Talk:Walter Lewin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The "Lectures" section is just copied verbatim from Lewin's website.

Lines[edit]

He is also quite famous for being able to really fast draw dotted lines on chalkboards, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=raurl4s0pjU maybe that could go into some trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.155.233.251 (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay that's what he's most famous for outside of MIT and, you know, legitimate academia. Brauden (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comment[edit]

"In fact, many professors, like N.J.Krishnan of The Valley school use only his videos to teach their students Physics. No teaching otherwise is done here."

seems completely irrelevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.225.10 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

intro section[edit]

I think some of the information in the intro section, has enough detail that it belongs in the body of the article. Probably in a new section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.65.6 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

It says that he was born in 1936. If this is correct and verifiable, it should be put in the beginning of the article and the "article without birth date" category should be removed. If not, the DOB should be removed.

Also, Prof. Lewin is awesome.--Jtle515 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lines, the dotted lines[edit]

To draw dotted lies like professor Lewin, one must hold the chalk perpendicular to the chalkboard, far up the chalk (far from the part that is touching the chalkboard) and apply optimal amount of pressure, it takes less than a minute to figure out just how much. This causes the chalk to vibrate, bouncing off the board. The faster one moves the chalk across the board, the farther apart dots appear. I just thought I'd put this here because the article describes Lewin's ability as preternatural, which it is not, as seen above. Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I think Lewin is awesome, I just disagree with the preternatural part. Nikolaneberemed (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and fixed. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education[edit]

Although the section on Lewin's early life during WWII has been copied almost verbatim from the MIT website (as cited), it seems that a clarifying statement about his father's disappearance (regarding his being Jewish, unlike Lewin's mother) has been removed. Surely this clarification is needed, as otherwise the reason for his disappearance is ambiguous (though it was not) and the sentence seems somewhat out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Darwen (talk • contribs) 22:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updating first paragraph[edit]

Lewin was well known for the lectures, however since they have been indefinitely removed, I think we should change the first paragraph. JT2958 (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is also no longer a professor emeritus. [1] 71.184.65.72 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think them being removed changes the fact that he is well known. To some extent, the reverse; I had never heard of him until I saw the MIT press release that they had been removed (though it turns out I know one of his graduate students). So I think we'd definitely need a source to say that he's no longer well known. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Cosby article doesn't mention his sexual assault in the opening paragraphs. Perhaps we shouldn't include the sexual harassment in the opening paragraphs of this article? They don't really describe what he is most well known for.18.189.74.208 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what he may be remembered for, the courses on MIT and OCW have been taken down. It should read something along the lines of '...courses that were taught on OCW and edX, until he was found to be engaged in online sexual harassment with learners'. JT2958 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are his lectures well-known because they are(were) hosted by MIT's website, or are his lectures well-known for themselves? Likewise, is he known for the lectures because they were on MIT's website, or for the lectures (his work) themselves? If the latter of each pair, then I think it's undue weight to focus on the removal from that hosting site in the lead. That is, he's known for things that were originally hosted somewhere, and he has now been [accused, determined, whatever...see next section] of something that led to various outcomes. But their removal from that server seems like a minor detail in the overall picture of this person. DMacks (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a determination[edit]

I have serious POV and BLP issues with saying "a determination that Lewin engaged in online sexual harassment". If a court of law said this after a public hearing, then "determination" would be okay with me. But this is just an allegation by an MIT official with no concrete facts to back it up. I changed "determination" to "complaint", but someone reverted saying "No. Someone complained to MIT. MIT determined. They didn't just pull things down first as a preliminary step and then start investigating." We don't know what sort of investigation MIT may or may not have had, but it is still just MIT's opinion and there may be another side to the story. There are certainly plenty of other examples of colleges taking rash actions based on flimsy accusations. Let the reader decide for himself whether to trust MIT's judgment. Roger (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A determination" is the exact phrase used in one of the sources we cite for this sentence. (In fact, our wording is uncomfortably close to that source, and perhaps should be rephrased to avoid copying.) The other one uses a different grammatical form of the same word. Do you think it's appropriate to go by your own judgement for what it means to be a determination in place of what the reliable sources say? As for "rash actions", the complaint happened two months ago and this only came down today. By the standards of academic bureaucracies that's fast, but it seems unlikely that it's just some official acting on his or her own. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources for what happened. You cite an MIT news story and an MIT press release. They are reliable sources for what MIT did, but neither makes any attempt to present Lewin's side or a non-MIT view. I am not suggesting my judgment, as I do not know the facts either. I suggest a neutral word, and not one a judgment for one side of the issue. Again, MIT's opinion may be entirely justified, if we had the facts, but it is still just an opinion, and MIT saying that it made a determination should not mean that WP should endorse that opinion. Roger (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "MIT made a determination" is not justified by an MIT-associated source? We aren't saying "a court of law in Trenton New Jersey made a determination" and we aren't including an unqualified assertion that he actually did anything (in part because we don't know exactly what he did and it seems unlikely we're going to find out). It's true that the current text is awkwardly passive, omitting a clear statement of exactly who made the determination, and that should probably be fixed. But your proposed alternative version, where someone complained and MIT took the courses down and un-emeritused him on the basis of that complaint without doing any evaluation of its validity, is just incorrect. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about saying "after investigating a complaint" rather than "determination"? That way it's clear they were not just going on the accusation alone (I agree that simply "after an accusation" is not in keeping with the process as reported by MIT). But it also avoids a word that sounds like it might have some stronger legal basis than it does (we don't really know what process was followed in detail and we don't have independent reporting about it). DMacks (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about following what the sources actually say and calling it a determination? But saying that "MIT determined" rather than "a determination was made"? "Investigating" is still the wrong word. It's what you do before reaching a decision, not the decision itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"MIT determined" is good, it's exactly who the source says did it. Active voice for who did it solves my concern about sounding stronger than it is--I don't disagree about what happened, but we aren't allowed to WP:WEASEL to make it sound anything beyond that (was my and at least part of Roger's concern). Note I said "after"--presumably being obvious that it would be the result of whatever they find to be the case regardless of what process or terminology they use for it. DMacks (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "MIT determined". I'm not convinced that we need to put in the part about an investigation; although it seems very likely that some sort of investigation happened, we know nothing about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both cited refs very clearly state that there was an investigation, and at least one has some details about it. Not that it's of encyclopediac worth for now. DMacks (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right about that. Still, I agree with you (I think) that adding that to the article isn't necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that Rolling Stone determined that there was a frat party gang rape at UVa? The magazine said that it made a determination, after an investigation for several months. No, because it was still just Rolling Stone's opinion, and not confirmed by anyone else. Likewise, for BLP and NPOV reasons, we have to make clear that this was just an MIT decision, and we do not even know what considerations went into that decision. Anything else is grossly unfair to Lewin. Roger (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about what we say is inconsistent with the sources? The Tech article says "MIT is cutting ties with retired professor Walter Lewin after determining that the physicist, whose lectures had made him a beloved teacher and minor Internet star, had sexually harassed at least one student online." That seems to very clearly support the statement that "MIT determined that Lewin engaged in online sexual harassment of an online MITx learner in violation of its policies". And the Tech is an independent newspaper, not an administration mouthpiece. If you'd prefer, there are plenty of other sources (eg the Boston Globe) that say almost exactly the same thing. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do replace any press release / student newspaper sources with major newspaper sources when you see that they have the same information. I think the sources we have now are adequately reliable, but the major newspapers are better. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Boston Globe wording is more similar to my text that David reverted. [2] That is, the "determination" is just something that MIT "announced", and not something that anyone else has verified. Roger (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What distinction are you trying to draw between MIT "announcing a determination" and "determining"? Because to me they mean approximately the same thing, but by adding more qualifiers it seems like we are trying to weasel out of clearly stating what he has been determined to do, intentionally cast doubt on whether he actually did it, and instead make this into a false balance where there are two sides to the story, one side says he did something, the other says he didn't, and both are treated as equally valid. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they obviously do not mean the same thing to you, or you would not have reverted my edit. I am not seeking balance at all here, but merely following BLP guidelines. WP should only recite the facts, and not draw potentially libelous inferences. Roger (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an inference that MIT made this determination. It is a clear fact, stated in our sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you think I am overly cautious. Can you wait to get opinions from editors with more BLP experience? Roger (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MIT announced that MIT announced that MIT did something[edit]

Now we have a sentence stating that "MIT announced that ... after MIT announced that ...". In reality, there was only one announcement, and additionally the revocation of Lewin's emeritus status etc did not happen subsequently to the announcement, it happened prior to the announcement and was one of the things being announced. Can we have some better care to writing quality and temporal logic here, please? This is after all a BLP and a sensitive subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edX version of 8.01x and 8.02x[edit]

Hi,

People seem to keep reverting my links to the edX versions of 8.01x and 8.02x. I have been in close ccntact with Lewin the last few weeks and we spent a lot of time recreating these high res and edited versions. Please stop removing the links.

Kind regards, Daniel Dekkers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Dekkers (talk • contribs) 01:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I believe to be reliable sources, Lewin was using these courses for purposes of sexual predation. This seems likely to be the reason that MIT not only removed any affiliation of Lewin with them, but took the additional step of taking down their links to his courses: so they wouldn't be playing any part in this predation. Your claim to be in close contact with him to further his ends in putting the links back up here gives you less credibility, not more, in my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policy is that editors with a conflict of interest should not generally add content. Therefore, though I appreciate your attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia, it's best left for someone without a connection to the subject of the arrival to contribute. I also agree with David Eppstein's strong concern. I also think that this particular content doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability in reliable sources. And Wikipedia is not a place to promote any individual's work. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait -- this is no WP:CONFLICT of interest. Wikipedia policy is WP:NOTCENSORED and against personal attacks. You are saying that you want to censor WP because of some personal allegations against Lewin. There is no proof of those allegations, and they do not belong on this Talk page. Even if he violated some MIT policy, that is not a justification for censoring WP. Please reinstate the links. Roger (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David you are edit warring to try to censor YouTube physics videos because you personally do not approve of some alleged behavior that is not even on the videos. Is that right? Don't you think that some people visiting this page might want to see the videos? Is there some WP policy to support you on this? You only mention the one on external links, but there are other such external links on this page and 1000s of others, so that is obviously not the reason. Can you please explain? Roger (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should generally be in the habit of making link farms to the videos of the subjects of our articles. People who want to find the videos are perfectly capable of using Google to find them. I believe WP:ELNO does support me in this, yes. And in this particular case, the subject's past alleged behavior *and* the subject's apparent self-promotional intent in working with Dekker to push those links onto Wikipedia make me less willing to make an exception to this policy. I might add that your own well-known anti-feminist history doesn't give you a lot of credibility when you attempt to downplay the subject's misdeeds. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Daniel Dekkers' addition of the link is about as clear a conflict of interest as there is: he added links to videos he created. (Being a new editor, I'm sure it was done in good faith, but the conflict of interest was still grounds for removal in itself.) Roger's edits, as far as I know, are not a conflict of interest, though, so that reason for removing the links is no longer valid. However, I think it's a bad choice to include the links. First, Wikipedia is not a link farm and we're not here to promote a new version of Lewin's videos. Second, WP:NOTCENSORED applies to Wikipedia content, but that doesn't mean that content that doesn't strengthen the article needs to be included. I just don't think these videos improve the article. The concerns about linking to videos that have a history of being used as a lure for sexual harassment (which seems really quite bed from the Inside Higher Ed feature David linked to) strengthen the case for removing them, though I agree that NOTCENSORED means that the objectionable content is not reason in and of itself to exclude the links. WP:ELNO also provides some guidance; although it doesn't explicitly forbid this type of link, I think that points 4 and 8 lean against it, and the stand-alone and embedded lists composed primarily of external links is definitely not OK; external links should not be in the body of the article.
Also, they are not allegations against Lewin (as documented in this article); the allegations were made in October 2014, but MIT has been through the full review process (which is confidential under Federal law) and determined that Lewin in fact did use these videos to perpetrate sexual harassment. The fact that they followed the law and did not make the process and evidence (which is almost certainly very sensitive for the victims) public doesn't mean that "there is no proof". —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns about linking to videos that have a history of being used as a lure for sexual harassment do NOT strengthen the case for removing them. It is not our responsibility to babysit the readers of this article; rather, we want people to know about the better quality videos and even give them the opportunity to interact with Walter Lewin again, if that's what they want. Besides, I believe the best way to prevent sexual harassment, and to improve society in general, is to provide MORE information, not less. Quit being an anti-education feminist. 203.52.130.149 (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that saying "he was using the courses for illegal purposes" veers straight into WP:BLP territory. Without strong sources supporting such an allegation, we can not use it as a reason for removing courses which are of benefit to readers here. The source only seems strong enough to indicate that we ought not say students should engage in email contact with him -- but it appears that such an untoward event is highly unlikely at this point per the source as his email is disabled and he has no contact with the current students through that course or through MIT. I note Wikipedia links to material from convicted murderers and worse - as long as the material is of value to readers and not in any way going to further any crime, we should do so, IMO. Collect (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "not in any way going to further any crime" is one of the catching points here, since the IHE source linked below seems to be claiming that he did use the existence of these online course materials in furtherance of his alleged harassment (which may or may not have risen to the level of being a crime; I don't think we have a clear source on that distinction). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Inside Higher Education article strikes me as a very strong source supporting that statement (which I would hardly even call an allegation at this point). And we don't have to have a source to omit something; we'd just have to have a source to say in the article that he was using the courses for illegal purposes (which I don't think we do). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW since Schlafly didn't give us the courtesy of notifying us, and Collect didn't explain how he found this discussion: Schlafly has taken it to WP:BLP/N#Walter Lewin with a rather misleading summary of the affair. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought it obvious how I found this ... Schlafly's post at 00.41 on BLP/N. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea there was a BLP thread on this until David Eppstein mentioned it because Schlafly didn't provide any notice here, making it seem like he was trying to circumvent the discussion here. I added the notice template since he didn't. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 09:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not accuse Lewin of any illegal purposes. It only accuses him of "inappropriate language" and "violation of MIT policies". As per BLP policies, we should not even accept that accusation as necessarily true. And even if true, has WP become the policeman of language used in outside conversations? Roger (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collect was the only one to bring up illegality. And your flamboyant claims of repression, censorship, and a police mentality over not putting up a self-published youtube link are laughable. As for me: I would prefer to avoid the possibility that, by portraying these links as somehow official, Wikipedia becomes in some small part responsible for leading more victims to Lewin. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leading more victims to Lewin? That is absurd. Lewin's MIT contact info has been revoked. How can that happen? Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have some sort of grudge against Lewin. Millions of people have watched these physics videos. Maybe you think that less physics education will result in fewer naked selfies, but it is not your call. WP is not in the business of censoring physics lectures in order to carry out your preferred punishment of Lewin for his inappropriate tweets. Roger (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
False, again. I have no feeling whatsoever for or against Lewin except maybe a little pity for the way he brought himself down. Other people can deal with punishment; that's not what we're here for. But he seems to be completely unapologetic (at least in what we've seen from him in public) and preventing him from spamming Wikipedia in the hope of slowing down any repeat performance seems like a good thing, both from the point of view of the victims (for whom I have much more sympathy) and social responsibility (don't go out of your way to make it easy for someone to repeat the same bad behavior that led to trouble before). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Eppstein. I do respect your moral beliefs (believe me, I've been there) but please rethink very carefully what you are saying. Walter Lewin has not been convicted. There is no criminal offense. There are no charges against him. And yet you are willing to silence him and censor his work, "just in case". Kind Regards, Daniel Dekkers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Dekkers (talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David, if Lewin apologized to your satisfaction for whatever you think he did, would you then decide that it would be acceptable to you for WP readers to learn some physics from his videos? Roger (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the answer is EDUCATION. If you are worried that people who watch his videos might be subjected to more sexual harassment, SAY THAT IN THE ARTICLE (and SOURCE it), but that does NOT justify removing the links for THOSE INFORMED PEOPLE WHO STILL WANT TO WATCH THEM. 203.52.130.149 (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I love it when someone says "Other people can deal with the punishment, but...". Wikipedia does not have a policy against sexual harassment. 203.45.134.227 (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lewin is well known for his courses. Linking to videos of these courses strikes me as a good way to increase the reader's understanding of the subject of the article (in this case Lewin), and that's the intended purpose of external links. I don't believe the intent of the self-promotion clause of WP:LINKSTOAVOID is to exclude links to work created by someone on that person's article. By analogy, I would argue that a link to the text or video of the Feynman Lectures would be very useful in the article on Feynman. I don't think this would be an issue if it were not for the allegations against Lewin.

Regarding MIT's decision to take down the videos, it's worth noting that MIT is in a different position from Wikipedia. The videos on opencourseware were on an MIT website offering material for an MIT course and Lewin was an emeritus MIT professor. We're not hosting Lewin's videos, we're not providing his contact information, we're not giving him our imprimatur. All we're doing is providing a link to an entirely different website where someone can watch the videos if they choose to. An external link is not an endorsement.GabrielF (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support a link to a main directory of his videos (a youtube channel, a table-of-contents on some other video host, etc.). But I don't support a link to every one individually. I base this on WP:NOTDIR (we're an encyclopedia, not a programming guide or product directory--these are products and programs from the subject of the article, albeit popular and educational products and programs, not the subjects of the article themselves. And I base it on WP:ELNO #13 (level of direct/specific relationship to article subject) and the general note that embedded lists shouldn't be full of extlinks. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely, this whole article is waaaay overloaded with extlinks, lots of direct WP:ELNO failures, such as direct links to publications rather than just ISBN. As for the physics lectures, almost everything about them is off-topic here except as directly related to Lewin the person because we have a separate Walter Lewin Lectures on Physics article. Or else that article needs to be AfD'd as a content-fork if everything about the videos belongs in the person's bio article. DMacks (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This entire article suffers badly from being a collection of lists of the talks and videos Lewin has made; nearly all of the lists and all of the inline links to videos should go. I wouldn't object to a single link, in the external links section or perhaps in a reference, to a YouTube channel. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think one link to the edX physics 1 and one link to edX physics 2 are fine in the external links section. I'm okay with trimming the media appearances section. For some particularly notable authors we have a separate bibliography article and that's also a possibility here.GabrielF (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is more or less what Dekkers did. He put links to the 2 playlists, not to the individual videos. Roger (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this a bit late in the game, but agree this reads like a CV. Started section below for general clean up. Won't interfere with discussion and consensus building here, but wanted to point out the new section below and the general need to clean up this article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a new-to-this-article reference from the Tech dated January 14, 2015 which adds considerable context for MIT's reasoning in removing the videos from their platforms:

“We removed the courses because we felt they presented a [real] danger to people who would see them and contact [former] Professor Lewin, expecting a student-teacher relationship and getting something that was inappropriate,” said Professor Peter H. Fisher, the physics department head and coordinator of the MIT investigation that led to Lewin’s fall from grace.

The Wikipedia article now says that MIT removed the videos "to prevent future sexual harassment", which I think gets to the core of this issue in a fully cited way. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a resume and other clean up[edit]

Some issues I noticed when reading the page. Listing them here because I know this BLP is currently being discussed above and on BLPN. Would rather discuss before editing majorly.

  • There is too much focus on listing lectures as if this was Lewin's CV. Nearly all of these could be removed and put in prose form.
  • Remove citation from allegations in lead per WP:LEAD. Stuff's cited in body of article.
  • Consider trimming allegation info in lead. It's a but UNDUE compared to length of lead.
  • Needs a copy edit for fluff/peacock language. E.g., I changed "achieved his PhD" to "earned his doctorate" and removed degree from infobox name field.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Completely agree on your first and fourth points; thanks for the start doing the editing. Because of the negative nature of the MIT finding, I think that keeping the explicit citations in the lede is best both to ensure that we stick to what the sources say and so that readers who only read the lede can tell that it is properly sourced. I think the two sentences (one to explain the harassment and one to say that the courses aren't atill available from MIT) are about right in terms of weight. If we remove the second sentence on this from the lede, the mentions of the online courses earlier in the lede should be tweaked to say that they're no longer available. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 09:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest fix: Drop the exhaustive list of "interviews". Many contain basically the same overall or overlapping content, and no reader at all will use the list. Collect (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bunch more trimming, reordering, wikifying, etc. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of sexual harassment restored to lede[edit]

I just restored a condensed mention of the MIT sexual harassment determination to the lede. This is a significant event that is very well-sourced and is very relevant to any reader's impression of Lewin's career, especially the teaching aspect of his career. Therefore, airbrushing it out of the lede (this edit) isn't appropriate. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your edit is a serious BLP violation. Your statements go beyond what the sources say, and should be reverted immediately. Roger (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead's current form seem fine and accurately reflect the sources. To quote from MIT.edu:
MIT is cutting ties with retired professor Walter Lewin after determining that the physicist, whose lectures had made him a beloved teacher and minor Internet star, had sexually harassed at least one student online. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is MIT's allegation, and I have no objection to the article saying that MIT alleges this. Going beyond this is a serious BLP violation. Roger (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead attributed it to MIT directly by saying they "determined". Exact wording is In 2014, MIT determined that Lewin had sexually harassed an online learner; as a consequence, MIT removed the lectures from its learning platforms and ended its relationship with Lewin. I see no BLP issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We both were part of the BLPN you filed on this issue. It's honestly a much improved/reduced version from the last time you edited this page (link) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MIT claims that it made that determination. There is no indepedent verification of MIT's process. I also object to the other changes, such as titled a section "Sexual harassment of online students". Again, we just have allegations, and it is a BLP violation to say that Lewin committed sexual harassment, unless there is some court decision or something like that. Roger (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the lead section, it is clear that it is MIT who made that determination and MIT who meted out the consequences. I've retitled the section to Allegations of sexual harassment. I agree that it's best to be prudent per WP:BLP and since section headers are in Wikipedia's voice, extra caution should be taken. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The later text says "MIT announced that it had determined". I object to anything stronger than that. We do not know that MIT made any determination, only that it claimed it did. Also, text was added about victims and inappropriate messages. These are just allegations, and should be labeled as such, or removed. Roger (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please the guidelines on BLP. Almost every edit overstates the facts in order to put Lewin in a more unfavorable light. Ashill's last one says "fear of continued harassment". [3] The source says “in the interest of preventing any further inappropriate behavior.” Nothing about fear or continued harassment, that I see. (Correct me if I am wrong; I have not read it all.) Policy requires sticking to the facts, and not speculating about why someone might have done something. Roger (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Schlafly: I explained that edit here (because it continued that existing thread). "Fear of continued harassment" is part of the title of the cited source. What I added to the text of the Wikipedia article was "to prevent future sexual harassment" which is lifted verbatim from text of the cited source. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) edited to condense and remove misunderstanding —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the wording currently being used in this article is rather biased. This is an allegation. MIT is not a court or a justice department, it is simply a third party involved in this. Walter Lewin has not been charged with any of this and has not been found guilty by any sort of court. As such, this is at most an accusation that MIT has decided to believe. But these are just opinions. These entities do not have to abide by any due process or even fairness like a court does. The only reason it is being portrayed this way in the media is because MIT is FORCED to make a public statement to their very large audience about its actions. So my point is this: This is an accusation that has not yet been substantiated. MIT has acted on this before an OFFICIAL due process abiding court made any decision on this. Therefore, we should report on the accusation and how MIT has handled this, but we should NOT give it the weight of it being an absolute fact. He has not been found guilty by a judge. I believe that this is an important issue that deserves to placed in the lede, but it should be more balanced. Please remember that this is a WP:BLP. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested on the issue of the harassment allegation[edit]

I would like to open a discussion on the topic of the harassment allegation and the subsequent removal of the 801.1, 801.2, and 801.3 material from the OCW site. Although I have had my WP account for many years, this is the first topic about which I've had access to special information, and cared enough about to get involved in editing. So please excuse me for any violations of WP etiquette I may be committing. I'm learning. I am a personal email friend and long time "OCW Independent Learner" student of Professor Lewin, the "Living Person" involved in this BLP, who in my opinion, has been badly wronged, and is currently being actively injured by the way that this article is phrased. I am trying to convince him to get involved here to provide some balance to the coverage, and hopefully reach some consensus with the other editors of this page regarding some edits that we can all live with. I'm not making any edits now, because I want to do this the right way, and have the support of other editors so that the changes we agree upon will remain more durable. I certainly respect that maintaining the impartiality and accuracy of an encyclopedia is a sacred trust. But I think there is room to balance that requirement better against the BLP issues than it currently is. I suppose my first question should be "Who all is monitoring this talk page?" And my second would be "Would you guys like to hear directly from Professor Lewin on this matter?" Your kind attention is appreciated. Sbergman27 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article as it stands adheres very closely to what the reliable sources say about the sexual harassment case. Frankly, a number of edits have tried to soften the language by introducing words like "alleged", but that softening is not supported by the reliable sources as I read them. If this is a misreading of the sources or if there is anything in the article that is not cited, does not reflect what the source says, or if there's reason to doubt the source or consider it unreliable, please do point it out. And if the subject of the article wishes to aid in that, great. But if no reliable sources counter the plethora of reliable sources that support the existing article, I think there's little justification for removing or softening the material. Frankly, doing so would almost be a violation of WP:BLP as I understand it, even though the policy bias is to avoid negative content that isn't well-sourced. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, Alex. I've been pushing Professor Lewin for a while to get his side of the story out on this topic, despite the stressful nature of the false allegation and MIT throwing him to the wolves over it. But alas, when I discussed this with him a little while ago he had other priorities for me regarding the outdated state of other pages relating to his lectures which don't involve anything controversial. (No mention of the most important current sites, etc.) I still feel strongly about this, and hopefully we can pick up with it again at some point. In the mean time, he's sending me some updates on lecture availability and factual corrections he'd like me to address on other pages. But tell me. Professor Lewin prefers to stick to the physics in public and has not spoken or written publicly about the allegation or MIT's actions, except to defend the OCW leadership, who were forced to remove the content by the MIT leadership. Our discussions of this topic have been private. So currently, there would be nothing relevant to link to. If we wanted to get some sort of statement of his side of the issue, with proper sourcing, mentioned in the article... how could we go about it? What would qualify? One thing I know that the Professor would *not* approve is him bringing up the topic in a high level way. (And I quite understand his position on that.) What would be a low-key way of creating an acceptable reference? At least then the article would not be completely one-sided, as it is now. That alone might go some way toward fixing the problem. Thank you for any suggestions. Sbergman27 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are a number of reasons (including potentially legal ones) for which Dr. Lewin likely prefers not to speak out about this publicly. But as long as there are no reliable sources presenting what you say is his side of the story, I don't think that it would be appropriate to change the reliably-sourced statements on this and other articles. At its best, Wikipedia is based very closely on what sources say; Wikipedia is not a place to present any information for the first time. It is explicitly against Wikipedia's core policies to include any material that is not published in reliable sources; including material based on private discussions or that is not otherwise published elsewhere is considered original research and is not allowed (especially in biographies of living persons like this one) for very good reasons. So ultimately, any rebuttal should be published elsewhere; if that is done in a reliable source, the information can be added to Wikipedia.
There are some links at the top of this talk page in the section saying that this article is subject to the biography of living persons policy; you might find them helpful. Good luck, and let me know if there's anything I can do to be helpful. If there is another side to this story that can be supported, it should get out, but there doesn't appear to be anything public that indicates that there's another side. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbergman27: It has been close to 20 months since your last contribution to Wikipedia, but maybe you are still around. A way for Wikipedia to report more accurately on this very unfortunate incident would present itself if the announced determination by MIT would lead to some action taken by the courts. Apart from the involved learners, it seems an untenable situation for Lewin to have the reputation of his lifelong career marred (and his Professor Emeritus title revoked) by a unilateral MIT announcement. So if you are indeed able to communicate with Lewin, you could impress on him how he could redeem himself by some legal action (with proper legal advice, which this is not), such as taking MIT to court for defamation. Otherwise, for as long as he remains unresponsive to the allegation he may very well appear simply as guilty. Lklundin (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Walter Lewin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walter Lewin. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Walter Lewin. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wordy details, and other flaws[edit]

Hi, @DMacks:

As far as the lead is concerned:

  • "MIT investigation" is definitely ambiguous as to which authority did investigate, so a specification like "investigation performed by MIT" (or similar) is necessary in an encyclopedia.
  • Any allegation -however plausible- of "sexual harassment" without judicial sentence is not encyclopedic, it even violates Human Rights. MIT is only in charge to state that their "policy" had been violated (to their measures!) –therefore my phrasing.
  • As I understand the sources, the alleged misbehavior of Lewin happened rather "in connection" but not "in" the course (it started with something like establishing a company), and "MOOC" is even two letters shorter than "course".
  • It is of fundamental difference if a "student" -below, say 19?- is affected by sexually inappropriate online behaviour of a professor at a university, or a person, matured to 32 years of age. Concealing this fact violates WP:NPOV.

As far as the section "Lectures" is concerned:

  • I see no problem in referring to the full blown gory details when necessary within the article, but at least I want to avoid being three times explicit about a possibly severe misconduct, without a final decision being rendered (by whichever judicial court).

May I suggest to dump the whole "details" in the last paragraph, and to refer twice to the reestablished content I phrased in the lead (putting the sourcing also there)?

I am sorry, but I do not understand the "switch to passive voice" in the edit summary. BTW, my wordy details amounted to 43 bytes. Purgy (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walter_Lewin&oldid=1208159681"