Talk:Carrie Diaz Eaton

Letter to the Editor of the AMS Notices
AlwaysInRed (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I am writing to respond to User:David Eppstein's question (in this page's history) about requesting a source specifically stating that CDE is a lead author for the letter to the editor in response to Abigail Thompson's editorial. I apologize if this isn't the right place to do so. The Science Magazine article cited reports "Bands of mathematicians, including Topaz and Eaton, wrote and cosigned public letters responding to Thompson’s essay". Additionally, the PLOS ONE article cited specifically declares so in the Introduction as a disclosure of a potential conflict of interest: "Additionally, co-authors CMT, CDE, KI, BK, DL, and JL are drafters of and signatories to Letter A, and hence appear in the data set that we construct and study." - AlwaysInRed (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The science magazine sentence that you quote is not specific about whether Eaton's role was as a writer or as a cosigner. The other one does say that she drafted it, but does not substantiate the earlier (now removed) claim that she was one of 16 co-writers. In any case, writing a letter to the editor is usually so non-notable a thing to do that we completely omit it from articles. My feeling is that its inclusion here weakens the article by creating the appearance of Wikipuffery, stretching to find notability rather than finding it naturally in the course of describing more significant activities. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While I have no experience with how Wikipedia usually treats letters to the editor, I can say that this letter and the whole diversity statement controversy were/are a big deal. The fact that this letter collected that many signatories (along with the others) is an indication of how much the topic resonated within the mathematics community (and beyond - there were numerous articles about it). I believe having taken a prominent role in this issue is notable and should be highlighted. - AlwaysInRed (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The controversy was a big deal, attracting thousands of participants. That does not imply that Eaton's role in it, as one of those thousands of participants, brings notability to Eaton. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, her role contributed to the impact of the controversy itself, as over 600 people signed the letter she co-wrote. Additionally, she was chosen as one of only few people to be quoted in the Science Magazine article cited above. Finally, she co-authored a peer-reviewed publication focused on aspects of the event. These three instances, in my opinion, make her contribution to the controversy in question not comparable to the other thousands of participants. Her advocacy is part of what she is known for and I think belongs on her page. - AlwaysInRed (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While we're talking about things that are your opinion, do you have a source for the opinion that Eaton's position on the controversy was "very outspoken"? Very in comparison to whom? Is telling students that their diversity is welcome a particularly outspoken thing to do? What about telling an academic publication that it should have censored itself? My own impression was that the letter she signed (and apparently co-wrote) was not really one of the extreme ones; at least not in comparison to the ones suggesting that, for instance, Thompson should be fired and her employer boycotted, or the ones suggesting that Thompson didn't go far enough and that diversity should not be considered at all. We can state what Eaton's actual positions are but evaluating the outspokenness of those positions is something we should leave to published reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My use of "very outspoken" was referred to her taking a clear stand during the controversy. I meant outspoken as a synonym of vocal, not extreme. If it reads like a judgement of the facts rather than a description supported by her actions listed afterwards, that was not my intention and it should be removed. - AlwaysInRed (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)