Talk:Kevin M. Kruse

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin M. Kruse. 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/20150911015945/http://sha.uga.edu/awards/simkins.htm to http://sha.uga.edu/awards/simkins.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism Protection

Should some article vandalism protection to be added? Since 17:54 on 25 October 2019, this article has had the following sentence added, twice after being reverted (the vandalism was bolded by me for clarity:)

Outside of academia, Kruse has attracted substantial attention and following for his Twitter threads where he provides historical context and applies history research to current political events. I.e. constantly dunking on Dinesh D’Souza.

While Kruse has had interactions with D'Souza on Twitter, they've neither not been serious enough to warrant media attention (i.e., coverage from a reliable source) or otherwise worthy of being added to the article. Despite this, the unnecessary mention of D'Souza keeps being re-added. I propose that the article be given temporary vandalism protection. --Praefect94 (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

apparantly some coverage. --Adamswheel (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Plagiarism allegation/accusation

I removed some text that, in my view, needs to be workshopped before it can be included: "extensive" is POV (who decides that?), as is "limited and superficial rewording" (how much rewording does one have to do before it stops being "limited" or "superficial"?). Moreover, the "was noted" language disguises the fact that we just have one person saying it's ironic. Nothing in principle rules out covering this topic here, but we lose nothing by waiting a few days for more sources; in fact, we gain by having more than one person's opinion to follow in judging how much to say. The website that published the source, Reason, is regarded as generally reliable "for news and facts", with the caveat that it "primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles". The cited source runs the edge between "news" and "opinion" (the conclusion takes it towards opinion-column territory), and "Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight." Regardless of the politics of all involved, we need to play it cautious with all accusations of academic misconduct. XOR'easter (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Depending on how "viral" this accusation goes, there could be an indefinitely large number of jubilant right-wing sites copying one another, plus a comparable number of denials, excuses, or sorrowfully-willing-to-condemn-one-of-our-own screeds on left-wing sites of comparable (un)reliability. None of that would be useful for our purposes. A publication like the Chronicle of Higher Education or perhaps the Columbia Journalism Review might eventually have a useful report. What matters is that we do not commit one kind of bad writing when covering another. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The allegations and evidence presented are significant. However, such an accusation also carries rather significant BLP concerns. I would err on the side of exclusion for now. If nothing more comes of these claim then Wikipedia shouldn't include them. If more sources pick them up or if other ramifications occur there is no time limit and we can add the information later. Springee (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm with Springee here; while I see an argument for inclusion, we generally want multiple high-quality sources for such negative WP:BLP material. That may be on the way, but for now, I think exclusion is the prudent course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

From the tone of the Reason piece it's pretty clear the writer has an ax to grind. I concur with exclusion, but if it is eventually included we should not state in Wikipedia's voice that it "is" plagiarism when the author of the piece hedges on this point: "Do passages such as these qualify as "textbook plagiarism,"...or a simpler form of sloppiness?" Gamaliel (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this misrepresent the Reason article. Immediately after he writer poses the above question, he proceeds to answer that it IS plagiarism, given that it is not only just like a case that Kruse himself had called plagiarism (when it was found in a political opponent's writings) and other allegations of plagiarism against the prominent historians, but that it fits the American Historical Association's statement on plagiarism. The subheading is also unhedged: "[Kruse's] 2000 thesis on civil-rights-era Atlanta lifts passages from other people's work". We can certainly state as much in Wikipedia's voice, if additional sources turn up. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And speaking of additional sources - https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/will-princeton-investigate-a-progressive-professor-for-plagiarism/ ; https://currentpub.com/2022/06/15/reason-accuses-princeton-historian-kevin-kruse-of-plagiarism/ Izzy Borden (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the author thinks so but we should not state his opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Gamaliel (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the author thinks so - that was my point , that you were misrepresenting him when you wrote "the author of the piece hedges on this ". He does not. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

A blog post that just quotes the Reason item and a yellow-flagged source are not exactly adding up to a case for inclusion. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have anything against NR as a source but I agree, in my view these don't really rise to the level of inclusion. Both of these are, in effect, me-too sources in that they are just saying "Reason said X". They don't appear to provide any independent reporting on the subject. NR may be motivated by harvesting clicks with the story. I don't think that is CP's intent. They are probably effectively sharing a story of interest. Regardless, I would rather see someone independently evaluate the claims or report on actions taken by involved parties as a follow up to the Reason story. In those cases I would be far more likely to support inclusion. Any time we are dealing with BLP subjects we really need to err on the side of caution. Even if this becomes a thing it doesn't harm the goals of Wikipedia to wait 6 months or a year to see how things shake up. Springee (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education has weighed in, giving a good and fair summary of the issue with comments from Kruse acknowledging that he 'clearly fell short' in a few instances. (https://www.chronicle.com/article/this-historian-doesnt-shy-away-from-fights-online-now-hes-on-the-defensive) It's now worth adding a brief mention of this controversy to the page in my judgement. RogerSheaffe (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That definitely helps, though I'd wait for another independent source to be on the safe side. Formal investigations take time. We have yet to hear if Princeton has come to any conclusions, and their mills grind slow. The CHE reports a typical non-answer: In an emailed statement, Michael Hotchkiss, a Princeton spokesperson, writes that the university is “committed to the highest ethical and scholarly standards” and that it’s “carefully reviewing the concerns that have been shared with the university, and will handle them in accordance with university policy.” And this is what their reporter has to say about having contacted the authors: Bayor told me he doesn’t consider what Kruse did, at least with regard to the sentences from his book, plagiarism. “There are a few introductory sentences he used that are almost verbatim, and they’re not important in my book,” he said. “I attributed it to sloppy note-taking.” And, to my eye, an important parenthetical: (I contacted Sugrue, a historian at New York University, but haven’t heard back.) I'm still in a wait-for-the-dust-to-settle mood on this one. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we please stop moving the goal posts? when this story first broke, and added to the article, it was removed with a rationale of "[Let's] see someone independently evaluate the claims or report on actions taken by involved parties as a follow up to the Reason story.", and the Chron, specifically, was called out by name as such a good independent source - "A publication like the Chronicle of Higher Education ... might eventually have a useful report." We are now at that point, and this material belongs in the article. If and when Princeton conducts and concludes an investigation, we can add that, too. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not moving the goalposts to say that one of the publications which could eventually produce a useful report has produced a report that is ... not all that useful. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Saying we should wait for an independent source, and naming some sources that would be ok, and then, when one of those sources appears, changing the requirement to "another independent source to be on the safe side." is absolutely moving the goal posts. It is practically the defintion of goalpost moving. I disagree with your evaluation that the current article is not useful. I'll offer up a quote you may have missed, from the article: what Kruse did in those instances is, by almost any definition, plagiarism. And it is certainly plagiarism under Princeton’s guidelines, which specifically say that sloppiness is not an acceptable excuse. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not "miss" that quote. Nor did I say that absolutely anything produced by the CHE would qualify as useful. (I did concur with a statement that Even if this becomes a thing it doesn't harm the goals of Wikipedia to wait 6 months or a year to see how things shake up; I haven't changed my opinion on that, either.) Their story has more details than we had before, but less than I'd hoped for. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I heard you, but you don't own this article nor get to decide when material gets added. The criterion defined a week ago has been met, and we didn't wait six months or a year to add very similar accusations, advanced by Kruse himself, to David Clarke (sheriff) - they were in that article within a day of CNN first making the accusations. Let's hear what others think, given the recent coverage of these accusations by The Chronicle of Higher Education. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

To that, I'd say that rushing to include similar accusations in May 2017 may also have been premature (I wasn't there to provide an opinion), that CNN based its report on its own review rather than claims by Kruse, and that by Wikipedia's general standards a CNN story is a more solid foundation than a Reason story. The situations are only somewhat comparable, in terms of how we should act. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This argument may have had some merit to it last week, when Reason was the only source. We now have the Chronicle, who evaluated the claims on its own, and that ship has sailed. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to side with XOR'easter here, as I think there's no harm in letting things fully develop, but it's a very close call for me--and reasonable minds can certainly differ. We shall see where consensus lands. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also going to say hold off. Again we would be adding a serious allegation against a BLP subject. I do see this as an edge case and can see why a reasonable editor would feel inclusion is justified but I think we should always bee careful with such claims. Consider this, if we wait a year and nothing changes would we still include this content. On the other hand if more substantial actions/investigations occur I think we can feel more comfortable including this sort of content. Springee (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The CHE has now confirmed the Reason article, clearly describing several sentences as plagiarised and including comments by Kruse accepting as much. As such, there is now consensus that an academic offence occurred, even if it only encompassed relatively short passages in the context of a PhD dissertation written 20+ years ago. As Kruse is a public figure and this issue has received news coverage from prominent, reliable outlets like CHE, it seems reasonable to mention it briefly in the article. We can't wait forever, particularly because it's not clear Kruse or Princeton will ever issue further substantive statements. The university says it is investigating but may well deal with the matter internally. RogerSheaffe (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If Princeton issues no further substantive statement, then we can't force them to talk. I myself would like to be able to shake them and say, "Investigate faster! Tell us something other than vapid bureaucratic platitudes so that we can write a tight paragraph!" But there could well be other developments; we're not necessarily waiting on Princeton specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m confused about the debate here. This person has been the subject of multiple WP:RS articles about allegations which specifically relate to his academic credibility — the reason he is the subject of a Wikipedia article in the first place. This is not an unrelated subject matter or personal slander, but an accusation of plagiarism to an academic who draws his credibility from his research and has gained notoriety by challenging the views, and in some cases the personal integrity of others. While it would be inappropriate to say in the Kruse article that he is a plagiarist, it is entirely appropriate to mention that he has been the subject of controversy over credible allegations that have been reported by multiple reliable sources, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, which had been suggested by the editor preventing addition of this information to the article as a source that would be acceptable were it to weigh in. The controversy itself is noteworthy and the Kruse article shouldn’t be shielded from its inclusion. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It sure seems at this point that @XOR'easter is actively trying to shield Prof. Kruse from notoriety. I can well imagine Princeton finding that Kruse did indeed commit plagiarism and @XOR'easter coming back with "Well, let's wait until Kruse's appeal is fully heard and adjudicated before we add this to his Wikipedia page." Sorry, but this sort of garbage and -- yes -- goalpost shifting is exactly what gives Wikipedia a well-earned reputation for favoritism, especially where progressive academics are concerned. 104.32.120.26 (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, please read the Wikipedia policy No Personal Attacks. Second, within a day of suggesting that we prudently hold off adding to Kruse's article, I also suggested doing the same for Lauren Boebert. I play fair, to the best of my abilities. Third, I never suggested that just any item from the CHE would be good enough for our purposes and sufficient to merit inclusion here; I said that they were one of the publications that might eventually have a useful report. Fourth, imagining what I might do in the future and getting angry at your imaginary version of me doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time. XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I wrote what I believe to be a pretty accurate assessment of your behavior in this matter. That you see it as a personal attack suggests to me that deep down inside you probably realize there is a lot of truth to what I have written. And your comparison of this case to that of Lauren Beobert is laughable. She's been accused of working as an escort over a decade ago based upon an alleged investigation by a partisan website which refuses to show its evidence. The allegations against Kruse have included comparisons of his writing to the sources from which he is said to have cribbed, making it far easier for the casual reader to draw a conclusion of his or her own. I absolutely stand by my assertion that you are not the neutral arbiter that you so badly want us to believe you are. If you care at all about Wikpedia's reputation, you should heed Larry Sanger's warning from a couple of years ago and retire from this page. Others who are more objective about this issue can take it from here. Just to be clear, I have no intention of or interest in making any edits of my own to this entry. 104.32.120.26 (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack the motives of other editors. If you are more than welcome to say keeping this content out is harming the article. You should not suggesting an editor is trying to do something other than make for a better article is a borderline personal attack and never something that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Save that for user talk pages or admin noticeboards. Do note that I think XOR'easter is correct to oppose this and I would do so even if they were not. Springee (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on my suggestion to add the controversy to the article? The controversy is newsworthy. Also, you are in the minority in your effort to prevent mention of this in the article. There is a lot of talk in the Wikipedia rules about community consensus and the consensus here is to include this WP:RS reference to the controversy in the article. Is the majority here on this talk page enough? If not, isn’t there a mechanism to have a vote? Also, the article in the Chronicle is not as bland as you imply. It lays out the controversy quite clearly and some would read it as confirming the plagiarism occurred, going as far as to cite the actual passages in question. While the school has not ruled whether it will impose a punishment, the plagiarism accusation is public and the controversy itself is legitimate news. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that I don't think there is a consensus for inclusion yet, either for a blanket "he is a plagiarist" statement or for noting that a controversy exists. That could well change, but in the absence of actual new developments, it seems more likely that we'd just argue back and forth about the same news story without achieving very much. Way up there, the point was made (not by me) that we generally want multiple high-quality sources for such negative WP:BLP material, which I don't believe we have so far. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with XOR'easter: we generally want multiple high-quality sources for such negative WP:BLP material is correct. Multiple. High-quality. That is indeed the bar, and it is high for good reason. If more sources like Chronicle of Higher Education discuss the issue then we will include, and if not we won't. Pretty simple really. Generalrelative (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Add a reference to this. A sentence or two of negative news doesn’t violate BLP; Reason, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Princetonian are solid sources. Craft the sentence or two to be NPOV and it should pass any fair Wikipedia reader’s muster. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Reason is an opinion site, and the Princetonian is a school newspaper, neither of which are the best for biographies of living persons. The latter does provide some new information (Magness claiming to have further examples, although "not as severe"; Bayor striking a skeptical tone, attributing Kruse’s alleged missteps to “sloppy notetaking” and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated). I'm wary of using it, however, particularly given the lengthy correction they've already had to issue, which sends a "the dust hasn't settled yet" message. XOR'easter (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Reason, as you noted above in June, "is regarded as generally reliable 'for news and facts', with the caveat that it 'primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles.'" It is suitable here. You yourself, again in June, said: "A publication like the Chronicle of Higher Education... might eventually have a useful report." Now that the Chronicle of Higher Education has reported, you denigrate it's importance. Now you say we should wait for some more sources. The Daily Princetonian, a fine, reasoned, journalistic source from the professor's own college writes about it. Another source! Your reasoning against it? They've given a "lengthy correction"? If we are poopooing any news stories or outlets because they give corrections, well then there are a lot of things on Wikipedia you should be removing! That's not a reason to denigrate a source! You've just made up a new WP guideline! Besides, I wouldn't call it "lengthy," nor is it a very significant or important correction. This story deserves a sentence or two, cited to these reliable sources, and a sentence or two that notes the controversy, Kruse's retort, and even Bayor's skepticism about Magness's intentions. Fair, encyclopedic, inclusive. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The column that sparked all this off was basically an opinion piece. So, it's not a great source for a biography of a living person. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this, but I said the CHE might eventually have a useful report, not that any given report they actually produced would be useful. Nor did I say that we should reject news sources because they issue corrections (that would be silly); I said that a substantial correction is an indication that waiting a little longer for the details to get sorted out would be prudent. Really, what's the rush? XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Nope, opinion should never be used to establish notability, especially for a BLP. Uncontroversial facts, sure, but this is not that. Generalrelative (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but, humbly, I disagree with y’all’s interpretations of RS and BLP. By itself the Chronicle is enough to add a sentence to this article, the Princetonian is just icing on the cake. And, by the way, these two sources are very fair to both sides, nay, actually they lean a little on Kruse’s side. I must agree with a user above who finds the obstinacy to add one slight, encyclopedic mention of this event evidence of goalpost-shifting. To wit: Reason not a good source, we need Chronicle. Chronicle is just one source, we need multiple sources. Princetonian doesn’t count because of a slight correction, besides we need “the dust to settle.” So, you’ve added these new rules nowhere to be found on Wikipedia WPs: multiple sources (instead of verifiable sources), corrections cancel out effectiveness of stories, and “dust must settle” before something can be added to Wikipedia. Again, if “dust must be settled,” you’ve got a lot of stuff on Wikipedia to delete! I’m sorry to stray from assume good faith, but this smacks of ownership behavior, because y’all’s contentions are: I have decided these sources aren’t reliable and I have decided this event isn’t important enough and I have decided we must wait for “the dust to settle.” When I have more time, I would like to suggest some language for insertion into this article. In the meantime, might I suggest we ask for some outside input? And, as an aside, I too think some users may want to add this as a bit of “let’s stick it to a left-winger,” but it might be hard for others not to see the pushback against addition as a bit of “we must protect our guy against those whacky right-wingers.” TuckerResearch (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You're free to feel that way of course. Speaking personally though, calling Kruse "our guy" is quite far from the mark. I'd never heard of this person before stumbling on the article because it was targeted for vandalism. Kruse appears to be someone who engages in high-ish profile flame wars with right-wing personalities who have fan bases, so of course we need to protect his article against whacky right-wingers who come here with axes to grind. That's entirely normal and does not entail that we have any specific feelings about the subject per se. I myself do not. As for the rest, please refer to WP:BLP, where our sourcing requirements are discussed in detail. Generalrelative (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ha. It’s funny to hear you admit that your motive is to protect against rascally right-wingers. Which does indeed show your bias. And, the mere addition I am suggesting isn’t “ax grinding,” nor is it whacky. If you can’t see the difference between the two, it shows your bias. And, I laugh at your revulsion at the phrase “our guy” (which I put in quotation marks as a hypothetical about how these actions could be viewed), when you have no compunction about calling BLP “our sourcing requirements.” As if you own WP:BLP and I am too dumb to know anything about it. I see nothing in BLP, my interpretation, (and nothing in RS) to prohibit a mention of this or the sources suggested. And you’ve roundly ignored the goalpost shifting and the new WP:Dust Must Settle y’all are suggesting. And, by the by, I too never heard of this guy before seeing a mention on the blog PlagiarismToday. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm still warry of adding this content at this time. I think Reason is a very good source in general but at this point it is still just an accusation. It's not clear Kruse has suffered any reputational harm or lost out on positions/research etc. More critically, this is a BLP, we should err on the side of not including allegations on wrong doing until it is clear they are fact/or have otherwise impacted the person's reputation. Part of the reason why we should be cautions is because Wikipedia is widely read and such allegations can be political in motive. If that makes our articles a bit vanilla compared to the flavors offered in other media sources, well that's OK. Also, any time a source just repeats the claims of a previous source that strikes me as more METO than confirmation of the claims. I certainly believe that is true with many on line media sites that survive on click bait headlines. That isn't so much the case here but if the other sites don't independently confirm Reason's conclusions then I wouldn't treat them as confirmations. If they did their own research and said, "Reason is correct" then I would treat them as independent sources. My logic is again we need to err on the side of exclusion when we are talking about something that can cause reputational harm. Springee (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Springee, for your sober contentions here. But, don’t you think Wikipedia is full, even on BLPs, of unverified (even unverifiable!) claims that “reliable sources” report on? And do you not think that the Chronicle and Princetonian offer additional information and rebuttals that give us more than enough for NPOV coverage? I certainly do. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree there are many examples similar to this, worse than this on Wikipedia. I oppose them as well. Springee (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ha. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's additionally worth noting that Professor Kruse, who derives much of his notoriety from his social media activity, hasn't used Twitter at all in over two months since the Reason article about allegations of plagiarism were published. Setting aside the discussion about whether the amount of media coverage is sufficient to warrant inclusion (in my view it is), this issue has clearly has had a significant and ongoing impact on his involvement in political discourse, which further makes me think that the controversy merits discussion in the article.RogerSheaffe (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested wording of plagiarism accusation

Here is the wording and citations I suggest. It uses proper reliable sources, does not violate any rules relating to biographies of living persons, and strives to be written in a neutral point of view.

In June 2022, in an article in Reason Phillip W. Magness, senior research fellow at the libertarian think tank American Institute for Economic Research, accused Kruse of plagiarism in his 2000 doctoral dissertation, his 2005 book White Flight, and other works. According to The Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper at Princeton University, "Kruse expressed 'surprise' at the allegations and attributed the lack of citations in one instance to an inadvertent oversight." Ronald H. Bayor, one of the scholars Kruse was accused of plagiarizing, "expressed skepticism around the allegations... attributing Kruse's alleged missteps to 'sloppy notetaking' and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated." The Daily Princetonian notes that "Magness and Kruse maintain a history of fraught academic exchanges."

References

I think that is fair, and if Princeton or Kruse offer any further information or determinations in the matter, we add another sentence, another citation, and be done with it. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

As I indicated (far) above, I understand the impetus for such language, and don't think it would violate policy to include at this point. That said, I remain convinced that there is no issue with continued discretion for a BLP, and generally endorse Springee's approach. That said, should consensus decide otherwise, so be it. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with myself by agreeing with Dumuzid. I would rather take a wait and see vs erring on the side of inclusion now only to have nothing become of it in the long term. Consider a version of the 10 year test. We pause this discussion until 2032. We come back and find no new sources, no new discussion or impact. Would we choose to put this content into the topic under those conditions? If no then I think the answer today should also be no. And to agree with Dumuzid, consensus should decide and I agree with is an edge case. Springee (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That said, I really need to work on my use of unnecessary throat-clearing phrases like "that said." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That said, guys, this is Wikipedia: it's whole raison d'être is at odds with the idea of "let the dust settle" and a "10 year test." The article as it stands cites the Chronicle of Higher Education approvingly multiple times for biographical ephemera, it should be allowed to do so again. That said. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TuckerResearch that it is now necessary and proper to include a brief mention of this controversy in the article to keep it current, given that multiple reliable publications have now reported on it (CHE, Princetonian and Reason). Kruse himself has admitted that he fell short in some cases; a short and measure mention of the plagiarism charges would not be unfair. According to WP:PUBLIC FIGURE 'If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.' It seems to me that this test has been met. RogerSheaffe (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I see two nos and two yeses in this section. Pretty same numbers in the section above. If the Chronicle of Higher Education is good enough for news lauding his political tweets, it should be good enough for bringing attention to his political squabbles. The whole idea of "let the dust settle" and a "10 year test" is anathema to the whole point of Wikipedia. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies again for the undo, as I do not doubt your good faith here. As I said above, I understand your argument and don't think it's a bad one. For me, however, I still lean towards caution, and I agree with your !vote counting, but I think it's clear there is, as yet, no consensus for inclusion. That may well change, but for right now, I don't think addition is proper. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Dumuzid: If the Chronicle of Higher Education is good enough for news lauding his political tweets, it should be good enough for bringing attention to his political squabbles. The whole idea of "let the dust settle" and a "10 year test" is anathema to the whole point of Wikipedia. "Caution" is not a Wikipedia guideline, even for BLPs. The language is newsworthy, properly cited, and NPOV. The continued resistance to including it on this page is boggling. Thank you for at least assuming good faith, but I still see no reason this should not be included. It smacks of goalpost shifting, again. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, I understand your argument, and would hope you assume my good faith. While your policy arguments have merit, they do not bypass the need for WP:CONSENSUS. You could certainly start an RFC or ask for more eyes at the BLP noticeboard. I have no clue how either would go, but it might give a broader sample of opinions on the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Dumuzid: I do assume your good faith. And I understand WP:CONSENSUS (I've been on Wikipedia for almost seventeen years). Consensus based on the pretense of "let's wait and see" is, I think, dodgy. I don't understand (a) the obvious goalpost shifting in the section above; (b) the whole idea of "let the dust settle" and a "10 year test," which we do on Wikipedia for no other newsworthy, cited event. I hate going to RFCs and noticeboards, but might feel inclined to do. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested wording or plagiarism accusation and response that was added and reverted

Suggested wording or plagiarism accusation and response that was boldy added and reverted (on August 15, 2022), slightly changed from above:

In June 2022, in an article in Reason Phillip W. Magness, senior research fellow at the libertarian think tank American Institute for Economic Research, accused Kruse of plagiarism in his 2000 doctoral dissertation, his 2005 book White Flight, and other works. According to the student newspaper at Princeton University, The Daily Princetonian: "Kruse expressed 'surprise' at the allegations and attributed the lack of citations in one instance to an inadvertent oversight." Ronald H. Bayor, one of the scholars Kruse was accused of plagiarizing, "expressed skepticism around the allegations... attributing Kruse's alleged missteps to 'sloppy notetaking' and suggesting that the recently surfaced allegations are politically motivated." The Daily Princetonian notes that "Magness and Kruse maintain a history of fraught academic exchanges."; The Chronicle of Higher Education noted this animosity between the two as well.

References

For your perusal. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Should plagiarism accusation and response be noted in BLP?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to include the information. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Should a plagiarism accusation against Kruse and his response be noted in his biography? (See suggested wording and arguments for and against above.) TuckerResearch (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Include - The second example given at WP:BLPPUBLIC seems to be included specifically for cases such as this. --N8_wilson 🔔 15:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - making my position official per discussion above. While there is certainly an argument for inclusion, there wasn't a lot of pickup in reliable sources, though I will certainly admit there was some. In essence, for me it's almost 50/50, and tie goes to exclusion with BLPs. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above. My concern is this is both recent and for the most part this all points to a single Reason article. While I respect Reason as a generally good source, I'm concerned about the BLP issue here. We would be amplifying a very negative accusation directed at the article subject. We currently don't know if this will have long term impact or will blow over. If nothing more ever becomes of this then we shouldn't include it as this is a BLP and we err on the side of caution when reporting things that could hurt a subject. However, if this story continues to have legs then we should reevaluate. There is no time limit so if we need to wait a year that isn't an issue. Springee (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Include - [I] Though the article from Reason may well be considered opinion, it has then been reported on by The Chronicle of Higher Education (a source various editors first said [see talkpage] would be sufficient for posting, then retreated from that position when The Chronicle indeed reported on it) and The Daily Princetonian. Furthermore, The Chronicle of Higher Education is approvingly cited several times for other information and ephemera in this article, so it should be acceptable for this event. [II] The idea that BLPs for relatively obscure academics need several reliable sources (more than three in this case, apparently) before news about them can be added is nowhere found in Wikipedia guidelines. If a paucity of sources is enough to establish the subject's notability, a paucity of sources should be enough to include other news about them. [III] The idea that there should be a "wait and see" approach, a "let the dust settle" rule (see talkpage), a "10 year test" (see talkpage), or a see "if this story continues to have legs.... wait a year" mandate (see above) is nowhere found in Wikipedia guidelines. [IV] The suggested wording and sourcing is brief, informative, cited to multiple reliable sources, NPOV, and (as befitting WP:BLPPUBLIC, noted by a user above) gives both the accusation in neutral terms and two rebuttals (one by the subject). I think the suggested wording is quite a proper and appropriate addition to the subject's article. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Include Three reliable sources have now reported on this story, including the CHE which provided a measured overview of the case, assessed that some of the plagiarism allegations were clearly substantiated, and included a quotation from Kruse accepting that he 'fell short'. How serious you find a handful of instances of borrowing in a decades-old dissertation is another matter - I don't believe they were intentional and don't think the affair seriously impacts Kruse's credibility, assuming there are no further discoveries. But the plagiarism allegations are clearly a matter of public interest and reportage regarding a public figure. As such, the controversy deserves a brief mention in the article. RogerSheaffe (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:NOTNEWS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Include but condense - You don't need explicit attribution of the two secondary sources, only Reason since it's the primary source at issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Include How many reliable sources are required? There have been at least three to date, including the impeccable Chronicle of Higher Education, and it is inarguable that the controversy exists in the public domain and strikes right at the heart of Kruse’s WP:N in the first place. It would be inaccurate to say at this time that the charge is true, but adding the information as a controversy is absolutely merited. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Include but condense, it's reasonably well sourced for a single sentence or two describing it. Adding it to its own subheading is certainly providing it undue weight, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Include, per Tuckerresearch's arguments. The accusation, as well as Kruse's response and third-party comments, are well-sourced and seem notable enough to warrant inclusion. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added some conclusions on the plagiarism accusation

I added some conclusions on the plagiarism accusation. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hrmmm. I am unsure, again back to where I kind of was before: I default to wanting stronger sourcing than a single reliable source when we're talking about allegations of explicit wrongdoing. The Plagiarism Today piece doesn't go as far, and near as I can tell, it is a self-published site of the author, Mr. Bailey. For that reason, I am not sure it meets WP:RS. As for Magness' indignation, that strikes me as a bit WP:MANDY-ish. So I don't think we're in "remove it on sight" territory by any means, but left to my own devices, I would default back to my "wait-and-see" position. (I am boring that way). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)