Talk:Yuval Peres

Allegations of sexual harassment
Due to recent edit-warring, I am opening a talk page section for the different parties to discuss their arguments more constructively than by reverting each other's edits. I think the arguments for removing the discussion of the allegations from the article (because multiple sources are needed) are wrong. The criteria for sources that can be used in WP:BLP are not easy to satisfy, but there are at least two sources that clearly satisfy them (CRM statement and Peres email). Eigenbra (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There also appears to be significant levels of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry involved in the attempts to sanitize the page. Anyway, re sources, the criteria for whether we can use Peres' own email as a source are listed at WP:BLPSELFPUB. We certainly cannot use the Dinur/Friedgut/Goldreich email, as it's self-published and not by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the quote from edit summary ("If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out") is from WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which arguably does not apply to the subject. Eigenbra (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. For people who are notable but not public figures, it is more common to only have one source for the included claims. And I agree that the CRM source is usable. If we use it, we should also use Peres' email rather than leaving out the response to the accusations. Anyway, I've asked other editors from WP:BLPN to weigh in here with their opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Pointed here from BLP/N: Without reliable third-party sources, coverage of this fails BLP (PUBLICFIGURE and BLPSPS). It should not be included unless those accusations are covered, and even then the question becomes, has that had an affect on his career or life, as PUBLICFIGURE alone requires a higher standard for inclusion (and those NOT covered by PUBLICFIGURE, an even higher one). --M asem (t) 18:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The CRM source is third-party. And given that he has apparently lost his job and is on the job market this year, it does seem to have had a big affect on his life. But we have no reliable sources for that part of the story. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that CRM is speaking as a entity that has invited Peres to the CRM several times, they're not quite third-party; I know they are not the origins of the accusations, but they are the point of first publication, so really, this needs more RSes to include. Basically, this is almost not at all mentioned in sources, so it really should not be given any coverage, period. Any coverage based on that one post would be UNDUE among his notable accomplishments, as well as the other points I made. --M asem (t) 20:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading WP:IS correctly (specifically, the subsection on "third-party versus independent"), it seems like the CRM should indeed be considered third-party. A small collection of objects (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, they are not "the point of first publication": that would be the Dinur/Friedgut/Goldreich email, and its publication on the Stanford theory email list. That's not usable as a source here, of course, but it would be silly to pretend that the first source that meets Wikipedia standards is the first point of publication, merely because earlier publications are unusable. Taken to an extreme, that reasoning would imply a paradox, that no source could ever be usable, because whatever source you chose as the first usable would become the first point of publication and thereby unusable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eigenbra and David Eppstein that the CRM source is usable. I also concur with considering it a third-party source. I would like to see more sources about the accusations, but the ones we have now are, in my view, adequate to support what the article said, or something much like it. Nor do I see a due weight concern; the disputed section was two brief paragraphs and could be condensed still further. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Peres is not a PUBLICFIGURE. The standard for including any allegations must be higher than one source, and that being a press release/letter from an entity that has dealt with Peres. --M asem (t) 03:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In particular, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE calls on us to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." With this in mind, even though the CRM source is usable in my opinion, I am now leaning to not include the section on the allegations based on the sources currently available. Peres's notability is not his being an alleged sexual harasser. Eigenbra (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of the "entity that has dealt with Peres" factor at all. That seems like a misapprehension of their relationship and a misreading of what independence of a source means. After all, if they had never crossed paths with Peres and their community had had nothing to do with him, they would have said nothing. What matters is that Peres did not exercise editorial control over their statement about him. The various guidelines about who is and is not a "public figure" or "high-profile individual" are sufficiently vague that I honestly cannot see how to apply them one way or the other in this instance. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A side note: if it is true that there has been meat-puppetry on Peres' behalf (a possibility reported here) then I think that this page should stay semi-protected for a while, no matter which way the consensus on this specific point shapes up. It's not far-fetched to imagine that people willing to jump in and "sanitize" a page would be willing to manipulate it in other ways. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree Peres fails PUBLICFIGURE. He is NOTABLE with a limited touch of high-profile in a very restricted community. He is notable for his math and TCS. This has led to a few years in a position of responsibility at MSR, now ended. I do not see that the allegations are directly related to his notability in the past, and certainly not in the future. I do not have a clear view on usability of the CRM statement. It may meet a technical condition, and it seems sincere but a bit odd and has been removed by the CRM. I agree with XOR'easter on the obscurity of the "entity that has dealt with Peres" factor. In conclusion I am for "restraint". Megamoke (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Megamoke is one of the editors identified in the earlier comment as a likely meatpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to respond to that, which I consider inappropriate. "Possible" yes, "likely" no, and "actual" absolutely not. Discrediting others' opinions by implication is not helpful. Megamoke (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, since you are denying having been asked by the subject to edit the article, why the keen interest in this particular article to the exclusion of all other wp articles? Are you sure you don't have COI? Eigenbra (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's pull back a little and have this discussion as we might face to face. Eigenbra asks two questions. Here are my answers. On one, not sure I grasp the relevance of the hypothesis, but the answer is that I am a scientist who has been following this affair (who hasn't?) and I care a lot about correct process in decision making (in this case, that refers to the WP process, not the base allegations about which I know nothing, though my reactions would surprise no-one). On WP generally, I use it every week, it is a great resource. (Side track: I have been reading WP policies and am struck by their intelligence.)
 * Two: do I have a COI? This is a technical question, so I looked it up. WP:COI is of limited value in this case, since it seems not to deal in definitions, but I am not guilty according to that. I looked up the definitions according to english speaking funding councils, namely in alphabetical order EPSRC, ERC, NRC, NSF, with the NWO thrown in for good measure. In no case do I have a COI. I hope that helps.
 * There is suspicion in the air, and it has fixed on my editing history. I believe we can all confront the issues honestly even when our opinions may diverge slightly. I hope you can agree. Regards to all, Megamoke (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would guess that the vast majority of living scientists are not "following this affair". If they were, we'd have sources out of our ears, and there would be no question about including the material in the article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. As a recent data point: I work in closely related areas, have been citing Peres frequently in a line of recent research, have had multiple discussions with other theoretical computer scientists both at my own institution and at conferences about sexual harassment within the field, am acquainted with and have had discussions with one of his accusers about other topics, and yet only found out about these incidents quite recently when I noticed the edit-warring on this article. If (as was alleged in email to me) Peres is using his network of friends to whitewash the article and his record more generally in preparation for a job search, he seems to be doing a competent job of it. Perhaps those friends should ask themselves: if someone who you didn't know whitewashed his record in the same way, and (not knowing about the harassment) you hired that person, what would you think about the people who had hidden the record of harassment from you? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019
Before "mathematician" in the first line, add "sexual harasser and". After "harasser", add citation to either of the following: https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/yuval-peres/ https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2019/11/06/an-outrage-at-uc-davis/ https://twitter.com/animaanandkumar/status/1067941004450263040?lang=en https://twitter.com/McLNeuro/status/1067844039523950592

Most of these links (specially the second one) include direct accounts by his victims. Sgsellan (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How about we resolve the discussion above about whether this goes into the body of the article before trying to decide whether and how it should be summarized in the lead? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not done, see the above discussion and Biographies of living persons. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen
has recently been trying to add material to this article about how Peres stopped listing certain job titles on his web page and inferring from that change that the job titles changed. Do not do that. Do not even say "he stopped listing this title" in a position that suggests that this implies he stopped having the job. It is original research by synthesis and a violation of WP:BLP even to suggest such a thing. If we want to write that he stopped having certain jobs, we need a reliable published source saying so. A change of web site could be merely a meaningless formatting whim. It is not an adequate source for this material. Better to leave the article in an obviously-incomplete state with no listed end to any of his positions than to make up things from the air like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have been trying to add accurate and verifiable employment and affiliation information to this article. I added self-published material that said that in 2011 Peres was theory group manager and principal researcher. I added information (a copy of the MSR theory page) showing that in 2016 his title was principle researcher. On the first attempt I was told this was synthesis and not allowed. On the second attempt I was told that it is leading to say in year 1 his title was X and in year 2 his title was Y, even though both statements were verifiable from non self-published sources. The use of the website was just to pinpoint when the transition occurred. Is this the problem? Certainly if we know somebody's job titles in two different years are different it is possible to include this, even if it is two different sources (neither self-published) that indicate his job titles. Both my attempts have been reverted. How can I do this in compliance with all the Wikipedia policies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwhoff (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying he has a job title, when his web page says he has the title, is one thing. "Pinpointing when a transition occurred" by making up inferences from what his web page does not say is completely different. (As an aside here: in my experience, it is common for academic job transitions to not have a pinpoint time. Often one is on leave from one job for as long as a year while starting another.) As for "How can I do this": by either finding published sources that explicitly discuss the transition (it could be self-published but only if it contains the information you are trying to source, not triangulating around it; a curriculum vitae with end dates for past positions would do) or by not adding it to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have undone your edits again. LinkedIn is not a reliable source for any of this. Please change your focus on this article, from "how can I squeeze in as much information as I can infer" to "what sources are reliable and how does Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sourcing limit what we can say". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I asked a question and my last post was (I thought) perfectly in line with your answer. I thought that Linked In is a self-published source. If it is then my edit was perfectly in line with (my reading of) the wikipedia policy on self published sources. I have two more questions. First how can we say in the intro "He was ... a Principal Researcher"? This implies that his employment is ended. The edit that changed that to the past tense is unsourced. Should that be reverted? That would, of course, be false, but it seems to me to be required by what I have read of wikipedia policy and your explanations of it.

Second if there is a official list of departmental faculty and a persons name is not on it then can I say they are not on the faculty? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwhoff (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If LinkedIn were purely a system of author-curated resumes it might pass WP:BLPSPS, but it's not. Too much of the information on LinkedIn is scraped from other sources and it's too difficult to tell which is which. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed your recent edit here because it is forbidden under WP:OUTING to inquire into the real-life identity of Wikipedia editors. Don't do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I undid your article reversion (and change "many women" to "multiple women" in two places). I think the edits you reverted are useful, bringing in a new reliable source with a lot of relevant information for this section, which previously had to skirt around certain important pieces due to lack of BLP-compliant sources (e.g. the Dinur et al letter). If the source was brought to my attention before these edits, I would have made materially similar edits myself. Eigenbra (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)