Talk:Christopher Rufo

Unsupported lead clause from 'pundit' op-ed journalist

The introductory clause 'spreading anti-LGBT conspiracy theories' is sourced from the 'pundit' (says Wikipedia) Jonathan Chait. Pundit is defined by wikipedia as a 'a person who offers mass media opinion'. Chait is a liberal journalist, not an unbiased source. Further, the claim is contested and unresolved -- clearly abuse happens in both public and catholic schools. This is not disputed. Chait admits as much: "I grant that this is a real piece of research Rufo found in his weekend Googling" Not so much 'spreading anti-LGBT conspiracy theories' as refuting anti-Catholic biases in school abuse reporting. But how about we just delete the weak clause. Eamesaguila (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so wait, is Chait "a person who offers mass media opinion," or is he a "liberal journalist"? Is this opinion or journalism? Also, is there ever a completely unbiased source? Based on the Wikipedia page you quote from, the guy's politics are pretty squarely in the center.

Further, is your issue here that you say this is an opinion article (it is not) or that Chait said "I grant that this is a real piece of research Rufo found in his weekend Googling, albeit from a source, AAUW, conservatives used to treat skeptically. If you believe anywhere close to one-tenth of American public-school students have been victimized by sexual misconduct by a school employee, you are living in a different world than I am"? Note that I'm quoting the entire section there rather than the first clause. From the beginning to the end of the article the author links the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory to Rufo's work, as does the Wikipedia page on the conspiracy.

Finally, you have to know that Rufo's point is not to "refute anti-Catholic biases in school abuse reporting." He doesn't even claim that. What's happening here, per the article, is Rufo is claiming (dishonestly) that public schools are "hunting grounds for sexual predators" and that adults are "grooming" children for sexual relationships, which is a conspiracy theory meant to undermine trust in public schools and denigrate LGBTQ+ people. That's what the secondary sources say. That's what this article says.

Come on now. --Hobomok (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You missed the part on Chait's wikipedia page where he IDs as 'self-described liberal hawk" seen here.

There is no evidence that Rufo is promoting an 'anti-LGBT conspiracy theory.' His own articles are documenting a rise in radical gender theory programming for young children in schools. This is a controversial political subject being debated in many states.

I'm not saying that Rufo's point is to refute anti-Catholic biases. I'm pointing out that would be just as much of a stretch as what you are claiming here. Rufo is clearly a conservative reporter, but the New York Times is a liberal to left newspaper. As documented here.

Let's just delete this clause until we can get something more neutral and evidence based. The only facts here suggest that Rufo is anti-child abuse in all schools. Maybe we need a 'radical gender theory' page if that will make you happy. Eamesaguila (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no "radical gender theory programming" in schools. That is the conspiracy that Reliable sources point out. That you believe such a conspiracy is fine for you, but you're not a reliable secondary source.

As far as the bias, when it comes to the publications you're discussing (NYT and New York Magazine's Intelligencer) I think you should look at WP's list of reliable sources. Note again that neither of these articles are opinion pieces as you claim, but reporting. First your issue was with Chait, now it is with the NYT as well. It's going to be hard to find a 100% totally neutral source that would convince you of anything, it seems.

There is already a "radical gender theory programming" page. It is the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory page.

Also follow WP:BRD and do not change the main page relative to subject of this discussion while this discussion is ongoing.--Hobomok (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding refquotes to WP:GREL sources for the claim would be an improvement, because WP:BLPSTYLE recommends some caution. Llll5032 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This talk is one-sided gatekeeping. I made good-faith corrections and they are all being deleted despite offering substantive evidence for each. Where is the editor here? Eamesaguila (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and we use agreed-on policies and guidelines. On this question, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:INDY, WP:PSTS, and WP:V are good guides. Llll5032 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Llll5032 I'm sorry--why have we removed correctly paraphrased information from reliable sources after an editor began Edit warring yesterday because they believe the subject's conspiracy theories?

It makes no sense to make these changes when other editors could still weigh in and establish some sort of consensus about secondary source paraphrasing. Especially considering the Wiki page on the conspiracy mentions this page's subject as someone who has popularized said conspiracy.

We should absolutely not be removing a correctly paraphrased statement because an editor who believes said conspiracy and is running up against WP:3RR does not like the secondary sources that have been cited.--Hobomok (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Eamesaguila was the editor who removed the claim. I did not think I could restore it unless the cited RS clearly use the phrase "conspiracy theories" in connection to Rufo. I would support you restoring the claim if you cite and refquote RS that say so. Llll5032 (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The statement explaining that Rufo frequently spreads anti-LGBT conspiracy theories should be restored to the introduction. DakaCookies (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, should have included in my previous message, that the Anti-Defamation League states that the "groomer" claim about LGBT people frequently sexually abusing children is a "false and malicious narrative". This is a reliable source that verifies that Rufo spreads conspiracy theories that target LGBT people: https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-community DakaCookies (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Harvard University - education (leftist bash against Rufo)

Extension and continuing education: Context

1) Harvard Extension School is a degree-granting school of Harvard University. It is the only entity outside Harvard College that awards undergraduate degree (ALB) to non-traditional students. Many non-traditional Harvard students who are in Harvard ROTC are students in the HES and go on to become full officers in the US Armed Forces through Harvard.

2) The Dean of HES is also the Dean of Harvard Division of Continuing Education (DCE).

3) As per the official Harvard website, HES is one among 13 schools at Harvard University that awards both undergraduate (ALB) and masters (ALM) degrees.

4) As per the Harvard Alumni Association (HAA) list and directory, Christopher Rufo is named and listed as HUAA alumnus. I have checked this personally as a HUAA alumnus. Degree holders from HES are alumni of both HESAA and HUAA.

5) Every university has some sort of continuing education - Oxford has Oxford University Department for Continuing Education, so does Cambridge has University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education. + Please see Continuing education. Each department has its admission standards. Older and ancient universities like University of Glasgow, University of St Andrews, University of London, The University of Edinburgh - many others who are more older and prestigious as/than Harvard do award master's degrees online, as similar as their on-campus students. Their most distance learning students are mature adult non-traditional students.

Affirmative Action - Harvard College loses in Supreme Court

Main articles: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Affirmative action in the United States

• Harvard consistently rated Asian-American applicants lower than others on traits like “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected,” according to an analysis of more than 160,000 student records filed Friday by a group representing Asian-American students in a lawsuit against the university. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html)
• Asian-Americans scored higher than applicants of any other racial or ethnic group on admissions measures like test scores, grades and extracurricular activities, according to the analysis commissioned by a group that opposes all race-based admissions criteria. But the students’ personal ratings significantly dragged down their chances of being admitted.
• In June 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that race-conscious admission policies of Harvard College violate the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This overturns all intents and purposes the high court’s 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which found that colleges could consider race as one factor in the admissions process to achieve a diverse student body.
• The decision marks a departure from about 45 years of precedent for upholding affirmative action. The term dates back to a 1961 executive order from John F. Kennedy to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.”
• Georgetown University ran simulations to see what would happen if race was removed from college admissions. They found that a national ban would require "a fundamental redesign of the college admissions system," which would include eliminating legacy and athletic recruitment, among other things. So this then affects Harvard College in a whole way.
  • Vijay Chokalingam (Mindy Kaling's brother), an Asian (Indian) American posed as Black to Get into Medical School. He did a racist experiment to prove what was going on in university admissions. (https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2015/04/06/mindy-kalings-brother-posed-as-a-black-man-to-get-into-med-school/)

Rufo bashing and liberal issues

1) It is a very well-known fact that Harvard looks down on its own DCE students and alumni. This has been revealed in a recent news media publication (https://www.thecollegefix.com/professor-plagiarized-by-gay-attacks-rufo-for-harvard-extension-school-degree/). Harvard has been proved to hate working-class families and students. Getting admitted through bribes, family donations, family last names, Jewish and minority hatred (Asian and Jewish) is not a meritocratic admissions issue.

2) As Rufo's name is mentioned and listed under HUAA, he can plainly state he has a Master from Harvard, and nothing more. Harvard Extension School doesn't award its different degrees. All degrees under HU are awarded by HU itself.

3) Most liberals are coming against Rufo, because they hate the fact that he exposed President of Harvard University (Claudine Gay) is not a scholar with no single published books and has 50 instances of plagiarism. If "duplicative language" with no quotes, is not plagiarism, then Harvard could be a fraud itself.

4) The Leftist playbook works like this. If you don't agree with a liberal or a leftist, they dish out racism on you. They demean you by saying that you are a fraud, extreme right-wing, not a scholar, dont know how to think, conservative and other insults.

Disputed Source cited for leftist agenda

1) The statement mentioned "nature of which Rufo has consistently misrepresented" and the citation (https://newrepublic.com/article/170647/christopher-rufo-harvard-degree-misleading) is a liberal rant against a conservative activist. The author "Daniel Strauss" is not a scholar of any kind and is also not a Ivy League graduate or a degree holder of any kind including from the continuing education. Why are we taking the words of a leftist nutjob so seriously here?

Sources:

• https://www.harvard.edu/academics/schools/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.16.184 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

None of supports any specific change to the article, and this talk page isn't the place to complain about Harvard's elitism. All of your individual points are original research for this specific article, except perhaps for the College Fix's outrage-baiting tabloid silliness, which is an unreliable source and should not be cited here (or anywhere else).

As for complaints about the supposed "Leftist playbook", your opinions on this are irrelevant, and preemptively assuming bad faith is against Wikipedia's policies. If you act as if you've already lost the argument, don't be surprised if that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Grayfell (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

1) My points are not original research. These are facts which you and other people dont know as you are not a student at Harvard. I am an on-campus regular Master/post graduate student at Harvard University and I regard Harvard Extension School to be part of Harvard University because they get HU degrees, are listed under HUAA alumni list and also walk and attend HU Commencement every year.

2) I do not understand the agenda of other Wikipedia administrators of putting a lock on the article. Why would you put a liberal leftist rant as a source and prevent other people from editing the article? How can an encyclopedia be a bastion for the leftist propaganda? An encylopedia should just state facts with sources. Thats it, with no bias, agenda and no silliness.

3) I did not complain about Harvard's elitism. I just stated the facts as most students at the university know that the university is a toxic place for its regular students. Also, if I have given a statement, I have hyperlinked the word, statement and even provided the source for it. Nothing is from the air or made up here. We can know this from the current Israel Hamas issue on the Harvard campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.16.184 (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I protected the page because there was an edit war going on. You, and another editor, Timthomas522, had repeatedly inserted disputed content into the article. I could have blocked the two of you for edit warring, but I chose instead to semi-protect the article, which would allow you and Timthomas522 to discuss your changes with other editors active on the article who could help you understand Wikipedia's sourcing policy. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the article from "The New Republic" still on the Wikipedia biography page of Chris Rufo? it seems liberals are trying to put him down by creating an unwanted controversy between Harvard University and its continuing education. The article is an opinion of a person and not a piece of news in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.16.184 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please sign all of your comments on talk pages. See Wikipedia:Signatures.

This article should summarize reliable sources about Christopher Rufo. This is not the place to discuss Harvard's toxicity unless a reliable source directly explains how that toxicity is connected to Christopher Rufo as an encyclopedia topic. Citing sources which do not mention Rufo to imply something about Rufo is therefore WP:OR.

The New Republic story doesn't appear to be an opinion piece. Journalists often form conclusions which appear opinionated, and part of their job is to explain those conclusions. This doesn't mean this is an opinion. Labeling the source as "liberal" is, as I said, irrelevant. Reliability is decided by a source's reputation for accuracy and fact checking, not by ideology in a vacuum. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

1) The recent news published by The Harvard Crimson, just few hours before involves Rufo. A faculty in the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dr. Jennifer Hochschild apologised for her comment on Harvard Extension School and Rufo. Dr Hochschild has stated "I have apologized to HES staff and students for inadvertently involving them in a silly debate (of course an HES degree is a real Harvard degree—who said otherwise??) and in an inappropriate challenge to what they should be proud of" The article also mentions that "Harry Pierre, a spokesperson for the Harvard Division of Continuing Education, which operates the Extension School, wrote that “the Harvard Extension School (HES) stands unequivocally as an integral part of Harvard University's academic legacy since 1910 and our degrees are Harvard degrees.”" (See - https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/13/harvard-extension-hochschild/)

2) Dr. Jennifer Hochschild on her official Twitter (now X) has stated "I was asked to clarify, and am glad to do so: HES courses are Harvard U courses (often the same as in FAS, as for my courses). HES bachelor’s and master’s degrees are Harvard U degrees. HES is a school in Harvard U analogous to other schools. HES students are Harvard U students." (See - https://twitter.com/Jenniferhochsc2/status/1745912823689973880?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)

3) Harvard faculty and administrators are very clear that Harvard Extension is real Harvard and part of the degree-granting university. Hence, a leftist view in The New Republic on Harvard is irrelevant as the author is not an alumnus of Harvard or any other Ivy League for that matter. - comment added by 122.171.16.184 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

4) Daily Mail exposed Harvard faculty apologizing to HES staff and students for insulting Rufo claiming he is not an alumnus.

- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12960443/Woke-Harvard-professor-issues-groveling-apology-insulting-colleges-extension-school-students-teaches-discovering-conservative-activist-Chris-Rufo-toppling-Claudine-Gay-alumnus.html

- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12925175/Christopher-Rufo-Claudine-Gay-lied-New-York-Times.html - comment added by 122.171.16.184 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Tweets are unlikely to be reliable, and the Daily Mail is explicitly deprecated as a source, per WP:DAILYMAIL. The Daily Mail has a history of lying and cannot be trusted even for basic facts.

We specifically want reliable independent sources, meaning sources which are independent of both Rufo and Harvard. As I previously explained, using "liberal" or "leftist" as veiled slurs is unpersuasive and only undermines your case. Your attempt to discredit the author of the New Republic source by bringing up their education is strangely personal, and poisons the well for productive discussion. Neither being called a "leftist" nor going to a non-Ivy League school makes a source any less reliable.

The Harvard Crimson is generally reliable, but not strictly independent of Harvard, and all sources must be judged in context. If you would like to propose a change to the article based on what the Crimson source says about Rufo, please go ahead. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

1) I don't give a crap about The New Republic story because every story they have published about Chris Rufo has been consistently negative, biased and bad press. That is how you define an ideology from the left. Show me one good article they have published on Rufo. (See - https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic)

2) Being a "liberal" or "leftist" are not veiled slurs. That's your personal view and opinion. We do live in a world of countries, borders, policies, and politicians. Every person in the world is "political" and politicians and policy define the destiny of a nation/country and the life of human beings. In the political spectrum, either a person is a centrist/center or in the left or the middle. That's how political inclination or spectrum works.

3) The proposal for change is this "In 2022, he earned a Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies in the field of Government from Harvard University." or "In 2022, he earned a Master of Liberal Arts in the field of Government from Harvard University." ALM and ALB degrees are issued directly from Harvard University. In the degree, there is a seal of HU and respective signatures of President of Harvard University, Dean of Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Dean of Harvard Division of Continuing Education. ALB degrees are issued in English and ALM degrees are issued in Latin - both by Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

4) Nothing more is needed. There are so many independent Wikipedia articles that say that "X has an MBA from Harvard University, or a Y has a JD or LLM from Harvard University or a Z has a BA or BS from Harvard University (Harvard College is not explicitly stated for every Harvard College alumni is their own Wikipedia article". Many articles don't specify which specific school within the university they attended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.18.255 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, always sign talk page comments.

Wikipedia isn't going to ignore a reliable source without a valid reason, and you have not presented a valid reason. Sources discuss the status of Rufo's degree, and it is up to reliable sources to explain why it is contested. Our goal is to summarize what sources actually say, not just what we wish they would say.

You have repeatedly used "liberal" and "leftist" as slurs, so to now claim that's my opinion is either severely missing the point or is arguing in bad faith. You are the one who keep bringing up their ideology, and as I've tried to explain, it doesn't matter. If you have a reliable source for how the political spectrum works as it relates to Christopher Rufo, by all means, present it. Otherwise, your opinions on this topic are yet again more original research. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

1) The link (See - https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-republic) shows The New Republic is a leftist entity. Can't you comprehend this fact?

2) This link from MSN, clearly states "CNN reporter and left wing writer Daniel Strauss took issue with that in an article at New Republic last year, writing that because Rufo attended night school from Harvard Extension School it’s not really the real thing." (see - (See - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/harvard-professor-forced-to-awkwardly-backtrack-after-denigrating-harvard-grads-in-attempted-own-on-conservative-writer/ar-AA1mUVu3)

3) I have read the article several times. The question is - do you understand it? The author Daniel Strauss of The New Republic is unnecessarily ranting about the difference between Harvard Extension School and Harvard University. What the dumb author cannot understand is that he is not an administrator at Harvard to define what the university is and what its degrees are. The university speaks for itself.

4) The answer to Daniel Strauss of The New Republic is given by Harvard staff in the The Harvard Crimson article. "Harry Pierre, a spokesperson for the Harvard Division of Continuing Education, which operates the Extension School, wrote that “the Harvard Extension School (HES) stands unequivocally as an integral part of Harvard University's academic legacy since 1910 and our degrees are Harvard degrees.” (See - https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/1/13/harvard-extension-hochschild/)

5) What the author Daniel Strauss of The New Republic does not know is this "ALM and ALB degrees are issued directly from Harvard University. In the degree, there is a seal of HU and respective signatures of President of Harvard University, Dean of Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Dean of Harvard Division of Continuing Education. ALB degrees are issued in English and ALM degrees are issued in Latin - both by Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences." - comment added by 122.171.18.255 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said, it doesn't matter if New Republic is "leftist" or not. It doesn't make the outlet inherently any less reliable (nor any more reliable). Calling this a "leftist agenda" poisons the well for productive discussion of this. You have not explained why you keep bringing up the outlet's ideology, but the implication is very obvious that you think saying this makes them seem less trustworthy or credible. That isn't how reliability works. Individual editors don't get to discredit a source by labeling its ideology. Likewise, calling the author petty insults like "dumb" undermines your argument.

Harvard already has many, many outlets to 'speak for itself'. Wikipedia isn't one of them, and this article, especially, isn't the place for that. Harvard obviously has a vested interest in handling Harvard's image. Since since we're not a PR platform for Harvard, we don't really care about that. As I have explained, we are specifically looking for independent sources.

Since Wikipedia doesn't publish original research (please carefully read Wikipedia:No original research) it isn't up to you, as an editor, to decide what Strauss does or does not know. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

1) Rufo always said, "He has a Master's degree from Harvard University". This is a true statement. There is no falsifying data or problem in this. The HUAA lists him as a degree alumnus. If other schools of Harvard doesn't have to mention their school, then why should this rule apply only to Harvard Extension School?

2) I have never stated any original research thus far. However, you have proved yourself as a liberal progressive leftist on this platform. You are hellbent on promoting your agenda here. Wikipedia is not a place for promoting leftist views and thoughts.

3) You first said, "Daniel Strauss of The New Republic is not a leftist, but I am making stuff up here and it was my view". However, I gave you two links to prove otherwise. As we now know, Daniel Strauss is a CNN and a leftist reporter as reported by MSN and other sources, lets leave your view to yourself.

4) You are revengeful and going and deleting names of students and faculty from Harvard Extension School. If all sources are needed for everything, then there are least sources for things that are stated in Harvard College and other schools of Harvard.

5) You have a problem with Rufo. We need to accept it. Your bias shows in your editing and blocking articles. You are sticking with Daniel Strauss of The New Republic because it promotes your agenda. I have given you several other links, and none of them have been put up in the article. - comment added by 122.171.18.255 (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You're starting to go off the rails. If you cannot assume good faith, you cannot continue editing Wikipedia, and personal insults like this are a quick way to get blocked.

Sources must be cited, because we cannot just take your word for it. As I said, for this article, we are looking specifically for sources which are reliable, independent, and which mention Rufo by name.

Using sources which do not mention Rufo is, as I've tried to explain, a form of original research. On Wikipedia, the term "original research" has a specific meaning, which is explained at the page I linked above. When you add commentary based on your statement that "I am an on-campus regular Master/post graduate student at Harvard University..." that is also a form of original research. I never once said Strauss wasn't a leftist, nor did I say anything about my own views, because neither of those things matter in the slightest. Grayfell (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

As a long-time Wikipedia reader, this is nuts. The leftist bias on Wikipedia has gotten out of control. You guys have an entire framework to protect bias and it's painfully obvious.

I can't tell if you guys are in denial or just lying, but it's extremely unsavory. Wikipedia editors have lost all credibility at this point. 67.161.119.176 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Magna cum laude and dean's list puffery

Regarding this edit, None of these sources are independent of Rufo. All of them are contributor bios or similar from Rufo himself or his publicist. Including these kinds of promotional details based on involved, promotional sources is puffery. If this is encyclopedically significant, it should be possible to explain why it is significant, not merely present it as an isolated factoid.

Specifically, making the dean's list is trivial, and being Magna cum laude for a bachelor's degree is not automatically noteworthy without context. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

HES Masters

I remove Daniel Strauss's commentary on this in light of this article in the Harvard Crimson.

My point, which was clearly phrased badly in the original tweet, was that students should proudly state their HES degree,” she wrote. “I have apologized to HES staff and students for inadvertently involving them in a silly debate (of course an HES degree is a real Harvard degree—who said otherwise??) and in an inappropriate challenge to what they should be proud of.”

Unless someone can offer a compelling reason Strauss's article should go back in I am going to remove it on BLP grounds. DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. saying BLP isn't a magic phrase. It doesn't make the source any more or less reliable. As I've explained above, if you wish to propose a proportionate summary of the Crimson source, please go ahead, but using a less reliable and less independent source to entirely erase a more reliable and more independent source isn't appropriate, and is directly contrary to the spirit of BLP guidelines.

Likewise, this article is about Christopher Rufo. It is not about Claudine Gay, so sources which do not mention Rufo and are instead about Gay are not generally useful here. Using these source to imply that Rufo was correct or similar is WP:OR and editorializing, and is also not appropriate and not compatible with the spirit of the BLP guidelines. The goal of this article is to provide information about Rufo, not to promote him by making Gay look worse. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

(I assume you're talking about other sources DarrelWinkler added to the article, but for clarity for others the Harvard Crimson article linked in this discussion is about and does discuss Rufo). Endwise (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• The article used previously isn't exactly a good source for the previous text either. Have people actually read it?

an accreditation from Harvard Extension School isn’t as misleading as other Harvard programs... There’s an ongoing debate among Harvard students over whether the school should be associated so closely with the rest of the prestigious university... It’s not unheard of for Harvard Extension School students, including officials who work at very prestigious schools, to specify the difference... [The last quote is a typo, you'll see Strauss meant "not specify the difference" if you click on the link]

It describes calling HES "Harvard" as commonplace, and says that there's an "ongoing debate" about whether it's misleading or not to call it Harvard. The author then provides his opinion (which, for this claim, also means the article falls under WP:RSOPINION), that, because of the nature of Rufo's work surrounding "critical race theory", he thinks it seems likely that Rufo intentionally obfuscated the difference.

So we have 1) a source which says A and B are currently debated, but in my opinion it's likely that A, and 2) a (less reliable but usable) source which cites someone's opinion that B. To say that from this we can put A in wikivoice is honestly absurd. Endwise (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful to call it an opinion. This is a reporter writing a piece which analyzes Rufo's statements and contextualizes them based on known facts. The author interviewed relevant experts and summarizes relevant information, and includes a correction, which is exactly what we want from a reliable source. As for the typo, I've discounted sources for typos in the past, but we would need a lot more than just this one.

The article does include its author's opinion, but as part of the brief conclusion to the article. This conclusion doesn't make the entire source invalid, because that standard would arbitrarily invalidate a huge swath of sources used in most topical articles.

If, per a reliable source, something is 'misleading' as a factual matter, it's appropriate for Wikipedia to describe it as misleading in plain terms. Summarizing basic facts like this is the entire purpose of an encyclopedia article.

As I said, if you want to propose a use of the Crimson source to add context, go ahead. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but a slight better source to include such defamatory language, stated as a fact that Rufo misrepresented his education, in a BLP. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Guardian article from January 2024

• Wilson, Jason (14 January 2024). "Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard's Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 March 2024.
• Yen, Amanda (14 January 2024). "Scientist Cited in Claudine Gay Ouster Wrote Eugenics Paper". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 7 March 2024.

The Guardian wrote an article in January about Rufo's apparent endorsement of a data scientist named Jonatan Pallesen. Pallesen was presented as an expert for Rufo's effort to discredit Claudine Gay. The Daily Beast also covered this, but it appears to be a rehash of the Guardian story.

Both sources emphasize that Pallesen's work has endorsed eugenics, but importantly, his work had been described by multiple qualified experts as badly written and pseudoscientific. To quote Aaron Panofsky, Pallesen "should know better" than to make these kinds of basic mistakes. It doesn't help that Pallesen's coauthors appear to be even less qualified and are also white supremacists promoting a specific pseudoscientific agenda.

I'm not sure how or if this belongs in this article, so I'm putting this here for discussion. As an aside, I will also note this quote: "Besides the interview with Rufo and City Journal, Pallesen has been forwarded as an expert by outlets such as the Daily Caller and the Daily Mail."[1] Both Daily Caller and Daily Mail have been deprecated as reliable sources on Wikipedia. This incident strengthens my opinion that Rufo's Manhattan Institute and its magazine City Journal are just as unreliable as those two. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"It doesn't help that Pallesen's coauthors appear to be even less qualified and are also white supremacists promoting a specific pseudoscientific agenda."

Do you have conclusive evidence that all of Pallesen's coauthors are white supremacists or is this simply defamation by a bad faith editor? 204.144.209.73 (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Rufo is a Journalist

Rufo is described in RS as a journalist. He publishes articles. He is an editor of a publication. Yet, he is not described in this article as a journalist.

I would just like to add that it is inappropriate for an article on a living person to be camped by editors with personal animus, who demonstrate bad faith throughout this talk page. 204.144.209.73 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Random editor passing by. Slapped in "journalist". Bremps... 03:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)