Talk:Ronald S. Sullivan Jr.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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.

United States: Indiana Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana.

Constructive edits

Dear User:Eefun. I have asked you to correct factual errors in my additions to this article. I tried to follow the sources, but if you are more informed than me, corrections would be most welcome. I am also not aware of the grammatical errors you mention. My previous mistake of saying "these" for "criticism" instead of "criticisms" has been corrected. Again, feel free to reword things. Deleting a paragraph of content and replacing it with a non-neutral version without a more detailed reason should be avoided. Connor Behan (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to improve the page. Your addition of a citation to the “Politics” section was excellent. In the “Controversy” section (the title of which is not vague and is acceptable under Wikipedia norms, given the many biographical Wikipedia entries that have a similarly named “Controversy” section), I deleted two sentences that you added that (1) were ungrammatical in that they contained pronouns without clear antecedents (for “This” and for “These”) and (2) contained factual inaccuracies, e.g., the statement re Winthrop alumni, which implied that only Winthrop alumni (and no current students) came forward. I reverted back to my sentence, which closely tracks the more-neutral language used in the cited Crimson news article. I also deleted your sentence re the letter of support by HLS professors because (1) this paragraph concerns only the College’s actions and has nothing to do with HLS and (2) any mention of specific letters or petitions in support of Sullivan would need, for the sake of neutrality, to be balanced by mention of letters and petitions in opposition to Sullivan (e.g., a student petition, a parent petition, and an alumni petition),but your edit did include the latter. I do appreciate your adding the detail that it was Dean Rakesh Khurana who announced that he had made the decision not to renew the appointments. Thank you. Eefun|eefun 02:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eefun (talk • contribs)

Correction to the above: your edits did not include the latter Eefun|eefun 02:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eefun (talk • contribs)

My edits mentioned Rakesh Khurana but not his precise role. Thanks for doing this. My sentence mentioning the HLS letter in the Globe might not be perfect but it makes the article more neutral than it was before. Your version gives the impression that opposition to Sullivan was universal and that there was no defence. For now, I have added back the Crimson link. If you can add reliable sources for the other petitions, that would be even better. I disagree with some of your policy interpretations (see WP:CRITS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) but that is not my main concern right now. Connor Behan (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I will remove the title “Controversy.” The point of the paragraph is only to relate that Harvard removed Sullivan as Faculty Dean, and it does not make sense to make the statement without stating Harvard’s reason for doing so. I think referencing letters/petitions os support and of opposition are outside the scope of this paragraph. Perhaps deleting the title “Controversy” will moot this debate? Eefun|eefun 02:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eefun (talk • contribs)

I agree with the idea of changing the title. But the large amount of commentary on Harvard's decision should receive some weight in the section. Discussing one petition on each "side" like we're doing now seems fine as long as we don't go into great detail. Connor Behan (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that there was one petition is misleading when there were at least three petitions: one by students, one by parents of students, and one by alumni. Therefore, I have made the word “petition” plural. Not sure whether the Atlantic article you cite references the multiple petitions (it may have been published before the latter two petitions came online). Eefun|eefun 03:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eefun (talk • contribs)

Dear User:Connor_Behan: The Atlantic article you cited for the reference to the petitions predates all but one of the petitions. I am going to mark the sentence as needing a citation, tho I do not know the right form for doing that. Eefun|eefun 03:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eefun (talk • contribs)

I Read here that he seems to have gotten involved in a Lawsuit surrounding some Sex Slavery scandal in New York State. On the whole it would prolly be beneficial to update this page with whatever he's up to now? Im only here on a school computer bc of an afterthought in a project that bought me here but idk if he's involved or just pitched in but it seems relevant to his page potentially. 140.232.9.179 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]