Talk:BethAnn McLaughlin

Sciencing-Bi issue
The issues surrounding McLauglin's interactions with the "Sciening-Bi" Twitter account appear to be too recent and unresolved to be included in this biography. As presented, the information adds an element of controversy to the biography based on facts that have not been fully clarified as yet. Given Wikipedia's caution involving biographies of living persons, I recommend that this information be removed until the facts have become clear. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been reported in Science, so I added mention that she was suspended, but I agree that speculation over the reason behind the suspension does not belong in the article. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Some background here, too. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point there's about 3-4 independent, reliable secondary sources reporting that McLaughlin announced Sciencing_bi's death from COVID, spoke openly about Sciencing_bi's now-debunked connection to ASU, and the ensuing allegations that McLaughlin fabricated the Sciencing_bi twitter account. While I agree that the original text written on this topic by violated Wikipedia's standards of NOR and probably NPOV, I believe there are clear facts regarding this issue that are relevant to readers' knowledge about McLauglin and can be presented in a neutral tone if written carefully. 20:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the events in question are only a few days old, I still believe that allowing this news story to mature for a while might be in order. Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and should not try to report the latest and greatest information that may change rapidly. Give the story 7 days to play out, and see what the facts are then. There's no deadline. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Being reported in Science and Chronicle of Higher Ed is a relatively big deal in academia. And it is a simple, observable fact that her Twitter account was suspended.  So mention of the suspension belongs here, IMO.  The speculation for the reason does not. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This source quotes a twitter spokesperson as saying the suspension was the result of "violating our spam and platform manipulation policies" which seems nonspeculative. Will leave it to more experienced editors to decide whether this could be incorporated right now or whether it makes sense to wait seven more days before adding this modest amount of additional confirmed detail. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Today, the NYT has published an article on the Sciencing_Bi controversy, which reports that McLaughlin has taken full responsibility for creating the Sciencing_bi account. In deference to WikiDan61, I will be heeding their advice to not edit in this issue for 7 days, but I nonetheless believe that this section could be expanded while keeping-in with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion at this time. Dsvedberg (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given McLaughlin's admission to the Twitter hoax, I have no further qualms about reporting it here at Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonencyclopedic Content in Advocacy Section
The current advocacy section seems to be a mixture of verifiable facts (McLaughlin did start a petition to remove the chili peppers from rate my professor), unverified or unquantifiable facts, I'm not sure what it means to say she "took up the cause" of a group of students who were already suing a university and the statement that she received backlash from the NAS is only supported in the reference by a quote from the subject of the article herself, and several long verbatim quotes from the subject of the article that I'm not sure are necessary or helpful. Specifically, I'd propose removing the sentence on NAS backlash and the long quote that follows it as well as the statement about taking up the cause of students who were already suing Darthmouth. I'd also propose moving the quote from the interview with The Journal of Cell Biology to the career section as the focus of that quote is more the consequences on her career (her view that her failure to receive tenure was a consequence of her advocacy) and not her work as an advocate itself. What do others think? MoneciousTriffid (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Advisors
McLaughlin’s doctoral advisors Marie-Françoise Chesselet, Maria Erecinska, Elias Aizenman keep on being removed. Shouldn’t they stay up? It seems to be the usual format for an academic. Thriley (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * to be honest, their notability as an academic is debatable. Most of their notability comes from their MeToo in STEM and fraudulent activity on twitter and elsewhere. I don't see any compelling reason to restore the advisors. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)