Talk:Rosalind Picard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:50, 24 August 2007 editMoulton (talk \| contribs)897 edits →The Petition???: The above discussion refers to the subsequently titled, reinterpeted, and repurposed petition to which the subject is neither a signatory nor a party.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:12, 21 December 2024 edit undoLancer999 (talk \| contribs)16 edits →Request for Consensus: NeurIPS 2024 Keynote Controversy: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{WPBiography\|living=yes\|class=Start\|importance=\|needs-photo=yes\|needs-infobox=yes\|attention=yes}}
	{{WikiProject ~~intelligent~~ ~~design~~\|class=~~Start~~\|~~attention~~=~~yes}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=B\|listas=Picard, Rosalind\|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography \|attention=yes \|s&a-work-group=yes}}
	==Point of View Material on the Petition==
			{{WikiProject Creationism\|Intelligent design=yes\|Intelligent design-importance=low\|importance=Low}}
	A respected news source, the ], labeled the petition anti-evolution. This carries more weight than anonymous contributors (like myself and others who have contributed to this article). It also appears that most of the previous editors of this article seemed to have agends.
			{{WikiProject Computing \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Women scientists \|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{Notable Wikipedian\|18.85.10.10\|Rosalind Picard\|editedhere=yes}}
			{{Notable Wikipedian\|18.85.10.17\|Rosalind Picard\|editedhere=yes}}
			{{Notable Wikipedian\|18.85.44.145\|Rosalind Picard\|editedhere=yes}}
			{{Archive box\|
			*]
			] <small>(May 2006 — May 2008)</small> <br>
			] <small>(May 2008 — September 2009)</small>
			}}
			__TOC__

			== External links modified ==
	] Edit: Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence
	-Clearly POV, no explanation needed

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	] Edit: Added POV material: (Note that the biological science signers are the most highly represented group.)
	-Again, this is POV and actually false since upon further examination lumping people in the "engineering/computational sciences" signers together creates a larger group than the biological science signers. It is safest to leave this out.

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:3\|one external link\|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	I suggest that all contributors read ]. Other comments would be appreciated.]
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080328121832/http://mitpress.mit.edu:80/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=4060 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=4060&ttype=2
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222054934/http://www.scholarpedia.org:80/article/Affective_Computing to http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Affective_computing
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050420205157/http://byte.com:80/art/9802/sec3/art9.htm to http://www.byte.com/art/9802/sec3/art9.htm

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	This is the ] that the Discovery Institute's petition was Intelligently Designed to be Anti-Evolution:

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	This article from the Discovery Institute clearly demonstrates that the petition is being used by the Discovery Institute in its campaign against evolution (it's dated April 1, but although ridiculous, it's not a joke -- they take themselves quite seriously):
	http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2114

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 22:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
	The petition and Rosalind Picard's name are certainly being USED by the anti-evolution, pro-creationism movement. There is no question of that fact. So the New York Times is correct in labeling it the Anti-Evolution petition.

			==Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body==
	I frame this as a teleological argument just to be ironic (the fact that the NY Times calls it the Anti-Evolution Petition is enough justification already). Countering with the ] simply raises the question: why don't you apply those same objections to ], which is also a teleological argument?
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/John_Abbott_College/Mind-Body_(Winter_2023) \| assignments = ], ], ], ], ] \| start_date = 2023-01-16 \| end_date = 2023-05-31 }}

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 03:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)</span>
	On 13 March 2006 18:32, someone edited the heading of this page from "Intelligent Design Support" to "Showing Skepticism and Asking for More Critical Examination of the Evidence", and removed the word "Intelligent Design" from the text. I ask for a more critical examination of the evidence of that statement! When has Picard ever shown any skepticism about Intelligent Design, or asked for more critical examination of the evidence for Intelligent Design? The petition she signed is one-sided and Anti-Evolution, because it doesn't ask for a careful examination of the evidence for Intelligent Design, only Darwinism. Science demands the critical examination of ALL theories, including the ]. The Anti-Evolution petition is superfluous and patronising, because it admonishes scientists to do something they were already doing, without asking anyone to apply the same standards to Intelligent Design.

			==Request for Consensus: NeurIPS 2024 Keynote Controversy==
	It's petty for Rosalind Picard or her toadys to engage in an edit war to white-wash the New York Time's term "Anti-Evolition" and all references to "Intelligent Design", instead of standing up for what they believe in and explaining WHY she signed her name and the good name of the MIT to that Anti-Evolution petition.
			Hello editors,
			I would like to discuss the inclusion of a recent controversy involving Rosalind Picard’s keynote speech at NeurIPS 2024.

			Context: During the NeurIPS 2024 keynote, a slide presented by Picard included remarks that were criticized for cultural generalizations. NeurIPS issued an official statement on their verified X.com account acknowledging the issue, apologizing, and clarifying that the remarks do not align with their code of conduct. I added this incident to the article with a factual and neutral tone, citing NeurIPS' official statement as the source. However, the edit was reverted with the reasoning that more than a primary source is needed.
	The question is not "Is the petition Anti-Evolution?" It certainly is, because that's how it's being used by its designers. The real question I'd like answered is: "Does Rosalind Picard believe in Intelligent Design, Creationism, or Evolution, and is she willing to stand up for what she believes in and signs her name to, or not?" She needs to answer that question herself, and this wiki page should link to that.

			My Argument: While Misplaced Pages prefers secondary sources, the NeurIPS statement is a reliable primary source for verifying the occurrence of the incident. It:
	It would be interesting to hear Picard address this glaring double standard:
			# Comes from NeurIPS’ official and verified X.com account.
			# Is a direct response to the controversy.

			Since this is a ''very recent event'', secondary sources may not yet exist. I propose the following:
	The Anti-Evolution petition urges that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Why just Darwinism? The scientific method has always encouraged careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER THEORIES, including pseudoscientific theories like ] and the ].
			* Include a brief, factual mention of the incident, using the NeurIPS statement as a temporary source.
			* Commit to revising or expanding the content once independent secondary coverage emerges.

			This approach aligns with Misplaced Pages’s principles of verifiability and neutrality while addressing the timeliness of the incident.
	The ] and their ] are intellectually dishonest, negligent and close-minded, because they refuse to carefully examine the pseudo-scientific claptrap they call ], which they promote for the reasons outlined in their ]. Where's the careful examination of the evidence of Intelligent Design, and why doesn't the Discovery Institute encourage that too, instead of ignoring the preponderance of the ]?

			Suggested Wording: At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard’s keynote presentation included remarks that drew criticism for cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. NeurIPS issued a statement acknowledging the remarks and clarifying that they do not align with the conference’s code of conduct.
	In the words of ], president of Discovery Institute:
	"It is an important day in science when biologists are bold enough to challenge one of the leading theories in their profession." If only Picard were bold enough to step up to the plate and explain her views on Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Evolution, and her dissent from Darwinism, and why she chose to sign her name and MIT's name to the Anti-Evolution petition.

			I welcome input from other editors to form a consensus on this matter.
	==Much Ado About Nothing==

			Request for Feedback: I kindly request editors' input on whether this edit can be retained temporarily with a primary source until reliable secondary sources become available.
	===The Petition??? Which Petition???===

			Notifications for Wider Participation: Related WikiProjects:
	The above discussion refers to a subsequently titled and reinterpreted revision of the original 2001 (untitled) two-sentence petition calling for "skeptical examination of evidence for scientific theories." Since there is no reliable source to legitimize DI's controversial linking of the 103 signers of the original untitled petition to its subsequently titled, reinterpreted, and repurposed version, I propose archiving or deleting the above section (and this one) as it has now been revealed that there is no reliably established legitimate connection between the subsequently retitled and reinterpreted document and the subject of this biography of a living person.
			- {{Ping\|WikiProject Biography}}
			- {{Ping\|WikiProject Artificial Intelligence}}

			I have also notified the editors at the relevant WikiProjects to gather broader perspectives.
	In view of the "Do No Harm" principle of the ] I believe the ethical thing to do is to separate the above discussion (which harms the subject and her affiliates) from the subject of the biography. I also think it would behoove the editors who were deceived by DI's fraudulent linkage to revisit their role in propagating DI's deception, and do what they can to ameliorate the harm already done.

			Pinging Involved Editors: @Hammersoft, @Isabelle_Belato: Your feedback would be greatly appreciated as this discussion develops. Thank you!
	] 14:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

			Thank you all for considering this. I look forward to working collaboratively to reach a consensus. ] (]) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Unsourced intro ==
			::<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> <small>—⁠ ⁠] (]) 23:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			:First, I fixed a number of format issues with your post. All the headers and subheaders etc. was making this difficult. Further, your use of pings did not work; this isn't how ping is used. You can't ping a project, only specific users, and placing a "@" before their username doesn't ping them. Further, not signing your post will mean the ping doesn't work even if you formatted it correctly. See {{tl\|ping}} for instructions.
			:Second, this is a negative comment being made on a biography of a living person. Using only what is effectively a primary source is not going to be sufficient for inclusion. That it is a very recent event (in fact, the conference is going on right now) doesn't mean it gets a special pass to be included. Please find ], ] that are independent of the subject to support this inclusion. Thank you, --] (]) 19:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			Update: New Secondary Source Found; Thank you for fixing the format issues with my previous post.
	The ''entire'' intro for this article is unsourced, in violation of ]. I am therefore moving all but the first part of the first sentence here.

			I have found a addressing the NeurIPS keynote controversy. This serves as a reliable secondary source documenting her response to the incident. I will update the section to reflect both the NeurIPS response and Picard's apology.
	{{quotation\|'''Rosalind W. Picard''' is founder and director of the Affective Computing Research Group at the ] (MIT) ] and is co-director of the ], the largest industrial sponsorship organization at the lab. She holds a Bachelors in ] with highest honors from the ], and Masters and Doctorate degrees, both in Electrical Engineering and ], from MIT. She has been a member of the faculty at the MIT Media Laboratory since 1991, with tenure since 1998. Prior to completing her doctorate at MIT, she was a Member of the Technical Staff at ] where she designed ] chips for digital signal processing and developed new methods of image compression and analysis.
	<br><br>
	The author of over a hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in multidimensional ], ], ], ], and ], Picard is known internationally for pioneering research in affective computing and, prior to that, for pioneering research in content-based image and video retrieval. She is recipient (with ]) of a best paper prize for work on machine learning with multiple models (1998) and is recipient (with ] and ]) of a "best theory paper" prize for their work on ] in human ] (2001). Her award-winning book, ], (MIT Press, 1997) lays the groundwork for giving machines the skills of emotional intelligence. She and her students have designed and developed a variety of new sensors, algorithms, and systems for sensing, recognizing, and responding respectfully to human affective information, with applications in human and machine learning, health, and human-computer interaction. She was named a Fellow of the ] in November 2004.
	<br><br>
	Dr. Picard has served on many science and engineering program committees, editorial boards, and review panels, and is presently serving on the Editorial Board of User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, as well as on the advisory boards for the National Science Foundation's division of Computers in Science and Engineering (CISE) and for the ] College of Computing.
	<br><br>
	Picard works closely with industry, and has consulted with companies such as ], ], ], ], ], and ]. She has delivered keynote presentations or invited plenary talks at over fifty science or technology events, and distinguished lectures and colloquia at dozens of universities and research labs internationally. Her group's work has been featured in national and international forums for the general public, such as '']'', ], '']'', ] '']'' and The Connection, ] '']'' and '']'' with ], '']'', '']'', ], '']'', and ]'s ''The Works'' and ''The Big Byte''. Picard lives in ] with her husband and three energetic sons.}}
	Feel free to move this material back into the article ''if and when'' ] can be found for it. ] 14:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

			If there are concerns, I welcome further discussion here. Thank you!
	== Rosalind Picard & ]‎ ==
			] (]) 14 December 2024 <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:First, you don't need to put a new section head every time you make a comment. Second, the "secondary" source you added is a primary source; it's Picard directly. Do NOT restore this at least until you provide multiple ], ]. I strongly advise you gain consensus before restoring this. Also, carefully read ]. The subject of the BLP making a statement is not a secondary source. --] (]) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			Update:
	Could people please stop removing Picard from ] and removing the brief mention of the fact (and the fact that her 'dissent' is an opinion volunteered well outside her field of expertise). The first is a matter of ''unambiguous fact''. The second is clearly notable, given its mention in the NY Times. ] 02:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			Thank you for pointing that out. You’re right that Picard’s statement is a primary source, and I appreciate the guidance on WP:SECONDARY. I would like to move forward carefully and in line with BLP standards.

			Currently, we have:
	Hrafn42: Please arrange to talk to me by telephone. Your edits are a gross and egregious violation of WP:BLP:DNH policy. You are not a subject-matter expert on the subject of this article, and your edits are doing harm. Please cease and desist. ] 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			- NeurIPS’s public statement addressing the controversy.
	:Moulton: I am under no obligation to "talk to by telephone." If you have something to say, say it here. As I presume you are not a professional biographer of scientists, you are not a "subject-matter expert on the subject of this article" either. Far more likely you are an associate of Picard's and thus subject to ] (as well as ]). ] 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			- Picard’s own apology.

			While these are primary sources, they confirm that an incident occurred and that it was addressed. I will look for independent, secondary sources (e.g., media coverage or analysis) to validate this further.
	Here is the relevant clause of the WP:BLP:DNH...

			I welcome input from other editors on the best way to proceed here.
	An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
			-- ] (]) 14 December 2024 <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 21:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:This can serve as a secondary source. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jnovikova_neurips2024-ugcPost-7273757246289801216-XDUk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop ] (]) 01:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Moulton: '''The New York Times is not a tabloid!''' Picard's signing of this ''misleading, anti-scientific, creationist-inspired'' 'dissent' '''is a matter of public record''' within the mainstream media. It is neither "tabloid" nor "titillating". DNH is therefore ''completely irrelevant'' to these edits. ] 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::No, it doesn't. It's effectively a blog post. Think; New York Times, Chicago tribune, BBC, etc. --] (]) 02:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{replyto\|Lancer999}} Whilst I can find a large amount of ], I can't find any indication that ] has been exhausted. Why do you feel that a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC is necessary here? --] 🌹 (]) 18:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I've pulled the {{tlx\|rfc}} tag. The original poster has six edits in total, all on the same day. It's clear that raising an RfC was the action of an unfamiliar newbie. But discussion may continue: just not as a formal ]. --] 🌹 (]) 21:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Where is the brief, neutral question about what you are proposing for inclusion in the article? See ].]] 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			The article currently contains a quote about "biases by making generalisations about Chinese scholars". Two sources are cited at the end of that sentence (one from ] and one from ]). I could not find that quote in either of those two sources. I have concluded that the CTOL Digital Solutions source is not ]. It appears to violate ]. It accepts user-generated content (even anonymous content) and does not appear to have editorial oversight by humans (only by some computer program). I also wonder whether the QQ.com source is reliable (and it is in Chinese, so its content cannot be easily verified by English-language readers). I tagged the quote for failing verification, but my addition of the tag was quickly reverted. Which source has that quote? Moreover, I am also removing the CTOL citation. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			:That specific quote you mention comes from , which is included in that QQ article, which I find questionable as well. I also tagged this sentence - {{tq\|Her remarks was criticized for being racist and received backlashes from many AI researchers.}} - per ] and ]. Considering this is a BLP, we need ''multiple'' high-quality sources covering her remarks, in order for this content to be DUE for inclusion. I '''support''' the immediate removal of this content per BLP. This content is poorly sourced and should have never been added.]] 05:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I went ahead and removed it as being poorly sourced. Since the material has been disputed by multiple editors, the ] is on those who want to re-add it to achieve consensus first. ] applies as well - ''To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to restore it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first''.]] 05:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::'''Update''': {{cite web \|first=Anthony \|last=Ha \|date=December 15, 2024 \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/15/neurips-keynote-speaker-apologizes-for-reference-to-chinese-student/ \|title=NeurIPS keynote speaker apologizes for reference to Chinese student \|website=]}} —⁠ ⁠] (]) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::] - not exactly an optimal source for a BLP, but if there were some other high-quality sources to go along with it, then it might be due for inclusion.]] 13:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: She issued an apology. Meaning, the incident indeed did occur, see official statement by MIT <ref>https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/neurips-apology-moving-forward/</ref>. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::::::Hi folks, I believe this article from South China Morning Post would be an adequate high quality source:
			::::::*
			::::::Other sources for consideration:
			::::::* by MIT
			::::::* from the official NeurIPS website
			::::::] (]) 15:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> <small>—⁠ ⁠] (]) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			:::::::::That is true, but this is likely the starting point for my Misplaced Pages "career". In any case, I am merely providing the high quality sources that would be worthy of consideration for citation. I leave it up to the seasoned Misplaced Pages experts to reach consensus on proper wording and an accurate account of the events. ] (]) 06:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Welcome to Misplaced Pages! My flagging of your comment was not intended to discourage participation or to imply that new participants don't have valuable things to say. It's just that there have sometimes been difficulties with newly registered accounts in the past{{snd}} e.g., with what are known as ]S. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 16:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes, SCMP is a better source. One thing all you newly created accounts need to understand is that Misplaced Pages is not on a deadline, especially when it involves a BLP and accusations of racism. Misplaced Pages is not a "breaking news source", sometimes we have to wait for reliable sources to catch up and document the incident before we can include contentious material.]] 16:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::@], that makes sense. I will continue to educate myself on the conventions and rules of Wikpedia. ] (]) 16:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Since we have SCMP as the reliably secondar source, I propose updating the article with the following content, which includes both the SCMP article and official responses (NeurIPS statement and Picard’s apology):

			At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard's keynote address on AI ethics drew controversy due to a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. Her comments drew immediate criticism. During the Q&A session, an audience member challenged Picard for unnecessarily emphasizing the student’s nationality. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments reflected "a deeply troubling and racist view of Chinese scholars," calling the remarks "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening."<ref>{{cite news \|title=Chinese ‘behaviour’ remarks by MIT scientist Rosalind Picard rattle top AI conference \|author=Dannie Peng \|work=South China Morning Post \|date=2024-12-16 \|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3290948/chinese-behaviour-remarks-mit-scientist-rosalind-picard-rattle-top-ai-conference \|access-date=2024-12-16}}</ref>
	Look: this is not rocket science. Did Picard sign or not? She clearly did. Her name is on the petition and it is mentioned in the New York Times. She went out of her way to ANNOUNCE this to the world. Ok fine. So she is in this category, correct? Well here, we have a category for people who have done that. To some people this is a positive thing, to others it is a negative thing. You seem to think it is negative. I do not care. What matters to us is, is it true? And is it notable? And is it verifiable and particularly, is it verifiable using a reliable source? All these requirements are met here. So she is in the category. Fair enough? Stop using your own biases and POV to get in the way! She signed, and we can verify it in a ] source. It is not up to you or me to judge if it is good or bad. I do not know. It just is. This has NOTHING to do with "doing no harm". Some might feel it is "doing harm" by not focusing on this aspect of her life- ever consider that?--] 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

			In response to the incident, the NeurIPS Board and 2024 Organizing Committee issued an official statement acknowledging that Picard's remarks "perpetuated harmful stereotypes" and violated their Code of Conduct. The board reaffirmed their commitment to fostering an inclusive, non-discriminatory environment and stated, "We take this matter extremely seriously and do not tolerate discrimination on any basis, including national origin, ethnicity, or race."<ref>{{cite web \|title=NeurIPS Official Statement:Our Commitment to Respect, Inclusivity, and Upholding Our Values
	Hrafn42: You are publishing false information. The document which Picard signed was not entitled "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." That title was added later by the Discovery Institute. It is false to claim that the signatories of the originally circulated document (which bore no title at all) were "dissenters" of Darwin's theory or its modern sequels. Please cease and desist from publishing false and misleading material. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:04:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC)\| 04:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			\|url=https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2024/StatementOnInclusivity\|publisher=NeurIPS \|date=2024-12-16 \|access-date=2024-12-16}}</ref> The statement included plans to better communicate the Code of Conduct to invited speakers to prevent similar issues in the future.

			Picard also issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.<ref>{{cite web \|title=Rosalind Picard public apology \|url=https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/neurips-apology-moving-forward/ \|publisher=MIT Media Lab \|date=2024-12-16 \|access-date=2024-12-16}}</ref>
	:This is what she signed titled or not:
	{{cquote\|We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.}}
	:What it was called at the time is of no consequence, if she wasn't a "dissenter" she shouldn't have signed it. <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

			I believe this edit is well-sourced, neutral, and reflects all perspectives. Please share any feedback or concerns.
	:Moulton: It has been called 'A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism' at least since , shortly after it started. In any case the ''contents'' of this spurious dissent ("We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.") is just as deceptive as the ''title'' -- "random mutation and natural selection" is neither Darwin's original (which did not include mutation), nor the modern (which also includes recombination, genetic drift and gene flow) theories of Evolution. ] 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

			] (]) 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:How is it false? It is verifiable. It is in a ] source. If Picard was tricked into signing something else that was relabled ], show us documentation of this and we will include it. How do you know this? You cannot just claim that she was mislead and fraudulently induced to sign this petition without evidence! It might offend her to hear such things. So you are claiming that she signed some document with no title, no statement? Seems a bit hard to believe someone with her background would be naive enough to sign a petition that didnt have a title or a statement attached! And if she signed a statement saying she was a "Dissenter" of Darwin's theory or its modern sequels, then that is enough, as far as I can tell. And sign your posts why dont you for a change? --] 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}

			: That refers to "a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars". The only cultural generalization I see on that slide is where it says "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright." There is something very similar at the bottom of the slide. Is that the generalization referred to there? —⁠ ⁠] (]) 23:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	You are unaware of the facts, Hrafn42. The document which Picard signed did not bear the title "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." That title was added later, and dramatically changed the way the public viewed and interpreted the document. You should be more skeptical of what you read, especially when it comes to titles and headlines added after the fact. The original statement has been criticized as vague and ill-worded. Not everyone who signed it considered it a dissent from anything. To characterize the signatories as dissenters is therefore false and misleading.
			: I also question the word "emphasizing". In what way was the student's nationality emphasized? I also question the use of "acknowledging", since that implies validity in Wikivoice (see ]). —⁠ ⁠] (]) 02:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			::Thank you for raising this question. While the comment "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright" is indeed one explicit cultural generalization on the slide, the criticism is not limited to this sentence.
	The fact that the NY Times also got snookered is no reason to further propagate their error or pillory other people. Please stop victimizing people that way. It is an unbecoming practice.
			::The broader concern arises from the fact that during the keynote, Dr. Rosalind Picard presented multiple examples of misconduct by students, but the nationality of the student was only explicitly mentioned in one case: the anecdote involving the Chinese student. The student was quoted as saying, “Nobody at my school taught us morals or values,” which, combined with the explicit mention of nationality and the subsequent generalization, created a negative and unnecessary association between misconduct and Chinese nationality.

			::This selective reference to nationality, where it was unrelated to the point being made, drew criticism during the Q&A session. An audience member highlighted that this was the only instance where nationality was mentioned, suggesting that it was “a bit offensive.” Criticism from researchers and attendees on social media, as well as NeurIPS' and Picard's subsequent apologies, further underscore the issue.
	] 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::The concerns, therefore, go beyond the specific comment about "most Chinese" and extend to the unnecessary emphasis on nationality in a context where it was irrelevant. I hope this helps clarify why the incident sparked such discussion. ] (]) 02:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			:::The comment that "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright" is the {{em\|only}} explicit cultural generalization on the slide. There aren't any others. The rest is a matter of interpretation. Also, there is a difference between {{em\|emphasizing}} something and {{em\|mentioning}} it. The slide mentions the student's nationality, but I don't see an emphasis on it. Calling it a "selective reference" is an interpretation, not an obvious fact. It does not seem clear that she did that selectively and intentionally. If someone had pointed out in advance that she hadn't mentioned a national background in other examples, I very strongly suspect she would have done something about that problem before giving the presentation. It was a mistake, but not an intentional slur against Chinese people generally{{snd}} in fact it explicitly says exactly the opposite. Also, the quote she attributed to the student did not say "nobody in the Chinese culture teaches morals and values", and it was also not intended as a quote of her own views on the subject{{snd}} it was an alleged quote from someone whose excuse was not accepted and who was expelled. She was not endorsing the student's excuse. I'm not saying there were no problems with her presentation, but her presentation didn't say Chinese people generally lack morality. It explicitly said otherwise. The rest is interpretation. There is no clear "therefore" here. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 03:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:She signed the document. It doesn't matter what it was called, she should probably have been a little more careful about signing strange petitions, particularly ones that mention "Darwinian theory". <b><font face="courier" color="#737CA1">]</font></b> <small><b><font color="#C11B17">(])</font></b></small> 04:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::You raise important points, but I’d like to clarify why the critique centers not just on the explicit statements, but also on the context and the selective nature of the reference to nationality, which contributed to the perceived cultural generalization.

			::::1. '''Selective Mention of Nationality''':
	The reason I know that the original document (as circulated for signatures prior to publication) had no title is because Roz told me that some time ago. I've known Roz both personally and professionally for 27 years, and I'm familiar with her views. Please stop propagating false and misleading information.
			::::While it’s true that nationality was “mentioned” rather than “emphasized,” the fact remains that '''out of multiple examples of misconduct Picard shared''', this was '''the only instance where a student's nationality was explicitly referenced'''. Regardless of intention, the selective mention creates an association between '''nationality''' and '''misconduct''', even if the subsequent comment about honesty sought to counterbalance that. The criticism arises from the unintended implication rather than any explicit endorsement of stereotypes.

			::::2. '''Context Matters''':
	Please arrange to talk to me by phone. I'd like to discuss this with you voice-to-voice, if not face-to-face. ] 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::The slide does indeed say “''Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright'',” which, as you point out, explicitly rejects the generalization that all Chinese scholars lack morality. However, '''combining that statement with the earlier quote''' — “''Nobody at my school taught us morals or values''” — and specifying the nationality contributes to the broader concern. The inclusion of nationality was unnecessary for her argument and inadvertently perpetuated a harmful stereotype.

			::::3. '''Audience Perception''':

			::::The Q&A session and reactions from attendees, as well as subsequent apologies from both Dr. Picard and the NeurIPS organizers, underscore that the audience clearly '''interpreted the presentation as problematic'''. While interpretations may vary, the reaction from prominent members of the AI community, such as researchers Furong Huang and Jiao Sun, highlights the impact that this selective mention of nationality had on the audience.

			::::4. '''Unintended Consequences Still Matter''':
	How did the NY Times get snookered? How do we know that the title and/or the statement was not on the petition? You mean to tell me that an MIT professor would sign a blank petition, and the words could be added later, and would not threaten legal action to get her name removed if she disagreed? Others have had their names removed. She didnt? She disagrees? Where is your proof? How do you know this? How is this victimizing people? People are proud to be creationists. What is wrong with that? Let them stand up and be recognized for it. We are not to be skeptical about stuff in WP:RS and WP:V sources. We are far more skeptical of you. If you are in the USA, I will call you. And try to expain this to you. If not, well I wont offer.--] 04:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::I agree with you that there is no evidence of intentional malice in Dr. Picard’s remarks; it appears to have been an oversight rather than an intentional slur. However, the impact of her words remains significant. The NeurIPS Code of Conduct underscores the importance of fostering an inclusive environment, and unintentionally singling out a specific nationality violates that principle. Dr. Picard herself acknowledged this in her apology, recognizing that the reference was unnecessary, irrelevant to her point, and caused unintended harm.

			::::5. '''Why It’s Not Just Interpretation''':
	Newspapers often get the story wrong. Even the NY Times. If you are skeptical of me, come out of anonymity and call me on the phone, so we can discuss this like gentlemen. I have much more to tell you, but I am not a young man, and I don't care to type long tracts here. ] 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::The selective mention of nationality — combined with the attributed quote — is not merely subjective interpretation. It is a '''fact''' that the Chinese student’s nationality was mentioned, while other students’ backgrounds were not. The resulting perception and criticism stem from this discrepancy.

			::::In summary, while Dr. Picard’s intentions may have been to highlight individual misconduct rather than generalize about a group, '''the selective reference to nationality''', combined with the broader framing of the slide, created unintended but real associations. This is why both NeurIPS organizers and Dr. Picard have publicly acknowledged the issue and apologized. ] (]) 03:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			:::::We seem to disagree less than it might appear. Although I think the word "selective" implies a bad intent that may have been absent. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 03:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	I made my offer. If you accept, email me.--] 04:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::::Here's the revised edit based your feedbacks:

			::::::At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard's keynote address on AI ethics drew controversy due to a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. Her comments drew immediate criticism. In her keynote, nationality was mentioned in one specific example of misconduct, while other examples did not include such references. This inconsistency led to concerns about unnecessary emphasis on nationality, as raised by attendees and commentators. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments reflected "a deeply troubling and racist view of Chinese scholars," calling the remarks "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening."
	:Interesting. I made my offer. And now no comments? Did I call your bluff?--] 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			::::::In response to the incident, the NeurIPS Board and 2024 Organizing Committee issued an official statement stating that Picard's remarks "perpetuated harmful stereotypes" and violated their Code of Conduct. The board reaffirmed their commitment to fostering an inclusive, non-discriminatory environment and stated, "We take this matter extremely seriously and do not tolerate discrimination on any basis, including national origin, ethnicity, or race." The statement included plans to better communicate the Code of Conduct to invited speakers to prevent similar issues in the future. Picard also issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.

			::::::Please let me know if you have any feedback or concerns. ] (]) 03:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	Please be patient. I keep colliding with your edits.
			:::::::Two paragraphs is too much to devote to this incident. It's not like she has a pattern of consistently and continually doing this, so there is no need to overemphasize a one-time mistake she made. And the SCMP source doesn't say "attendees and commentators". There was one attendee and one commentator in that SCMP article. I propose a more succinct summary of the incident in one paragraph, which is all that is needed.

			::::::::At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee, due to Picard highlighting the Chinese nationality of a university student in an example of misbehaviour, while other examples did not include such references. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments were "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening." Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.
	The fact that you don't know about the issue of the title of the document further illustrates why Misplaced Pages should not publish claims about someone signing a document bearing a purported title. Since you don't know that, and you should now be skeptical of any previous assumptions about that, I propose you revise your publications to remove the false claim about "Dissent". The word "dissent" does not appear in the document. Perhaps if you cared to do the research, you might find out the truth here. In the meantime, I am advising you that your publications on the matter are false and misleading, and are doing harm to the subject of this article, with whom you are entirely unfamiliar. ] 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::]] 07:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			::::::::Yes. And and the specific problems in the previous suggested version seem to have been acknowledged but not corrected. Just reading the first sentence is enough to show that. It says her slide "included cultural generalizations". The word "generalizations" is plural, but her slide only included one, and the sentence doesn't say what the generalization was. It is problematic to assert there were generalizations without saying what these (apparently terrible) generalizations were. The only clearly identified generalization on the slide is that the Chinese people she knows are generally "honest and morally upright". As a further refinement, I suggest this: "At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee due to Picard describing an example of improper use of AI by a Chinese university student, while her examples on other slides did not mention nationality. The slide also made the general remark that "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright." Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that her comments were "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening." Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted." —⁠ ⁠] (]) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Moultan: you have provided ''no evidence'' that an "issue of the title of the document" actually exists, let alone evidence from a ] -- which is the standard for inclusion in wikipedia. ] 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on summarizing this incident. I’d like to propose some adjustments to ensure the article reflects the full scope of its impact and coverage. While the current proposals focus on criticism from an attendee and Furong Huang, it’s important to note that the controversy sparked widespread backlash beyond these individuals, including reactions on social media and within the academic and technology communities. Additional points of relevance include:

			:::::::::1. According to (can be used as an additional secondary reference) , the incident "sparked a backlash on social media, with not only Chinese netizens criticizing Picard for racial discrimination, but also members of the academic and technology communities expressing disapproval, calling her actions inappropriate and clearly biased."
	Filll: Where do I find your E-Mail? I'll send you my phone number as soon as I cand find the page with your e-mail on it. I'm in the USA.
			:::::::::2. A petition on Change.org urging MIT to investigate Picard's actions has gathered over 7,000 signatures.

			:::::::::3. The NeurIPS conference organizers issued a formal response, stated that it conflicted with their principles of inclusion and respect.
	] 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::'''Question''':

			:::::::::Do you agree that the broader social media and academic/tech community backlash, as well as the NeurIPS organizers’ response, should be included to provide a fuller account of the event? ] (]) 03:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

			::::::::::I oppose any addition of content implying that Picard is a racist. While social media users and academic/tech are entitled to their opinions, their opinions are just that, they are in no position to make such a judgement call, without backing up their assertions with clear and convincing evidence that demonstrates this is a pattern of conduct with Picard. This is a BLP, and we have to be very firm about the use of high-quality ]. And I also question these ]s who have suddenly shown up as well advocating on your behalf.]] 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Wait a minute. It has had this title since 2001. The Discovery Institute is well known to be a creationist hotbed for at least as long. If someone signed it by mistake and disagreed with it, they could get off the list by threatening legal action, as several have already done. Also, who (especially an MIT professor) signs a blank petition? And almost 800 people have signed the list. If what you are claiming is the case, why has not one of the other 800 people said something? Why is this not in the press or at least on the blogs? Believe me, there are zillions of people who would love to get their hands on this sort of information, particularly if it could be substantiated. For example, the ]. Plenty of lawyers as well, in the legal matters associated with this; people would pay for this kind of testimony, believe me. And in spite of this, you want me to believe that she signed a blank petition, and did nothing about it for several years? And others did too, and the story has not come out? With millions of dollars spent in legal fees? And investigative journalism? And by lobbying groups like NCSE? This is a bit hard to swallow, frankly.--] 04:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Regarding the concerns about implying that Picard is a racist, I understand the need for caution in framing statements about living individuals and adhering to the principles of WP:BLP. My intention is not to directly label Picard as such, but rather to reflect the wide-ranging criticism this incident has received, as documented by reliable sources.

			:::::::::::On the question of sourcing, the in question is a state-owned news organization in Taiwan with a reputation for reliability, akin to Reuters or AFP. I believe it qualifies as a high-quality source under Misplaced Pages's guidelines. ] non-english reliable sources are allowed in English wikipedia.
	To find my email, go to my user page, and look on the left hand side for "email this user"--] 04:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Regarding WP:SPAs, I understand that the sudden involvement of accounts focused on this topic might raise questions about their motivations and adherence to Misplaced Pages's principles. However, I want to clarify that I have not solicited or coordinated with any accounts to advocate on my behalf. Their participation seems to be driven by their independent interest in the issue, and their contributions should still be evaluated based on Misplaced Pages's content and sourcing guidelines. ] (]) 00:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

			::::::::::::Our goal is to summarize, and one paragraph is sufficient to summarize this one time incident. Anything more would be undue. The CNA article only mentions "people in the academic and technological circles", that is vague and lacks attribution as to who these "people" are. I support the one paragraph proposal and oppose any mention of racism, as that claim is without merit.]] 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	I found it and sent you my phone number. ] 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Thank you for outlining your position clearly. I understand the importance of maintaining balance and avoiding undue weight in the article. Given this, I’m willing to support the consensus proposal:

			:::::::::::::"At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee due to Picard describing an example of improper use of AI by a Chinese university student, while her examples on other slides did not mention nationality. The slide also made the general remark that 'Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright.' Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that her comments were 'not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening.' Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused 'unintended negative associations' that she deeply regretted." ] (]) 01:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			::::::::::::::That seems OK to me. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			:::::::::::::::Seems OK to me as well.]] 23:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	I just visited the and it seems to support the claim that DI played fast and loose in more ways than one. The ad, as published, contained a lot more gratuitous interpretation than just the misleading title of the page. Two additional paragraphs appeared in the ad, supplying further interpretation that spins the meaning of the two key sentences which the signatories were asked to sign. The same NSCE article reveals how DI conflated Darwinian theory with the totality of evolution models.
			::::::::::::::::Thank you all for your valuable input and collaboration in reaching this consensus—I truly appreciate everyone's efforts and perspectives! ] (]) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			:::::::::Hi, thank you for all these discussions. I have followed the discussion from the very beginning and hope that my sudden jump-in at this stage is not inappropriate. I would just like to add that the expression “drew criticism from a Chinese attendee …,” while accurately describing what happened during the conference session, falls short of conveying the aftermath of the incident. I would suggest at least mentioning the angry response from the broader Chinese scholars’ and students’ community after the conference, with references mentioned by @Lancer999. ] (]) 04:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	The NSCE page concludes:
			::::::::::<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> <small>—⁠ ⁠] (]) 23:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small>

			::::::::::I haven't yet had time to study the new comments, but I'll point out that MSN generally just reposts articles originally published by others, and the articles are prefixed with an indication at the beginning about where they came from. In this case, MSN says the article is from CNA, the ] (https://www.cna.com.tw/), which is the state-owned news agency of Taiwan. The article can also be found directly on the CNA website rather than looking at MSN. The CNA website link is https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202412160180.aspx. MSN links are temporary and tend to expire rapidly. The article seems to be written in Chinese, and no official English version of the article may be available. To reply to YuanfangZ's comment about jumping into the conversation, that is no problem at all and is very welcome on Misplaced Pages. —⁠ ⁠] (]) 05:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	<blockquote>It is regrettable that the public is likely to be confused by these advertisements and be misled into thinking that all of these scientists reject evolution, or that there is a groundswell of scientists rejecting evolution. Neither is true.</blockquote>
			:::::::::::Hi folks, I've been following the discussion and appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments and commitment to writing an accurate account of the events.

			:::::::::::I think one paragraph devoted to the incident and the content of Rosalind Picard's slides with citations from the SCMP and CNA articles, Picard's two responses on NeurIPS, and her response on the MIT Media Lab site should suffice.
	To call it "regrettable" is an understatement. What troubles me, gentlemen, is that your team at Misplaced Pages seem to have bought into the DI's stronger interpretation of the statement, rather than the weaker one suggested by NSCE.
			:::::::::::How about:

			:::::::::::"NeurIPS 2024 Controversy
	That's why publishing a claim that all signatories are "Dissenters" is unsupportable at best and harmful at worst. It not only harms the scientists who interpret the meaning differently from DI, it harms your own project by alienating the very scientists who could most help clarify the subtleties outlined in the NSCE page.
			:::::::::::On December 13, 2024, Picard presented a talk at the 2024 NeurIPS Conference entitled, "How to optimize what matters most?", which included a slide quoting a Chinese student saying "Nobody at my school taught us morals or values" with a disclaimer, "NOTE: Most Chinese I know are honest and morally upright." This drew immediate criticism at the conference and on social media, prompting Picard to issue two apology notes on the official NeurIPS website and one apology note on the official MIT Media Lab website."

			:::::::::::I think this captures the history of the events and touches upon the reaction from the community at large. Readers would be able to conduct their own research after reading this entry. ] (]) 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	But take a good look at the ad, as reprised on the NSCE site. Clearly the signatories were not asked to sign the extra paragraphs that precede the two sentences in the gray box. And the title of the ad precedes those two gratuitous paragraphs. It occurs to me that there is ample evidence that the title of the ad was crafted along with the other two paragraphs that precede the two sentences.
			::::::::::::That seem OK to me, but I suggest to reduce the amount of detail about exactly how many places and where she posted an apology; I suggest just "... prompting Picard to publicly apologize." —⁠ ⁠] (]) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			::::::::::::Thank you for your input, I have added the section based on the consensus we reached. Please feel free to continue the discussion or make further edits as needed. ] (]) 00:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	Is this not strong (and reliable) evidence that the label "Scientific Dissenters from Darwinism" was coined specifically as spin for the ad, and was not part of the petition that circulated beforehand?

	Finally, note that Roz is one of 105 signatories on this maiden appearance of the ad, which supports the claim that she is being unfairly labeled (first by DI, and now by your group) as a "Dissenter" from Darwinism. This claim cannot be sustained for the first 105 signatories unless they expressly affirm it.

	Therefore I beseech you to remove the label "Scientific Dissenter from Darwinism" as there is insufficient evidence to establish that for the first 105 signatories on that maiden ad.

	] 08:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	Moulton (aka Rosalind Picard's press officer):
	*If Picard wishes to make a press release or other public statement disavowing the 'Dissent' we will mention it in the article. Unless and until she does that, she continues to ''implicitly endorse'' the use that her name is being put to by the DI. We have ]s for this, so will continue to include this in the article.
	*The "harm" was done by Picard herself -- inadvisedly venturing an opinion, outside her field of expertise, that contradicted the consensus of the ''genuine'' experts in the field. How would Picard feel if a bunch of biologists came along and started spouting that "machine recognition and modeling of human emotional expression" impossible?
	*By calling her "Roz", I take it that you are closely associated with her? I would therefore suggest that you observe ].
	*You can "beseech" all you want. '''It will not change the facts.'''
	] 09:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	I am afraid to say you are not aware of the facts in this case.

	And I worry that you may similarly be clinging to an ungrounded theory in as many as 102 other cases.

	But Filll is now aware. I suggest you take a deep breath and wait until you hear from him.

	] 11:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	:<sarcasm>I await the outcome of Filll's divine revelation at your hands with bated breath.</sarcasm> ] 12:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	::Well, I've heard back from Filll. He shares my skepticism as to some of your ] claims, but is willing to indulge in some ] in an attempt to check them out (though I suspect with little chance of finding out anything that would change anything even if it wasn't OR). For myself, I take a harder nosed attitude: if it can't be used, it may as well not exist. Status quo ante. ] 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Garbled sentence ==

	In their rabid attempts to whitewash Picard's reputation, and hide the fact that she was foolish enough to push her own ill-advised and inexpert "skepticism" over the consensus of hundreds of evolutionary biologists, Moulton is repeatedly restoring this ''garbled'' sentence, which clearly involves two ''completely different'' sentences being welded together (between "respond" & "Picard"):
	{{quotation\|The develops tools, techniques, and devices for sensing, interpreting, and processing emotion signals that drive state-of-the-art systems which respond Picard has served on many science and engineering program committees, editorial boards, and review panels, and is presently serving on the editorial board of User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, as well as on the advisory boards for the ]'s division of Computers in Science and Engineering (CISE) and for the Georgia Tech College of Computing.}}
	This is the level of cack-handed partisanship that Moultan has descended to. ] 10:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	I see that Moulton has finally realised that the stuff they were restoring was nonsense, so has ''removed'' the offending interpolation, while describing this action as "Add back missing material." Such honesty! LOL ] 10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	Hrafn42: I have written you a long essay or two on the main discussion page for the Darwin Dissent soap opera.

	Your petulance is unbecoming. I suggest you join with Filll to assemble the evidence he now seeks, to shore up the theory I presented to him and to you.

	] 11:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Ahhh. You ''repeatedly'' butchered that sentence then, when this fact was pointed out to you, lied about what you were doing when you corrected it (''removing'' "Picard has served on many science and engineering program committees, editorial boards, and review panels, and is presently serving on the editorial board of User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research, as well as on the advisory boards for the ]'s division of Computers in Science and Engineering (CISE) and for the Georgia Tech College of Computing." from the middle of a sentence is not ''adding'' anything), and when ''that'' was pointed out to you, you accuse me of unbecoming "petulance". You really are a piece of work Moulton. Oh, and '''could you please stop changing the section titles''' -- it is '''very childish'''. ] 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	You're projecting, Hrafn42. I appreciate that you have an issue with immaturity. If you'll settle down, I'll help you develop some usable skills at evaluating material for accuracy and scientific soundness in a more mature and professional manner. Then we can proceed to cooperate to expose DI for the unreliable source that we both know it to be. That's Filll's goal too. I think you have at hand more than enough evidence already to make a damn good case. The 2006 NYT article (which DI objected to) reported the fact that DI published an arresting claim, and then, instead of substantiating DI's claim, the NYT article went on to cast doubt on it. Good for them. A skeptical reader of the NYT would come away with good evidence that DI had just published a pile of horse dookie. Now what we need to do here is to reinforce that view with some defensible evidence. NSCE has already provided an excellent critique of DI's original ad, revealing DI's shameful duplicity in the case of their mischaracterization of PBS. At least two of the original 103 signatories cited in the NYT article registered parallel complaints about how DI distorted, mischaracterized, and relabeled their two-sentence quote. NYT and NSCE hiked the ball to you guys. I don't understand why didn't you run it into the end zone way back then.

	But it's not too late to repair the damage and do this right, using proper tools of science. Are you game to play chess against the real enemy now? ] 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

	:Moulton: I think I'll let your immaturity in changing section titles speak for itself. ] 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Controversy and Alternative Points of View==

	The Times did report the claims of the DI in that story, along with some remarks by some of the signatories. The Times neither substantiated nor refuted the reported claims of the DI, but left it to the reader to judge what to make of it. That is, the Times adopted a neutral point of view.

	The main article elsewhere in Misplaced Pages examines those claims and provides further material that allows a skeptical reader to adjudge whether or not to take the claims of the DI at face value.

	I am curious as to whether the editors of this section wish to propagate the reported claims of the DI with a view to persuading the readers that the claims of the DI are either believable or doubtful. Or do the editors prefer to take a neutral point of view, emphasizing that the claims of the DI are simply being reported here with neither affirmation nor refutation. ] 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Given that no ] has disputed that Picard signed this statement, whether "The Times neither substantiated nor refuted the reported claims of the DI" is not relevant. The standard is "verifiability, not truth" (]). Misplaced Pages is full of 'facts', stated as true on the basis of a ], and the lack of any ] dispute. ] 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	== "Award-winning" book? ==

	As part of the unsourced puff-piece glorifying Picard that Moulton insists on restoring repeatedly is the claim that Picard's book is "award-wining". '''What award did it win'''? I have seen no evidence of an award mentioned, and the use of this term on Picard's webpage would appear to be mere self-serving puffery. ] 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)<br>
	I also draw Moulton's attention to ], which specifically restricts information from self-published sources (like Picard's webpage) to information that is "not unduly self-serving" & "does not involve claims about third parties" and that the article cannot be "based primarily on such sources". I believe that this excludes most of the puffery from Picard's webpage. ] 02:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
	(Incidentally, the Edit Summary of my latest reversion of this material is inaccurate - it should have said "self-published puff-piece" instead of "unsourced puff-piece") ] 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Cui Bono==

	This article is a biography of Rosalind Picard. There is an official MIT Faculty Biography Page (separate from the subject's personal home page) that is the source of the biographical information. That MIT Faculty Biography website has uniform biographies for all faculty members of the MIT Media Lab.

	I am aware of your idiosyncratic beliefs, Hrafn42. You are welcome to harbor your personal beliefs. However your personal beliefs are neither facts nor demonstrated theories grounded in scientific evidence. You have offered (and published as fact) many of your beliefs, including ones that are demonstrably false. If you care to write a personal blog giving your opinions, theories, and beliefs, no one is stopping you. However a Misplaced Pages biography page of a notable living person is not the appropriate place for you to publish your beliefs or theories about the subject of the article, unless those beliefs or theories are known to be accurate and well-sourced.

	You have at your disposal evidence to which you intentionally have turned a blind eye and disregarded -- evidence that demonstrates to any impartial observer that some of your theories, beliefs, or claims are dubious at best and demonstrably false at worst.

	Professor Picard signed a petition calling for those who are working with theories to examine the evidence for those theories with a skeptical eye. Yet you persist in failing to apply that sound advice to your own dubious theories, beliefs, and claims.

	Now this is Misplaced Pages, and you are an anonymous editor from New Zealand. For all intents and purposes you are immune from the consequences of violating the tenets of ethics in journalism.

	However, you are not immune from being the subject of an article on ethics in journalism, as practiced on Misplaced Pages.

	In the interests of full disclosure, I will tell you that even as I sit here typing in this window, I am conversing in another window with yet another faculty member who teaches a course on ethics in journalism. Her class resumes shortly after labor day. Her students will be doing the usual kind of stories, and publishing them on the university's web site. I've talked to this professor about Misplaced Pages on many occasions (not just this one), but this one strikes me as an excellent example of just the kind of story a student studying ethics in journalism might find intriguing.

	My interest, however, is more along the lines of applications of the theory of emotions and learning. You might wonder why I spend so much time with you, Hrafn42. It's not really about the bio page of Roz Picard, or the Darwin Dissent Controversy. Those are only cover stories. It's your hook, not mine. My hook is watching how people learn their craft (or fail to learn it). I frankly don't understand how you go about the process of learning the craft you practice here.

	One thing I do note is that you are an expert on the detailed rules of Misplaced Pages. You can cite a rule faster than I can click the mouse.

	Now that also interests me, because I am also a student of the dynamics of rule-based systems. I discussed this interest of mine at some length with Filll last night. I wonder if you appreciate what theory or assumption you are operating under when you engage in your practice of rule-driven bureaucratic machinations. I suspect you are not aware of the theory that predicts the behavior of rule-driven systems. It occurs to me that if you were aware, you might migrate to a more functional method of practice.

	But I digress.

	I'm interested in the question, Cui Bono? Who is served by your obsession here with the biography page of some obscure MIT professor whom you've never met, and whose specialties hold no interest for you?

	Tell me, for I am curious. Cui Bono? Who is served?

	] 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)<br>
	{{quotation\|There is an official MIT Faculty Biography Page (separate from the subject's personal home page) that is the source of the biographical information. That MIT Faculty Biography website has uniform biographies for all faculty members of the MIT Media Lab.}}
	:Except that the "official MIT Faculty Biography Page" is ''identical'' to "the subject's personal home page". So it seems that if the "MIT Faculty Biography website" has any "uniformity" at all, it would be in ''uniformly repeating verbatim'' the subject's personal page. I would be also curious to know how your mythical MIT biographer would know (or be interested in) how "energetic" Picard's sons are. The piece is ''clearly'' autobiographical. ] 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	I'm rather well acquainted with her energetic children. I can assure you that, to the best of my knowledge, the elements of her biography are quite accurate.

	I wish I could say the same for your remarkable theories about the subject of this article.

	] 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Moulton: I do not give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys for "the best of knowledge" (which is clearly ]). I care about ]. Any piece that includes such fluff is clearly a puff-piece rather than a serious biography and so ''not'' ]. Given that you are so familiar with your dear friend Roz, maybe you can enlighten us on who actually wrote this sycophantic piece. ] 04:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	==Common Interests of Troubled and Conflicted Souls==

	I see that you're idly theorizing again, with another of your legendary ]. Rather than speculate without the benefit of ] and ], why don't you interview me to ] the nature and extent of my interest in uncaring (and uncared-for) individuals such as yourself.

	Are you a curious and courageous enough adventure writer to discover the truth, or do you prefer to remain safely ensconced in your ] of self-delusion, anonymity and utter indifference to the tragic harm caused by blindly acting out one's innermost fantasies?

	Rest assured, I am becoming increasing familiar with your legendary and oft-disclosed lack of ], which seems to be a recurring issue in your life and recently published remarks.

	And I appreciate that your dreadfully ] remarks elsewhere are a transparent attempt to solicit the kind of ] that you apparently crave in your real life outside Misplaced Pages and the Internet.

	You have a keen sense of ] of those who respond with a small measure of ] and ] to your desperate cries for attention.

	So you've chosen me as your ], respondent, and ]. So be it. I'm flattered.

	Not that I'm necessarily up to the task, but I'll give it a decent college try.

	Let's begin by crafting a mutually-agreeable ] setting forth the ] of our budding and potentially ] ].

	What are your desires and objectives for this unfolding relationship?

	Do you prefer ], ], or ]?

	Do you prefer ] or ] relationship?

	Do you prefer highly ] or emotionally subdued scenes in our continuing ]?

	] 11:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
	{{quotation\|<s>A serious young man found the conflicts of mid 20th Century America confusing. He went to many people seeking a way of resolving within himself the discords that troubled him, but he remained troubled.<br><br>
	One night in a coffee house, a self-ordained Zen Master said to him, "go to the dilapidated mansion you will find at this address which I have written down for you. Do not speak to those who live there; you must remain silent until the moon rises tomorrow night. Go to the large room on the right of the main hallway, sit in the lotus position on top of the rubble in the northeast corner, face the corner, and meditate."<br><br>
	He did just as the Zen Master instructed. His meditation was frequently interrupted by worries. He worried whether or not the rest of the plumbing fixtures would fall from the second floor bathroom to join the pipes and other trash he was sitting on.He worried how would he know when the moon rose on the next night. He worried about what the people who walked through the room said about him.
	<br><br>
	His worrying and meditation were disturbed when, as if in a test of his faith, ordure fell from the second floor onto him. At that time two people walked into the room. The first asked the second who the man was sitting there was. The second replied "Some say he is a holy man. Others say he is a shithead."<br><br>
	Hearing this, the man was enlightened.</s>}}
	] 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
	:As poor Moulton seems incapable of getting the joke, to the point of repeatedly 'correcting' my attempt at reproducing the formatting of the original, and "adapting" what he thought was ''my'' work, I will strike it and merely include this link to of the work I was quoting. ] 13:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	Adaptability is a highly functional character trait.

	See, there you go again, publishing yet another theory without a shred of evidence and without bothering to examine your theory with a skeptical eye. I know full well that you did not write that Zen story yourself, but imported it from somewhere else. But you republished it here, so you are immediate source of the version I adapted. ''Neener.''

	But I confess I don't get the point of your perplexing formatting.

	] 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	:"If you abandon the adversary's territory, resign." ] 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

	Did you know that the name "Satan" comes from the Greek ''satana'' which means ''adversary''? In ancient stories, the adversary (or antagonist) was sometimes called Satan. In one of Shakespeare's plays, the heroine (who is mistakenly presumed to be dead during much of the play) is named Hero.

	Who is the hero and who is the villain is sometimes just a matter of one's point of view. See, for example ] by Gregory Maguire.

	A more interesting kind of tale is the ], or Hero-Goat Story. The would-be hero suffers from a character flaw (''hubris'' or arrogance). He stumbles and fails at his quest and then becomes the scapegoat, blamed for everything that went haywire. At the point where the fallen protagonist realizes he is his own worst enemy, he becomes remorseful and sings the ], a lament that basically goes, "What kind of fool am I?"

	] 13:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
	:From ] to ] in one quick jump. '''LOL!''' ] 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:12, 21 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rosalind Picard article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Creationism: Intelligent design Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

18.85.10.10 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

18.85.10.17 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

18.85.44.145 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Special poetry archive

Archive 1 (May 2006 — May 2008)
Archive 2 (May 2008 — September 2009)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rosalind Picard. 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 to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 31 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juldau30, Alexgoriani, L.tambo, Glennvalentine7, Yousefsohaib (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Macbookair101 (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for Consensus: NeurIPS 2024 Keynote Controversy

Hello editors, I would like to discuss the inclusion of a recent controversy involving Rosalind Picard’s keynote speech at NeurIPS 2024.

Context: During the NeurIPS 2024 keynote, a slide presented by Picard included remarks that were criticized for cultural generalizations. NeurIPS issued an official statement on their verified X.com account acknowledging the issue, apologizing, and clarifying that the remarks do not align with their code of conduct. I added this incident to the article with a factual and neutral tone, citing NeurIPS' official statement as the source. However, the edit was reverted with the reasoning that more than a primary source is needed.

My Argument: While Misplaced Pages prefers secondary sources, the NeurIPS statement is a **reliable primary source** for verifying the occurrence of the incident. It:

Comes from NeurIPS’ official and verified X.com account.
Is a direct response to the controversy.

Since this is a very recent event, secondary sources may not yet exist. I propose the following:

Include a brief, factual mention of the incident, using the NeurIPS statement as a **temporary source**.
Commit to revising or expanding the content once independent secondary coverage emerges.

This approach aligns with Misplaced Pages’s principles of **verifiability** and **neutrality** while addressing the timeliness of the incident.

Suggested Wording: At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard’s keynote presentation included remarks that drew criticism for cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. NeurIPS issued a statement acknowledging the remarks and clarifying that they do not align with the conference’s code of conduct.

I welcome input from other editors to form a consensus on this matter.

Request for Feedback: I kindly request editors' input on whether this edit can be retained temporarily with a primary source until reliable secondary sources become available.

Notifications for Wider Participation: Related WikiProjects: - @WikiProject Biography: - @WikiProject Artificial Intelligence:

I have also notified the editors at the relevant WikiProjects to gather broader perspectives.

Pinging Involved Editors: @Hammersoft, @Isabelle_Belato: Your feedback would be greatly appreciated as this discussion develops. Thank you!

Thank you all for considering this. I look forward to working collaboratively to reach a consensus. Lancer999 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

— Lancer999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

First, I fixed a number of format issues with your post. All the headers and subheaders etc. was making this difficult. Further, your use of pings did not work; this isn't how ping is used. You can't ping a project, only specific users, and placing a "@" before their username doesn't ping them. Further, not signing your post will mean the ping doesn't work even if you formatted it correctly. See {{ping}} for instructions.

Second, this is a negative comment being made on a biography of a living person. Using only what is effectively a primary source is not going to be sufficient for inclusion. That it is a very recent event (in fact, the conference is going on right now) doesn't mean it gets a special pass to be included. Please find reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject to support this inclusion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: New Secondary Source Found; Thank you for fixing the format issues with my previous post.

I have found a public apology from Dr. Rosalind Picard addressing the NeurIPS keynote controversy. This serves as a reliable secondary source documenting her response to the incident. I will update the section to reflect both the NeurIPS response and Picard's apology.

If there are concerns, I welcome further discussion here. Thank you! Lancer999 (talk) 14 December 2024 — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

First, you don't need to put a new section head every time you make a comment. Second, the "secondary" source you added is a primary source; it's Picard directly. Do NOT restore this at least until you provide multiple reliable, secondary sources. I strongly advise you gain consensus before restoring this. Also, carefully read WP:SECONDARY. The subject of the BLP making a statement is not a secondary source. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: Thank you for pointing that out. You’re right that Picard’s statement is a primary source, and I appreciate the guidance on WP:SECONDARY. I would like to move forward carefully and in line with BLP standards.

Currently, we have: - NeurIPS’s public statement addressing the controversy. - Picard’s own apology.

While these are primary sources, they confirm that an incident occurred and that it was addressed. I will look for independent, secondary sources (e.g., media coverage or analysis) to validate this further.

I welcome input from other editors on the best way to proceed here. -- Lancer999 (talk) 14 December 2024 — Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This can serve as a secondary source. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jnovikova_neurips2024-ugcPost-7273757246289801216-XDUk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop 72.28.92.143 (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's effectively a blog post. Think; New York Times, Chicago tribune, BBC, etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lancer999: Whilst I can find a large amount of edit-and-revert, I can't find any indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted. Why do you feel that a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC is necessary here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've pulled the {{rfc}} tag. The original poster has six edits in total, all on the same day. It's clear that raising an RfC was the action of an unfamiliar newbie. But discussion may continue: just not as a formal WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Where is the brief, neutral question about what you are proposing for inclusion in the article? See WP:RFCBRIEF. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The article currently contains a quote about "biases by making generalisations about Chinese scholars". Two sources are cited at the end of that sentence (one from QQ.com and one from CTOL Digital Solutions). I could not find that quote in either of those two sources. I have concluded that the CTOL Digital Solutions source is not reliable. It appears to violate WP:UGC. It accepts user-generated content (even anonymous content) and does not appear to have editorial oversight by humans (only by some computer program). I also wonder whether the QQ.com source is reliable (and it is in Chinese, so its content cannot be easily verified by English-language readers). I tagged the quote for failing verification, but my addition of the tag was quickly reverted. Which source has that quote? Moreover, I am also removing the CTOL citation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That specific quote you mention comes from this post on Twitter, which is included in that QQ article, which I find questionable as well. I also tagged this sentence - Her remarks was criticized for being racist and received backlashes from many AI researchers. - per MOS:WEASEL and MOS:RACIST. Considering this is a BLP, we need multiple high-quality sources covering her remarks, in order for this content to be DUE for inclusion. I support the immediate removal of this content per BLP. This content is poorly sourced and should have never been added. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it as being poorly sourced. Since the material has been disputed by multiple editors, the WP:ONUS is on those who want to re-add it to achieve consensus first. WP:BLPRESTORE applies as well - To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to restore it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: Ha, Anthony (December 15, 2024). "NeurIPS keynote speaker apologizes for reference to Chinese student". TechCrunch. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:TECHCRUNCH - not exactly an optimal source for a BLP, but if there were some other high-quality sources to go along with it, then it might be due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

She issued an apology. Meaning, the incident indeed did occur, see official statement by MIT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.222.134 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks, I believe this article from South China Morning Post would be an adequate high quality source:

Chinese ‘behaviour’ remarks by MIT scientist Rosalind Picard rattle top AI conference

Other sources for consideration:

NeurIPS: An apology and commitment to moving forward by MIT
Dr. Rosalind Picard’s Apology to the NeurIPS Community from the official NeurIPS website

The chronicles of life (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

— The chronicles of life (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That is true, but this is likely the starting point for my Misplaced Pages "career". In any case, I am merely providing the high quality sources that would be worthy of consideration for citation. I leave it up to the seasoned Misplaced Pages experts to reach consensus on proper wording and an accurate account of the events. The chronicles of life (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! My flagging of your comment was not intended to discourage participation or to imply that new participants don't have valuable things to say. It's just that there have sometimes been difficulties with newly registered accounts in the past – e.g., with what are known as WP:SOCKPUPPETS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, SCMP is a better source. One thing all you newly created accounts need to understand is that Misplaced Pages is not on a deadline, especially when it involves a BLP and accusations of racism. Misplaced Pages is not a "breaking news source", sometimes we have to wait for reliable sources to catch up and document the incident before we can include contentious material. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, that makes sense. I will continue to educate myself on the conventions and rules of Wikpedia. The chronicles of life (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Since we have SCMP as the reliably secondar source, I propose updating the article with the following content, which includes both the SCMP article and official responses (NeurIPS statement and Picard’s apology):

At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard's keynote address on AI ethics drew controversy due to a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. Her comments drew immediate criticism. During the Q&A session, an audience member challenged Picard for unnecessarily emphasizing the student’s nationality. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments reflected "a deeply troubling and racist view of Chinese scholars," calling the remarks "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening."

In response to the incident, the NeurIPS Board and 2024 Organizing Committee issued an official statement acknowledging that Picard's remarks "perpetuated harmful stereotypes" and violated their Code of Conduct. The board reaffirmed their commitment to fostering an inclusive, non-discriminatory environment and stated, "We take this matter extremely seriously and do not tolerate discrimination on any basis, including national origin, ethnicity, or race." The statement included plans to better communicate the Code of Conduct to invited speakers to prevent similar issues in the future.

Picard also issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.

I believe this edit is well-sourced, neutral, and reflects all perspectives. Please share any feedback or concerns.

Lancer999 (talk) 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/neurips-apology-moving-forward/
Dannie Peng (2024-12-16). "Chinese 'behaviour' remarks by MIT scientist Rosalind Picard rattle top AI conference". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 2024-12-16.
"NeurIPS Official Statement:Our Commitment to Respect, Inclusivity, and Upholding Our Values". NeurIPS. 2024-12-16. Retrieved 2024-12-16.
"Rosalind Picard public apology". MIT Media Lab. 2024-12-16. Retrieved 2024-12-16.

That refers to "a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars". The only cultural generalization I see on that slide is where it says "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright." There is something very similar at the bottom of the slide. Is that the generalization referred to there? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I also question the word "emphasizing". In what way was the student's nationality emphasized? I also question the use of "acknowledging", since that implies validity in Wikivoice (see WP:SAID). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this question. While the comment "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright" is indeed one explicit cultural generalization on the slide, the criticism is not limited to this sentence.

The broader concern arises from the fact that during the keynote, Dr. Rosalind Picard presented multiple examples of misconduct by students, but the nationality of the student was only explicitly mentioned in one case: the anecdote involving the Chinese student. The student was quoted as saying, “Nobody at my school taught us morals or values,” which, combined with the explicit mention of nationality and the subsequent generalization, created a negative and unnecessary association between misconduct and Chinese nationality.

This selective reference to nationality, where it was unrelated to the point being made, drew criticism during the Q&A session. An audience member highlighted that this was the only instance where nationality was mentioned, suggesting that it was “a bit offensive.” Criticism from researchers and attendees on social media, as well as NeurIPS' and Picard's subsequent apologies, further underscore the issue.

The concerns, therefore, go beyond the specific comment about "most Chinese" and extend to the unnecessary emphasis on nationality in a context where it was irrelevant. I hope this helps clarify why the incident sparked such discussion. Lancer999 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The comment that "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright" is the only explicit cultural generalization on the slide. There aren't any others. The rest is a matter of interpretation. Also, there is a difference between emphasizing something and mentioning it. The slide mentions the student's nationality, but I don't see an emphasis on it. Calling it a "selective reference" is an interpretation, not an obvious fact. It does not seem clear that she did that selectively and intentionally. If someone had pointed out in advance that she hadn't mentioned a national background in other examples, I very strongly suspect she would have done something about that problem before giving the presentation. It was a mistake, but not an intentional slur against Chinese people generally – in fact it explicitly says exactly the opposite. Also, the quote she attributed to the student did not say "nobody in the Chinese culture teaches morals and values", and it was also not intended as a quote of her own views on the subject – it was an alleged quote from someone whose excuse was not accepted and who was expelled. She was not endorsing the student's excuse. I'm not saying there were no problems with her presentation, but her presentation didn't say Chinese people generally lack morality. It explicitly said otherwise. The rest is interpretation. There is no clear "therefore" here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You raise important points, but I’d like to clarify why the critique centers not just on the explicit statements, but also on the context and the selective nature of the reference to nationality, which contributed to the perceived cultural generalization.

1. Selective Mention of Nationality:

While it’s true that nationality was “mentioned” rather than “emphasized,” the fact remains that out of multiple examples of misconduct Picard shared, this was the only instance where a student's nationality was explicitly referenced. Regardless of intention, the selective mention creates an association between nationality and misconduct, even if the subsequent comment about honesty sought to counterbalance that. The criticism arises from the unintended implication rather than any explicit endorsement of stereotypes.

2. Context Matters:

The slide does indeed say “Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright,” which, as you point out, explicitly rejects the generalization that all Chinese scholars lack morality. However, combining that statement with the earlier quote — “Nobody at my school taught us morals or values” — and specifying the nationality contributes to the broader concern. The inclusion of nationality was unnecessary for her argument and inadvertently perpetuated a harmful stereotype.

3. Audience Perception:

The Q&A session and reactions from attendees, as well as subsequent apologies from both Dr. Picard and the NeurIPS organizers, underscore that the audience clearly interpreted the presentation as problematic. While interpretations may vary, the reaction from prominent members of the AI community, such as researchers Furong Huang and Jiao Sun, highlights the impact that this selective mention of nationality had on the audience.

4. Unintended Consequences Still Matter:

I agree with you that there is no evidence of intentional malice in Dr. Picard’s remarks; it appears to have been an oversight rather than an intentional slur. However, the impact of her words remains significant. The NeurIPS Code of Conduct underscores the importance of fostering an inclusive environment, and unintentionally singling out a specific nationality violates that principle. Dr. Picard herself acknowledged this in her apology, recognizing that the reference was unnecessary, irrelevant to her point, and caused unintended harm.

5. Why It’s Not Just Interpretation:

The selective mention of nationality — combined with the attributed quote — is not merely subjective interpretation. It is a fact that the Chinese student’s nationality was mentioned, while other students’ backgrounds were not. The resulting perception and criticism stem from this discrepancy.

In summary, while Dr. Picard’s intentions may have been to highlight individual misconduct rather than generalize about a group, the selective reference to nationality, combined with the broader framing of the slide, created unintended but real associations. This is why both NeurIPS organizers and Dr. Picard have publicly acknowledged the issue and apologized. Lancer999 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We seem to disagree less than it might appear. Although I think the word "selective" implies a bad intent that may have been absent. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the revised edit based your feedbacks:

At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard's keynote address on AI ethics drew controversy due to a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. Her comments drew immediate criticism. In her keynote, nationality was mentioned in one specific example of misconduct, while other examples did not include such references. This inconsistency led to concerns about unnecessary emphasis on nationality, as raised by attendees and commentators. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments reflected "a deeply troubling and racist view of Chinese scholars," calling the remarks "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening."

In response to the incident, the NeurIPS Board and 2024 Organizing Committee issued an official statement stating that Picard's remarks "perpetuated harmful stereotypes" and violated their Code of Conduct. The board reaffirmed their commitment to fostering an inclusive, non-discriminatory environment and stated, "We take this matter extremely seriously and do not tolerate discrimination on any basis, including national origin, ethnicity, or race." The statement included plans to better communicate the Code of Conduct to invited speakers to prevent similar issues in the future. Picard also issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.

Please let me know if you have any feedback or concerns. Lancer999 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Two paragraphs is too much to devote to this incident. It's not like she has a pattern of consistently and continually doing this, so there is no need to overemphasize a one-time mistake she made. And the SCMP source doesn't say "attendees and commentators". There was one attendee and one commentator in that SCMP article. I propose a more succinct summary of the incident in one paragraph, which is all that is needed.

At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee, due to Picard highlighting the Chinese nationality of a university student in an example of misbehaviour, while other examples did not include such references. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments were "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening." Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.

Isaidnoway (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And and the specific problems in the previous suggested version seem to have been acknowledged but not corrected. Just reading the first sentence is enough to show that. It says her slide "included cultural generalizations". The word "generalizations" is plural, but her slide only included one, and the sentence doesn't say what the generalization was. It is problematic to assert there were generalizations without saying what these (apparently terrible) generalizations were. The only clearly identified generalization on the slide is that the Chinese people she knows are generally "honest and morally upright". As a further refinement, I suggest this: "At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee due to Picard describing an example of improper use of AI by a Chinese university student, while her examples on other slides did not mention nationality. The slide also made the general remark that "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright." Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that her comments were "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening." Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on summarizing this incident. I’d like to propose some adjustments to ensure the article reflects the full scope of its impact and coverage. While the current proposals focus on criticism from an attendee and Furong Huang, it’s important to note that the controversy sparked widespread backlash beyond these individuals, including reactions on social media and within the academic and technology communities. Additional points of relevance include:

1. According to an MSN report (can be used as an additional secondary reference) , the incident "sparked a backlash on social media, with not only Chinese netizens criticizing Picard for racial discrimination, but also members of the academic and technology communities expressing disapproval, calling her actions inappropriate and clearly biased."

2. A petition on Change.org urging MIT to investigate Picard's actions has gathered over 7,000 signatures.

3. The NeurIPS conference organizers issued a formal response, stated that it conflicted with their principles of inclusion and respect.

Question:

Do you agree that the broader social media and academic/tech community backlash, as well as the NeurIPS organizers’ response, should be included to provide a fuller account of the event? Lancer999 (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I oppose any addition of content implying that Picard is a racist. While social media users and academic/tech are entitled to their opinions, their opinions are just that, they are in no position to make such a judgement call, without backing up their assertions with clear and convincing evidence that demonstrates this is a pattern of conduct with Picard. This is a BLP, and we have to be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. And I also question these WP:SPAs who have suddenly shown up as well advocating on your behalf. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns about implying that Picard is a racist, I understand the need for caution in framing statements about living individuals and adhering to the principles of WP:BLP. My intention is not to directly label Picard as such, but rather to reflect the wide-ranging criticism this incident has received, as documented by reliable sources.

On the question of sourcing, the Central News Agency (CNA) article in question is a state-owned news organization in Taiwan with a reputation for reliability, akin to Reuters or AFP. I believe it qualifies as a high-quality source under Misplaced Pages's guidelines. WP:NOENG non-english reliable sources are allowed in English wikipedia.

Regarding WP:SPAs, I understand that the sudden involvement of accounts focused on this topic might raise questions about their motivations and adherence to Misplaced Pages's principles. However, I want to clarify that I have not solicited or coordinated with any accounts to advocate on my behalf. Their participation seems to be driven by their independent interest in the issue, and their contributions should still be evaluated based on Misplaced Pages's content and sourcing guidelines. Lancer999 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Our goal is to summarize, and one paragraph is sufficient to summarize this one time incident. Anything more would be undue. The CNA article only mentions "people in the academic and technological circles", that is vague and lacks attribution as to who these "people" are. I support the one paragraph proposal and oppose any mention of racism, as that claim is without merit. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for outlining your position clearly. I understand the importance of maintaining balance and avoiding undue weight in the article. Given this, I’m willing to support the consensus proposal:

"At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee due to Picard describing an example of improper use of AI by a Chinese university student, while her examples on other slides did not mention nationality. The slide also made the general remark that 'Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright.' Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that her comments were 'not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening.' Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused 'unintended negative associations' that she deeply regretted." Lancer999 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems OK to me as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your valuable input and collaboration in reaching this consensus—I truly appreciate everyone's efforts and perspectives! Lancer999 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for all these discussions. I have followed the discussion from the very beginning and hope that my sudden jump-in at this stage is not inappropriate. I would just like to add that the expression “drew criticism from a Chinese attendee …,” while accurately describing what happened during the conference session, falls short of conveying the aftermath of the incident. I would suggest at least mentioning the angry response from the broader Chinese scholars’ and students’ community after the conference, with references mentioned by @Lancer999. YuanfangZ (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

— YuanfangZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't yet had time to study the new comments, but I'll point out that MSN generally just reposts articles originally published by others, and the articles are prefixed with an indication at the beginning about where they came from. In this case, MSN says the article is from CNA, the Central News Agency of Taiwan (https://www.cna.com.tw/), which is the state-owned news agency of Taiwan. The article can also be found directly on the CNA website rather than looking at MSN. The CNA website link is https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202412160180.aspx. MSN links are temporary and tend to expire rapidly. The article seems to be written in Chinese, and no official English version of the article may be available. To reply to YuanfangZ's comment about jumping into the conversation, that is no problem at all and is very welcome on Misplaced Pages. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've been following the discussion and appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments and commitment to writing an accurate account of the events.

I think one paragraph devoted to the incident and the content of Rosalind Picard's slides with citations from the SCMP and CNA articles, Picard's two responses on NeurIPS, and her response on the MIT Media Lab site should suffice.

How about:

"NeurIPS 2024 Controversy

On December 13, 2024, Picard presented a talk at the 2024 NeurIPS Conference entitled, "How to optimize what matters most?", which included a slide quoting a Chinese student saying "Nobody at my school taught us morals or values" with a disclaimer, "NOTE: Most Chinese I know are honest and morally upright." This drew immediate criticism at the conference and on social media, prompting Picard to issue two apology notes on the official NeurIPS website and one apology note on the official MIT Media Lab website."

I think this captures the history of the events and touches upon the reaction from the community at large. Readers would be able to conduct their own research after reading this entry. The chronicles of life (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That seem OK to me, but I suggest to reduce the amount of detail about exactly how many places and where she posted an apology; I suggest just "... prompting Picard to publicly apologize." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I have added the section based on the consensus we reached. Please feel free to continue the discussion or make further edits as needed. Lancer999 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: