Talk:Gary S. May

Stub
I've just started this as a stub. Will you please help improve it? Asbruckman (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gary S. May. 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/20071224034234/http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/anak/grads/1980.html to http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/anak/grads/1980.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224020913/http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/anak/ to http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/anak/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619154146/http://ieee.org/membership_services/membership/fellows/alphabetical/mfellows.html to http://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/fellows/alphabetical/mfellows.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy" section
@Ucdavischancellor and his associated IP address have recently blanked the Controversy section alleging that it is inaccurate and that "Sources 5, 6 and 7 are editorial/opinion pieces and provide no data to support a broad assertion of 'controversy.' Normally, I'd be minded to reinstate the information as it seems to be sourced, and then discuss. But given the reasonable points made in WP:DNOLT, I think it is best to discuss it first.

In my view it is reasonable to say that there has been controversy if there are several opinion pieces on the matter. It may be necessary to soften the wording of the article to highlight that the matter is purely one of opinion but I don't think, at this stage, that it merits total removal from the article. Happy to be convinced otherwise. Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Per WP:Conflict of interest, is @Ucdavischancellor/ 169.237.9.242 allowed to remove this section as the primary subject of the article? It seems it would violate Neutral point of view and the COI policy. Nor does it meet the criteria for Content removal, i. each statement is a statement of fact regarding the existence of statements or opinions by others criticizing of @Ucdavischancellor/ 169.237.9.242  sourced to those making the criticisms, ii. the information is not inaccurate (a. he has been a member of leidos., b. he has received criticism for outside board positions., c. Leidos' involvement with those agencies has been a primary contributor of controversy), iii. moved information is irrelevant, iv. the controversy section is relevant to the article and the subject. Per Conflict of interest, if the subject of the article wishes to make a change, he is strongly encouraged to start a discussion, as every user is when making a controversial edit to an article. The section should be restored unless there is a verifiable infringement of Wikipedia's policies.  Borawik (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think he is merely "strongly discouraged" per WP:COIEDIT. I do agree he should not have removed the material without further discussion but on re-reading it, I do think some of the wording of it was unnecessary tendentious itself and following the points made in WP:DNOLT I thought it was potentially more harmful to restore the material than to first discuss it here.
 * I think anything that is sourced is eligible to be included in the article, subject to WP:DUE concerns. I am not well acquainted with the extent of controversy surrounding his chancellorship to make a judgement at the moment, but if eg one of the controversies is merely a single op-ed with no further controversy that may very well not be worth including as it would give it an undue sense of magnitude. If on the other hand, there have been widespread protest and controversy surrounding another element of his chancellorship then that should most definelty be included. I am just not sure the controversy section as previously included properly accounted for that. Jtrrs0 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Serious Wikipedia Aritcle Plagarism/Copyright Concerns
While attempting to resolve the more citations needed concerns, I have found that the Georgia Tech section of May's biography, the entire two paragraphs of it, is almost verbatim the same as his directory listing on one of the school's staff directory (earliest archived link from 2023). Looking through the edit history, it appears this has been included from the known start of the article from April 19, 2010 by @Asbruckman. Floine (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)