Talk:Jeffrey Elman

Involvement in Campus Controversy
Oops, on 8/20/2011 the vandalism was repeated, this time by ErrantX (possibly the same person as Chichimilpas). Get a clue, little Brezhnevs: well-sourced important controversial news stories cannot be censored out of Wikipedia! The funny thing about ErrantX's edits is that there was a sequence of several edits, only the last of which actually deleted the whole section, with the lame explanation "rm for review". What the heck does that mean? Review by who? Sheesh. If you have more well-sourced info to add on the topic, add it in there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EugeneV1

Vandalism was repeated (and has again been corrected-next time this will be reported up the Wikipedia chain). Wikipedia stories do not wait for "final disposition of the matter" in any realm (should Amanda Knox page be empty?). They are to be kept as up to date as possible. If something is "incomplete", then add supported material that completes the picture. The mention of "defamatory" makes no sense here--check Wikipedia page on defamation. In the unlikely event that the newspaper articles cited here contain defamation, that is a matter to bring up with them. (Note that by Wikipedia rules, subjects of bio articles are not supposed to be editing them--is that happening here?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EugeneV1 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The facts of the matter are incomplete and omitted from Eugene V1's initial description. This section should be removed until final disposition of the matter is achieved. Otherwise the entry has the character of innuendo and runs the risk of being defamatory. Dweston1972 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)dweston1972

User Chichimilpas vandalized well-sourced high-interest section 22 Jul 2011. Is this individual subject of the article (COI)? Vandalism undone 23 Jul 2011.

EugeneV1 (talk) 6:05AM, 23 July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC).
 * I was asked to review the material in line with our WP:BLP policy - after fiddling with it for a bit I personally concluded the sourcing was weak and needed review. As the material was quite controversial we usually remove it pending discussion. If I get time tonight I will do a source search for backing material; EugeneV1 if you have further material feel free to present it. --Errant (chat!) 17:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point about weak sourcing. The main point seems to have been made in an RS. Perhaps it was the "was much discussed" that you objected to? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well to start with the current material; the UC San Diego Academic Senate overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning actions by Elman is inaccurate, the Senate's statement doesn't mention Elman (although the investigation was inspired by his actions) - the source used does say this, though it is not clear, and doesn't support what we have. The heading is undue and should be removed. I addressed these concerns in this version which I think is what we should return to (it presents a clearer approach to the material). The remaining issue is that extra context to the sending of the letter (i.e. Elman's viewpoint) isn't dealt with, and neither is the follow up. Although, with that said, if Inside Higher Ed is a real publication (my mistake; I took it for a blog :S sorry) then we can probably use that to flesh out those details. --Errant (chat!) 15:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (I made those changes, pending additional discussion) --Errant (chat!) 15:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You've improved the structure, which is good, but have backed off the criticism too far. I've used a different quote from the article, from the lead para, which expresses things succinctly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with that :) if you look at my talk page I also raised another facet that would be good to try and source. (sorry for snapping earlier) --Errant (chat!) 21:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Elman here: I would like to see this section modified or possibly deleted. Here is why. The section is incomplete in ways that leave the reader inferring misconduct on my part and not knowing how the matter was resolved. There is a factual error, in that Academic Senate did not do any investigation at the time of the matter came before it. That investigation was delayed for several years and was carried out last year. There were two claims: infringement of Academic Freedom and a claim of retaliation under Whistleblower laws. Grievances were against 5 individuals (the current Provost, prior Provost, Vice Chancellor for Research, Chair of Sociology Department, and myself. The Academic Senate concluded there was no evidence of retaliation and dismissed that grievance. The claim of infringement of Academic Freedom was subsequently withdrawn by Professor Biernacke and the matter has been concluded. Because the sourcing of this will be difficult -- I can produce the legal documents, but there was no press announcement to this effect -- is there someway to indicate that the matter has now been resolved without any finding of misconduct on the part of myself or others in the administration? kk1892 15:49 28 September 2014 (UTC)

President of the Cognitive Science Society
Elman not only is an Inaugural Fellow of the Cognitive Science Society, but also was its President, from 1999-2000. This should probably be mentioned in the article.

Epsiloner (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Money laundering scandal leading to his resignation as Dean
The article should probably include something about the recent scandal involving Elman & Nathan Fletcher, which has caused Elman to resign from his position as Dean of the Social Sciences dept. Here are three sources that can be used: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Nov/16/nathan-fletcher-college-transcript-ucsd/ ; http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2013/oct/29/ticker-ucsd-conceals-fletchers-graduating-late/ ; http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/feb/17/ticker-dean-ucsd-money-laundering-case-step-down/. If no-one else volunteers, I'll try to draft a paragraph soon. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Elman speaking: So here is my problem with this. There was in fact no scandal (though the SD Reader attempted to manfacture one). The Reader requested, and the University provided, email documents regarding Fletcher's being hired. In one of those emails, I told my Assistant Dean that the fund we had initially paid Fletcher from was inappropriate and contrary to University policy, but that we could use another fund source which was permissible. I jokingly said we needed to do some "money laundering". The attempt to be humorous with a close colleague was actually misleading, since the problem being corrected had arisen because of a clerical mistake in funding the salary, which we were now legitimately correcting. The SD Reader seized on my use of the term to imply that something illicit was happening. But this was not at all the case, and the story went nowhere. Finally, the inference that this "caused Elman to resign from his position" is simply untrue. I had served for 8 years, and had long planned to step down to return to full-time teaching and research. The source for this assertion: Me! :-)  I therefore suggest that this paragraph be removed, since it is contentious, there was no fact-checking on the part of the SD Reader (no attempt to contact me for clarification), and the use of the term "scandal" is inappropriate.  kk192 15:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what passage you are objecting to. There's no paragraph currently in the article about a scandal causing you to resign.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Elman here: Sorry--I was questioning a slightly earlier version that was in effect at the time I wrote this. Almost immediately after posting this, however, LHM reverted the page, with the comment "Editor's summary: Reverted to revision 627348309 by Malerooster: This is being discussed at WP:BLPN; please participate there if you contend this material is a necessary part of this BLP. (TW)". So you are correct, the version as of now is non-problematic and the one that I think should remain. Thanks, and apologies for the confusion. kk1892 16:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kk1892 (talk • contribs)

WP:BLPN discussions
To make it easier to follow the discussions, I'm linking to the two WP:BLPN discussions about this article: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive225 (more recent) and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive207. For my part, I thank Professor Elman for presenting further context about the situations, and have no complaints about the current state of the article. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did Nomoskedasticity revert an edit I made
April 9, 2024 I added this paragraph, which is extremely well sourced, and I believe, unbiased. Nomoskedasticity reverted the change without any discussion at all, which does not follow wikipedia policies, nor does it seem justified.
 * "The Committee on Academic Freedom of the UCSD Academic Senate initiated an investigation of Elman's letter to Biernacki. In their report, the Committee summarized Elman's letter in part as directing the professor "... to cease pursuing a critical re-examination of the other professor’s research and data", including a quote of the relevant section of Elman's letter. Additionally, however, the Committee found that "... the dean’s letter did not prohibit just slander, libel, or personal disputes; the dean’s letter prohibited utterance, research, and publication within the academic field of study."  Furthermore, the Committee also reported that lawyers representing the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs had contributed to drafting the letter, and it had been reviewed by the Office of Research Affairs and the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Due to these findings, the Committee stated: "We cannot avoid the conclusion that the dean’s letter contains clear and unacceptable violations of core academic freedom rights, violations that were apparently implicitly or explicitly supported by others in the university’s administration at the time." "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.7.4 (talk • contribs)


 * The edit comment of WP:BLPPRIMARY seems clear enough William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)