Talk:Roland G. Fryer Jr.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pfl12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tabloid-ish Voice?

Does anyone else feel this is way too informal to speak of an acadenic?

By 2005, Fryer was regarded as one of Black America's and Harvard's rising academic stars, in the aftermath of publishing numerous economics-related papers in prominent academic journals.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.90.107.179 (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Crimson Story about title IX investigation

Worth mentioning? https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/5/22/fryer-investigation/

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roland G. Fryer Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305190939/http://www.cramton.umd.edu/workshop/papers/fryer-levitt-distinctively-black-names.pdf to http://www.cramton.umd.edu/workshop/papers/fryer-levitt-distinctively-black-names.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Economic achievements

This article needs much more discussion about the scholarship he has done that has led to his winning so many prizes. Bellagio99 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

UPDATED - Academic career section; ADDED Controversial Events section

I went through this article; career section and added "controversial events" section. One or two sections of the article were written and contextualized in 2007, so I updated that part to the current context. Also the Academic Career section had no relationship as to chronology, so I took all the points and reordered them into a chronology according to date of occurrence. Added section on Professor Fryer's appointment to the NYC Department of Education in 2007 by Michael Bloomberg, which already was referenced by the article but had been overlooked. Added election to the executive committee of the American Economic Association, and subsequent abdication of that seat. Updated seat in the office of the WEB DuBois Institute, which is part of Harvard, and due to the two-year suspension, was eliminated. Added a few side notes on the accusations, taken directly from the New York Times article, in the "controversial events" section. Changed the wording of a few sentences, for clarification.

There are currently two topics in the "controversial events" section; 1) research publication on police brutality; 2) accusations and suspension by Harvard faculty.

Thanks for all your help on this. Keep up the good work. Please review, revise, and revert as seen fit. This is Wikipedia. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Boston Globe that goes into more detail on the condition of Professor Fryer's suspension. It is to last four years, the first two years is a total suspension from both teaching and academics, the second two years consists of supervised teaching and limited academic work: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/07/10/harvard-suspends-star-economist-roland-fryer-following-sexual-harassment-complaints/4v3vYV1Dgn9XzVTQqi2UiP/story.html
Discuss. Thanks in advance. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to the 2007 newsletter of the NYC Commission on Human Rights which featured Professor Fryer as a keynote speaker in which he outlined his goals as the Cheif Equality Officer: http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/6639newsletter_2007.pdf בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Two more links that aren't in the main article yet:
A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement.
They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.
But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.
“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.
Link: nytimes-surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings,(archive.org link: surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings).
Here is the entire research paper online: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN POLICE USE OF FORCE - Roland G. Fryer, Jr בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone seen this? Should it be referenced?

I’m not clear if the information in this video should be included or not. It seems to me this may be a glaring omission, no?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8xWOlk3WIw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

the general omission is that nothing critical of the Harvard punishment for Fryer was included, when in fact it was quite controversial. The page had been factual, yes, but only with facts from one side (Harvard's) presented. More balance has been brought to the page now. See if you agree. Mckennagene (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

In order to understand why your edits are being challenged and reverted, please take a look at Wikipedia's policy on biographical material about living people. All material on this page needs to conform to this policy, which is fairly stringent in its sourcing requirements.

Specifically, material needs to be be cited to reliable sources with established processes and reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Polemical websites like The Free Press do not meet this bar. Substack blogs are even less appropriate, as site policy clearly states: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."

These policies are fundamental and non-negotiable and continuing to violate them by reinserting poorly-sourced material is likely to lead to editing restrictions. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the objective standard by which you judge real clear media to be fringe publication? Please provide a clear rubric and evidence.

And similarly for The Free Press calling them polemical is your opinion. Where has it been judged that they are not reliable? Their reporting record is easily as good as the NYTimes. Does wikipedia have a list of which publications are approved and which are not?

Also, the policy on completely banning self-publishing sites does not seem appropriate when they are used to simply state that a notable person has expressed such and such opinion on a matter. It is completely verifiable that the person said it when they self publish a vjdeo of them saying it. Why is it more reliable to see a third party say Glenn Loury says "..." Vs using Glenn Loury's own publication as a source for what Glenn Loury says? I agree that self publishing sites would not be reliable sources for many things, but it's insane to say they are not reliable sources of the opinions of their authors. Mckennagene (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ll answer no one does mastcell is hiding behind these “rules” because it is easier to excuse “blogs” because you know, no one at the times has ever been wrong or tabloidish. Wikipedia editors have a literal stick up their ass. 2601:18F:A82:6E50:5502:ED95:CA56:F22B (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And who establishes a "reputation for fact checking"? Fact checkers? 75.114.200.33 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)