Talk:Emily A. Holmes

Unfounded and potentially damaging accusations given high prominence?

I'd like to starta thread to discuss the prominence that had been given to the accusations levelled against professor Holmes. While it is true that accusations have been made in a journal, there has been no investigation of these claims as yet, and thy are potentially damaging to an academic career. If Holmes were a politician I could understand (this is run of the mill for them) but even on the page for Dominic Raab the accusations are not given high prominence. Might it not be prudent to await the publication of the investigation and report instead on that? I will revert the edit until I hear a good argument otherwise. Photo2222 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Why should an academic receive special treatment compared to a politician? Academics are too in positions of significant power, with influence over the lives of their supervised students. The accusations deserve prominence given their extent: *11* PhD students have provided detailed testimonials, across 2 decades, and 4 universities. This is not an isolated event. The reporting is an investigation in itself by the Editor-In-Chief of a reputable psychology magazine in Sweden. No good reason for this not to be included in a Wiki biography. Uppsala451 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your comment, which is made with evident feeling, and if the accusations are found to be true they definitely qualify as wikipedia content. However, to focus on only one argument: These are unverified allegations made by unnamed sources in an unrefereed article in the journal of an association. As such this could be construed as an element of trial by media, which is against Wikipedia's standards.

If and when these allegations are proven they can be included - but I would respectfully argue that the time for that is after the completion of an investigation. Photo2222 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed the changes and think Photo2222 (talk · contribs) has a point about there not having yet been an outcome of the investigation. I don't have a strong opinion though so if other editors want to revert, I won't oppose that. Or we can disuss further here of course. In any case, have closed the edit request. Tacyarg (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

And I think the course of thinking Photo2222 is following is one of the reasons bullying in academia is such a widespread career tool. Susanne Täuber of the University of Groningen has just been sacked because her research showed that this is a widespread problem but these results "eroded the trust between her and the university".

So, basically, Photo2222's stance is part of the problem... so please include those allegations to at least warn people that there might be a lot of toxicity around Holmes! 2A02:810A:8D00:357C:EC1F:8F1D:76E8:712A (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see no justifiable reason to censor these allegations. I agree that the attitude to keep this issue of bullying in academia hidden is exactly what perpetuates the problem. I must note that no proposed edits claim the allegations are true — they simply state that serious allegations have been made, by numerous students, across several universities, over many years, in a credible publication. For literally any other person in the public domain I can think of, these kinds of allegations clearly warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. If the current investigations rule that the allegations are baseless, untrue, or contrived, this result would also of course warrant inclusion in the article. Uppsala451 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the edits adhere to Wikipedia's BLP policy. The edits are not unsourced, poorly sourced, or potentially libelous. While one could argue whether or not the allegations themselves are true, the article edits are objective statements about the fact that the allegations have indeed been made and published. That fact is uncontentious, not potentially libelous, and ethically should be reported in the public interest. Uppsala451 (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've had to revert your changes; I feel your argument here is spurious, in that you say two editors are for change and one against. You yourself Uppsala451 are pro this change, while one unnamed contributor - 2A02:810A:8D00:357C:EC1F:8F1D:76E8:712A - agrees with you. This could just as easily be yourself! I'm afraid your arguments will have to stand for themselves. In addition, Tacyarg is (mildly) in favour of leaving the page as is. And I'm afraid simply saying that this adheres to BLP policy does not make it so. These are still potentially libellous, potentially damaging allegations which are made by unnamed, unverified sources and appear in an article which has not been refereed by an outside source. Please wait for any investigations to be complete and publish facts. Photo2222 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, in case of Justin Roiland that was not a valid reason (see the history of his article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Roiland&action=history&offset=&limit=250) so why does it apply here?

If you know Academia at all you know that there basically needs to be a provable rape (and sometimes not even then) to get anything to stick towards a "superstar" in the respective field, which Holmes is. 95.90.213.58 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this constructive and factual.

The magazine article which all this refers to, and in which you place your faith, is written by a journalist called Lennart Kriisa. Kriisa is not just the journalist in this case but also the editor of the journal he writes for. This means that there is no journalistic oversight of him or the articles he writes, effectively allowing him to write whatever he pleases.

And since he has named none of his sources, nothing he says can be verified or proven.

It is possible that the accusations against Professor Holmes are true. It is also possible that this is a case of a middle aged white man attempting to sabotage the career of a senior female academic. If you know academia at all you should know that torpedoing of female academics' careers by men is all too common (at all levels).

So, I will say this again, in the presence of an ongoing investigative process, why not wait until the investigation is complete?

I have reverted the article. Until you come up with a compelling reason not to do so, I will continue to do so. Photo2222 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

These are unfounded allegations against Lennart Kriisa. Please provide verifiable sources to demonstrate that he is the mastermind of a fictitious smear campaign. Seems more likely that he is just doing his job. Uppsala451 (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is precisely the same amount of verified evidence against Holmes as there is against Kriisa. Reverted Photo2222 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I Agree with you Uppsala451, Kriisa is just doing his job, i guess Kriisa is well aware of consequenses for him and his journal if he were to spreds false information. Seems the investigation by Uppsala university is nekar completion or completed. Follow Photo2222 suggestion and white a short statement about the result of the investigation. Local newspaper Uppsala NyaTidning have ritten an artikel about the outcome of the investigation. 85.230.210.205 (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand your argument but I'm afraid I'm with Photo2222 on this one. The accusations themselves could well be described as part of a bullying campaign. These things are common in the world of female academics. Is it worth going with these allegations if they are later proved to be false? 94.255.242.151 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So the accusations against e.g. Roiland were not part of a bullying campaing and were therefore very important to include in Wikipedia as soon as possible?

I smell sexism here... get this Uppsala Investigation and the accusations in there, otherwise it's becoming ridiculous how differently people are measured in here... Roiland was basically thrown under the bus as soon as any media reported about it, Holmes is protected til her University will come to a verdict.

I'll re-work the accusation in. If you don't want that: lock the article, but then please refer me to the next higher level of discussion but you and Photo22. 141.76.181.198 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Same stuff as with basically all celebreties. What you are doing here is using different standards, not the people voting for the inclusion of said accusations... 141.76.181.198 (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The local newspaper Uppsala Nya Tidning has today published an article regarding the investigation by the University regarding this case. The investigation does not free the professor from all accusations (no cases from other than Uppsala were investigated). 90.233.213.45 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to report about what is happening, without assigning blame? To entirely ignore allegations from 11 students across 4 universities seems irresponsible, and is factually incorrect (regardless of outcome, an investigation has occurred). 130.238.189.160 (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't bother, cyberbullies in here are protecting their own. Emily A. Holmes is radioactive in the Psychologists community right now, but some are built to endure the radiation and use it for themselves to shine... 2003:F6:AF3B:C7A:CD22:7B76:4AA0:CE9B (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that the allegations have been added again and removed again. From looking online, there still seems to be only one source, so I remain in favour of leaving these off the page unless or until there is better sourcing. Tacyarg (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeas, and it doesn't matter that people writing here know Holmes, know people who have worked under Holmes and that all that is happening is typical Academia Bullshit where nothing will happen... and here she is well protected by her own. Of course, eleven PhD-Students will just risk everything to bully a successfull female...

This whole Wiki-Crowd starts to disgust me on a very deep and profane level... 141.76.176.62 (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the allegations are not in the current version of the article. If they are added again, without any better sourcing, I think the correct place to take this would be the biographies of living people noticeboard. Tacyarg (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I will continue to re-add the accusations to the current version of the article as it is the only ethical decision. Emily herself is the only one here strongly advocating for Emily and policing her own page — she is Photo2222. Uppsala451 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The allegations have been added again, without better sourcing, and removed again. I have asked for advice at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Emily A. Holmes. Tacyarg (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The allegations happened and should be referenced. The comment was factual and non-inflammatory, so should remain. 2A02:C7E:3085:A500:C478:48E2:CC64:116A (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Following advice at BLPN, where the link to the Ombud ruling was posted, I've reverted the most recent addition of the allegations to the article - it had been added as a reference only, without text - and have requested protection for the article. A note to editors who have a conflict of interest with the article (who are, work for, represent or know the subject of the article): please see the conflict of interest guidance and do not edit the article directly. You can post requests for changes on this Talk page, but in my opinion better sourcing is needed to include the allegation in this article now that we have the Ombud ruling. Tacyarg (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Professor Emily Holmes website

Request to add website for Professor Emily Holmes' website which documents a lot of her research and publications: https://emilyholmes.net/ Not70xic (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)