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 Start-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 Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis 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.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
It's a "she said/he said" story about events in 2012, prompted by more recent other events. The investigation "found that his behavior was not linked to any employment decision and did not rise to the level of sexual harassment." I don't think that it qualifies as encyclopedic content. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Could you please point me to the aspect of Wikipedia policy that would suggest that this doesn't qualify as encyclopedic content? It is a major news story that has now been reported in multiple reputable sources, and contains a serious allegation that these sources found to be credible enough to print. It also touches on an important issue in university governance. In these respects, it seems analogous to similar allegations against, for instance, Thomas Pogge, which are recorded on his Wikipedia page. To the extent that we can cite the results of the investigation—both the line you quote and the line that I quoted in my edit—it is not a he said/she said situation. I do not see why the 2012 date is relevant in this case. Zincwrap (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's not encyclopedic because it's not, contrary to your your assertion, widely covered; the Guardian story is cited by a few web sites, but I can't find any other independent coverage. More importantly, it seems undisputed that the review found no sexual harassment of Karnes and no retaliation against her husband, Duarte. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
That the review by the university-appointed lawyer found no conduct to meet the university’s definition of sexual harassment does not clear this man of wrongdoing. It’s not a he said/she said when he himself says “and on one occasion we accidentally kissed on the lips” — he said that. Albeit not Stanford, but most reasonable people would agree that a married man kissing another woman is wrongdoing (not to mention when it’s a married woman who didn’t invite this behavior and was a junior colleague who thought this man was mentoring her). Most reasonable people would also agree that lying is usually wrong. How does one “accidentally” kiss another on the lips, exactly (again, his words, not hers)? And the lawyer basically called him a liar when the lawyer stated she was more truthful than he.
to the extent anyone would be interested in a wikipedia entry on this man, the guardian article speaks to his character. People are interested in the characters (or dearth thereof) of objectively prominent people like elon musk and donald trump. If — yup, said if — people are interested in him, why would they not be interested in learning about his documented character?
Therefore, the only reason i see to exclude references to The Guardian piece — which was, yes, covered by other sources but it obviously can only be one source’s scoop — is that the man himself is trying to whitewash his bad reputation and wikipedia is enabling it. And the mention of “it happened in 2012” is just him wishing it would go away. 80.137.39.55 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
so why does the “he” win, especially when she was found to be more truthful by the university’s hired lawyer? This is a story of a powerful university protecting a mediocre white man in what is more than “perhaps” not his first formal sexual harassment allegation. This man is not a prominent musicologist — he likely IS Michael Bednarek (who is not a musicologist, lol) — and he is arguably best-known in the musicological community for his sexual improprieties. Stephen, here’s a tip: welcome your idiosyncratic double-en-dash signature into this century by hitting command-shift to make it an actual em-dash. This all happened before the #metoo movement, but i believed her when she said he wouldn’t leave her alone at the gym. 80.134.209.80 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
