:ONUS says: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content (emphasis added). – notwally (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like @Knowitall369 and @Notwally are basically in an edit war on this. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is that the trimming is pretty reasonable, as has been done with number of other American universities as related to Israel-Palestine protests. At some point, there has to be a trim down/synthesis and I think overall @Notwally did a pretty good job with this. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Jjazz76 I agreed with you a month ago that we ended up in a good place. I think it's fairly clear that notwally's deletions are aimed at eliminating certain substance from the entry rather than being stylistic trimming. But I'll try to reread the edits with an open mind, and give my opinion again.Knowitall369 (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Knowitall369, in addition to WP:ONUS, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are also policies that all editors are required to follow. If you are edit warring based on your assumptions and making repeated false accusations of vandalism, that is a problem. WP:CIR is also a policy. – notwally (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I just re-read all the discussion above, because it has been a while, and I edit higher education stuff pretty widely, though have been interested in the "drama" of the past year on American campuses.

@Knowitall369 - I'd encourage you to re-read the trimmed version, which I think captures all the important pieces in a relatively concise format. But if there is any specific inclusions you'd like to discuss, let's discuss them. We can talk about individual words if we want to go that way. But I think it might get us to a place that the three of us, and maybe GorillaWarfare too if they are still interested, are in a place that we are happy with the article.

The older version had more quotes, some of whom from the previous Columbia president, who resigned, in the two months since we last worked on this, and I think went back to England. So context does matter and I do think the context has changed a bit, and we are sort of at the point where summarizing can be helpful. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)