Talk:Nancy Cantor

Untitled
Came here from RfC. Article was unencylopedic in many ways. I have reduced it down to a stub which is (I think) unobjectionable, although even that is unsourced.

Someone prepared to do some research might be able to restore some of the items I have removed, if that can be done in a NPOV way. AndyJones 10:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that care needs to be taken when discussing living persons, but Cantor's biography reads like her PR people wrote it. She is a controversial figure who many people have criticized, and it is perfectly legitimate to include sourced criticism of her.  The Student Press Law Center and Daily Orange are both reliable sources for legitimate criticism.  They are at least equally valid as Cantor's PR pages such as the "Soul of Syracuse" reference.  Nobody1234 13:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NOBODY is interested in an "11th chancellor and president of Syracuse University in Syracuse"!! Nancy Cantor is primarily a researcher in psychology, and information on that is what people would expect from this article. The article as it is is completely useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.5.245 (talk • contribs)

People need to sign their comments. I did not write the above, but it will look as if I did because someone refused to sign a comment. I have two comments on what people have said above:

1. Actually, Chancellor Cantor's term as president of Syracuse University has generated quite a bit of controversy in her handling of the Hill TV racial scandal and several other issues. The article doesn't discuss those things, but it would be stupid to remove her current job from the description when it's her current job that's gotten her some pretty vocal opponents.

2. As for the current stub being unobjectionable, I'd hesitate. It describes her as an advocate for racial and gender equality, going on to cite her support for affirmative action as if it explains in more detail how she has done that. It is not at all uncontroversial to think affirmative action serves racial and gender equality. Many people think it does the opposite. As such, the article is POV unless it can be said in a way that doesn't sound as if Wikipedia endorses the view that affirmative action serves racial and gender equality. Parableman 20:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the signing thing. You can always use the unsigned template, as I just did, above. I agree describing someone as pro-affirmative action could itself be a WP:BLP problem, but it seems the page's one source seems to support that statement (that site is possibly not really reliable in the wikipedia sense, but it's almost certainly endorsed by the article's subject). I've removed yet more unsourced stuff from the page, today. AndyJones 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nancy Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060219083649/http://www.syr.edu:80/chancellor/about/index.html to http://www.syr.edu/chancellor/about/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

COI
It would seem that someone associated with Rutgers University has scrubbed this article of any negative content. A recent edit was brought to my attention. RUNVCPACS has removed longstanding and WP:RS content as "Tabloid". This is not tabloid content. A search engine renders these on the first page simply by typing in: Nancy Cantor; and articles on the subject include such incidents. They will be reinstated. RUNVCPACS needs to disclose COI here. Maineartists (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In researching the removed content and its sources, the following are not considered "tabloid" sources:, , , . However, "Cantor came under scrutiny for failing to disclose to the university's trustees what she knew about child molestation allegations against basketball coach Bernie Fine and for handling the allegations as an internal personnel matter rather than calling the police" should be worded differently to be supported by online sources to provide a NPOV. As well, "There, she presided over a general deterioration in the university's academic standing as a research center, the withdrawal of Syracuse from the American Association of Universities, and was blamed for a decline in admissions standards" needs to be re-instated to balance out the NPOV in the Syracuse section: "she’s been a figure of controversy, a leader criticized for what some faculty describe as an authoritarian rule. She pulled SU out of the American Association of Universities, and saw a slip in the university’s national ranking" but also re-worded. The car incident involving Rutgers campus police is notably associated with this subject. A simple engine search of the BLP's name brings up the incident within the first 10 listings. Her apology alone made national news with RS too many to list here. Once again, it may need to be worded differently to reflect the tone of the article with less play-by-play dialogue. Maineartists (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Having now examined all the sources and compared it with the article content, it is clear that this article is bias toward the subject in a positive POV. The content has been cherry picked from each article to only include positive praise in WP:RESUME style and WP:BIO presentation. For instance, "A small percentage of faculty signed an open letter protesting the move and her decision" is not the same as what the source actually states: "more than 60 professors and staff in the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, for which Grimes teaches, wrote a letter to The Daily Orange, Syracuse’s student newspaper, condemning Cantor’s move to shut down the station. The letter said Cantor’s decision “damaged” free speech and free press values as well as diversity values. "There is a sense that if you speak out you might very well get a phone call from the powers that be." Also this opening statement: "Cantor is widely recognized for helping forge a new understanding of the role of universities in society that re-emphasizes their public mission" needs to be countered with every article published on the subject's career: "But Cantor’s tenure as chancellor also contained several controversies" and "... blamed Cantor for putting too much emphasis on city development." Every source cited represents an equal POV which this article does not. Maineartists (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Board
Moving Boards section content here. Not sure if subject is still even on these Boards. Editors are free to reinstate if sources are brought up to date and confirmed. Maineartists (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Among the boards of which Cantor is a member are the American Institutes for Research, the New York Academy of Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Say Yes to Education, in addition to being past chair of the board of directors of the American Association for Higher Education and 2006 chair of the board of the American Council on Education (ACE). She is an Honorary Trustee of the American Psychological Foundation and was national co-chair of Imagining America's Tenure Team Initiative. She served as co-chair of the Central New York Regional Economic Development Council, a post to which she was appointed by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2011. Maineartists (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Reinstating
In reinstating my original reconstruction of this article to provide a better weighted NPOV article that does not read like a resume or promotional bio, there are reasons why certain elements were left out of this BLP's article. The statement: Reflecting on her tenure, the Daily Orange observed that it was "stained with controversial behaviors and bird-by-bird decisions" and the "stifling of criticism and open dialogue" is not a true representation of the cited source and reflects a negative bias toward the subject. Nowhere within the source can there be found these actual quotes. They cannot be included.

Second, the Bernie Fine incident. Once again, this belongs on Fine's article page: which is it, in depth. Cantor's involvement is more positive than negative in media reporting and if this incident is to be covered in this article, it needs a thorough play-by-play of the events equally presented, not just the negative; which formerly the article presented. If other editors find it relevant to the subject for inclusion, then the multiple articles focused on the immediate termination of Fine by Cantor needs to be highlighted first and then followed by the criticism. But this is all covered at the Fine article page.

To write a good BLP article with a NPOV and equal weight, it is always best to present the neutral facts first, followed by positive reaction and then the opposite negative. The article at one time was only negative; which one editor responded to by scrubbing and only presenting positive. Presently, it reads equal. More so, terms such as Cantor trying to "pull rank" is a personal opinion and not backed by the cited source to be quoted as such. I have trimmed the police incident to the bare facts so that it cannot be seen as "trivial" or "tabloid". Cantor is the subject of this article, not her staff. They should not be included. Maineartists (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm probably going to restore several of the content elements you removed, but I'll spend a few days evaluating them more closely to ensure they represent WP:DUE. With respect to The Daily Orange, it is demonstrably false that "nowhere within the source can there be found these actual quotes" so I'm unclear why you have made that claim. Your truncation of material sourced from the Insider Higher Ed  article is borderline whitewashing. The complete removal of the Bernie Fine incident - a major point during her tenure - is outright whitewashing. Your insertion of glowing evaluations made with no sources is concerning. Chetsford (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chetsford Please do not confuse my edits with any agenda. I was one of the first to introduce a neutral negative perspective to this subject. Please refer: . I introduced more negative than positive and removed puff language and filler. This can hardly be seen as "whitewashing" and every edit was explained here at the Talk Page. I was in fact the one who originally elaborated the "police incident" section: . Over time, I realized in becoming a better WP editor, that it was undue weight, trivializing, and non-notable character focused. I have not "inserted glowing evaluations made with no sources". I merely kept what was there before - trimmed and removed considerable puff and filler - and added: "citations needed". Please look at the history. If you look closely at my reconstruction, I introduced more negative to this article than positive to provide equal weight. If there is an agenda here, the edit history clearly shows it is not with me. If I missed the quotes within the "Daily Orange", I apologize. Could you please point out precisely where in the article it says these lines verbatim? see below Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A point to look at in this article, there are more sources used for negative than there are positive. Even articles that praise the subject are only used in this article to cherry pick a negative. That is undue weight and displaying a bias toward agenda. I am merely coming at this from the standpoint of writing a good article. It has nothing to do with the subject itself. Please keep that in mind. The article as it stood before was completely agenda driven. Let's not pull the pendulum the other way. I see by reviewing content history that you are prone to remove tenure positive achievements, yet promote and include tenure negative. Maineartists (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The list goes on in just this one article. So who is "whitewashing" articles? Not me. I have absolutely no agenda with this subject. But if you are going to label other editors, then you should abide by your own rules when introducing content and be ready to defend the reasoning behind its merit for inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chetsford You are indeed correct, the quotes are in the article: 38 paragraphs down. That means, an editor scoured this article that covered the career of Cantor, referenced the source just to cherry pick those two lines. I find it also "concerning" as you write, that this source is only used for 2 other negative inclusions and a mere: "In 2004, Cantor was selected chancellor of Syracuse University." Yet this article, titled: "Bird by Bird: Nancy Cantor, community reflect on her tenure at Syracuse University" did not include:
 * "No chancellor has advocated for women and minority rights as passionately. No SU leader single-handedly transformed the city of Syracuse, pouring money into its development with the finesse of a mayor. And no chancellor gave SU as strong of a national presence."
 * "She’s spent most of her chancellorship in additive mode: increasing undergraduate enrollment by about 22 percent, expanding interdisciplinary programs and figuring out how to widen SU’s gates to a more ethnically, socioeconomically and geographically diverse student body."
 * "Whether things were going very well or very badly around her — whether she was succeeding at her billion-dollar fundraising campaign or dealing with the sexual abuse allegations against former assistant men’s basketball coach Bernie Fine — she did what she could. She took it bird by bird."
 * "... she began to advocate for both women’s rights and minority inclusion, spurred by the social movements of her childhood."
 * "Before coming to SU, Cantor’s career was marked by two nationally recognized decisions in which she championed diversity and inclusivity. As a former provost at the University of Michigan, she played a heavy role in helping to prepare Michigan defend affirmative action in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. As chancellor of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Cantor vocally opposed the use of Chief Illiniwek as the school’s mascot. So it was no surprise when she made the decision to have representatives of Onondaga Nation and Haudenosaunee Confederacy play a large role in her 2004 inauguration as SU chancellor."
 * "With her many successful initiatives — among them the Connective Corridor, reconstruction of The Warehouse, the Near West Side Initiative and Syracuse Say Yes to Education — Cantor is responsible for breathing life into the dying city."