Talk:Nicholas Christakis

Opinion in the "Free Speech Advocacy" section

I tagged this as POV for the following two sentence clauses: "Christakis' belief that Yale students could discuss controversial issues (such as costumes) among themselves, and his confidence in their ability to do so, was apparently not enough..." and "this documentary also provided the interesting detail that Christakis comes from a multi-racial family" Put bluntly, the first sentence reads like an op-ed. But it doesn't appear to be a quote from an article. If this statement is taken from an op-ed then it should be in quotation marks, right? Otherwise, the this entire section of the sentence should be removed. It reads like obvious editorializing. The second sentence is fine except that it should be left to the reader to decide whether Christakis' multi-racial family is interesting or not. I highly doubt those of us in a multi-racial family find that alone to be interesting. The implicit message here is to point out the hypocrisy of Christakis' detractors. But then why not just do that in an obvious and measured way? Why imply it? Doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry. I just want to know the facts. Thank you for your attention. --2601:602:9500:66A8:98E2:8964:F1FC:DE09 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku: I think the edits by 128.36.7.216 of the prior edits of Lamacha9617 improved the article. Most of Lamacha9617 edits were kept, but more citations were added (including to the original letter from the Yale deans), along with clarification that that letter from the deans did indeed include links to a pinterest page with approved and non-approved costumes. Lamacha9617 added a citation to another article in The Washington Post that made reference to a letter by 400 faculty; this was kept in the proposed edit, but more accurate information (and two quotes) from the Post article was included in the proposed edit. And better context was added too.

Distinctly, I think the prior way this section was handled, organized chronologically, was superior to the proposed version, but I guess this is up for debate. And I defer too more experienced editors, like Revirvlkodlaku, on whether the POV tag should stay or not. To me, this section reads neutrally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.170 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no major objections to the latest version of the article, which is different from the one I had reverted earlier. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The POV tag to the "Advocacy for Free Expression" section was added in October of 2022 and it would seem that the criteria for removing it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove) have been met? First, it was unclear what the original objections were. Second, quite a few named editors have edited that section in the intervening months. Third, there has not been any other discussion of this matter since the tag was added. Should the tag thus be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.181.77.132 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to remove marker, given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.205.211.226 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

Although it is obvious he considers himself an American, he's also definetely a Greek-American. 74.83.233.1 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

Many dead links seem to exist in the article probably because he moved in 2013 from Harvard to Yale, so his websites must have changed.SoSivr (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy on trivia for BLP

Probably worth including something that sums up these events: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/#article-comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.18.229 (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds more like triva for an biography article. It needs to be more substantial: i.e. consequential---beyond some people got upset about a letter his wife wrote--- in order to be included. Mootros (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Excessive list of publications

This section seem excessive and somehow random. Why these articles? It should be reduced and made relevant. Wikipedia is not a directory. Mootros (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on Erika Christakis's email

She did not mention redface of blackface in her email. Instead, she said that students had the right to dress however they wanted for Halloween.

This is what she said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/07/administrators-defending-student-free-speech-apparently-reason-for-dismissal-according-to-some-yale-students/

"I don’t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others... Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society... Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that."

Salad 981 (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

RCF: Recentism

This article contains a section that appears to be a form of recentism as defined by this explanatory supplement.

The section in question deals with a recent controversy, in relation to the Christakis's wife and an email exchange. Regardless whether this incident was a notable event or not at the time, it appears to be overburden the article with a controversy that seems transient due to its inconsequential nature.

By no means does it appear to withstand the recommend ten-year test, as a thought experiment, and seems to trivialise this BLP be giving undue weight to something by simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue, without actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time.

Mootros (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the section about his wife's email.[1] Whatever his wife wrote has nothing to do with his biography. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you —Мандичка for your contribution to the article. I too agree that the information about the email should not be included in the article; as it sways opinion and is inherently biased. It should not be included in a biography. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as the section is removed the REQUEST is closed... RFS member Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the material in question does not pass the "ten-year test," and I agree with its removal from the article. But one thing has me confused: Wikipedia:Requests for comment calls for an RfC to "Include a brief, neutral [emphasis added] statement of or question about the issue"; the statement in this RfC seems anything but neutral.
  Richard27182 (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, the RfC statement should be neutral however, regardless of how it was framed, I would maintain that the email exchange is irrelevant and WP:NOTNEWS. Meatsgains (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. I just ran into yet more coverage of this issue, and the choice of Erika not to teach at Yale in spring (though the university issued a statement saying she is welcome to continue at any time). The situation is receiving coverage as part of overall race relations at Yale. [2] Time references a video of students confronting Nicholas, the subject of this article, over his wife's email Now I wish to emphasize, I don't think this needs to be included out of some desire to punish the subjects - to the contrary, I think that trying to draw a line against the endless bullying and counter-bullying that makes up modern social media, by refusing to make a federal case out of a mere costume, is admirable. However, unlike apparently much of Yale, I think that the best way to handle such issues is to cover them responsibly, rather than taking the Chinese approach of repressing discussion of contentious ideas, and that means we ought to cover it. Yeah, it's gonna be hard to keep the section neutral. That's why it's worth doing. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with "Wnt"'s comment of December 8th. I came to this article seeking a clear, concise statement of this particular controversy and was surprised to find none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D0D:DB0:241B:BF52:91D2:8319 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• After looking over this diff just before it was removed, and it seems to bear the correct weight, although it does need some editorial cleanup. As far is recentism, I am slightly in favor/belief that it will have the 10 year impact. That is, I think this specific event will have the impact over policy for many years to come - which were triggered by this event. I don't think what happened itself was very significant, because this sort of stuff happens all the time, but rather due to the national media coverage, I am pretty sure this will have a domino effect for many years. It might not be directly referenced as the source, but indirectly, I do believe there will be an impact. As well as what the IP stated above, about people coming here to find something (anything) on this topic, and there ought to be something... Tiggerjay (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and readded the content with minor copy edits, based on this discussion here, primarily because it is notable with it's national coverage - consistent with my comments above. Minor copy-edits have been done to clean it up a bit. It seems to have the correct weight as well with regards to the overall article. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicholas A. Christakis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101218145327/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2010/11/29/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,44 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/29/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,44

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hello RekishiEJ, I would like to call your attention to the fact that you are edit warring with me, which is not advised. After another editor reverts your edit, the correct procedure is to discuss, not to reinstate your edit. I think it is appropriate for Christakis' wife to be linked a second time in the Personal section, as, at a cursory glance, I don't see her linked anywhere else besides the infobox. As for linking maple syrup, I don't think it is required, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

RekishiEJ, I am attempting to draw your attention to a point of dispute between us. Please do not ignore it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku:, sorry for not replying to you until now, because I didn't have enough time then. But according to the MoS you mentioned, duplication of internal links in an article usu. should be avoided, and the duplication that I removed actually was not applied to inline citations, tables or lists. According to the guideline just because a celebrity is crucial from the context of a particular article does not mean that the internal link to him can be repeated. And the link to maple syrup, I acknowledge that this isn't necessary because this syrup is familiar with most people, and is not relevant to Nicholas's academic career, after reading the section "What generally should not be linked" of the guideline.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RekishiEJ I appreciate your response. As I mentioned, after considering your reasoning, I'm actually ok with the changes you made. I mainly wanted to make sure we could maintain a civil discussion. Thank you for replying. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yale Halloween "Case" Section Heading

I wonder whether others feel that, especially given the passage of time and contemporary perspectives regarding the events at Yale during Halloween in 2015, the relevant section in this biography should be labeled "Yale Halloween Case" rather than "Yale Halloween Controversy." The material in this Wikipedia policy would seem to suggest that this would be a rational edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.225 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this proposed change, though I'd like to see it discussed further. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Halloween controversy should be given its own page altogether, since both Christakis and his wife were involved and since it sparked a much larger debate. The event is also clearly notable enough to have its own page, as it is still being discussed in 2023 as a pivotal event in campus free speech controversies. (See this Chronicle of Higher Education article, as well as the recent The Canceling of the American Mind.) Astaire (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be fine to create a separate entry for the 2015 Halloween event, though it would also make sense to keep 2-3 short paragraphs and a few citations in this biographical entry. The citations given above, to the Canceling of the American Mind and the Chronicle piece show the staying power of this event. I also think this subheading can be edited to 'case.' Will do so, and will add the above citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.197.108 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)