Talk:Todd Kashdan

Reliable source for suit and appeal?

I just removed the following unsourced text from the article:

Kashdan disputed the charges, first within the GMU disciplinary system and then in federal court. The federal complaint was dismissed on the grounds that Kashdan had failed to state a sufficient complaint.{{cn|date=June 2021}}

While case dockets have been provided, do we have any secondary sources that talk about the suit or the appeal of it? —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: The WaPo source includes the following:

His suit, filed in September in federal court in Alexandria, alleged that GMU and its officials had run a flawed investigation, displaying bias against men, and violated his rights to due process and freedom of speech. But a federal judge sided with the university in an April 23 ruling that dismissed the case.

This seemed a sufficient source for the statement that you deleted. The same source notes the appeal, so that could be included in the article text. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources?

I am unable to find a source for:

• "With Jan Loney he studied how parents interact with children diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder."
• He writes regularly for Psychology Today and The Huffington Post.

Any sources for these two items?

Is the second bullet meaningful for a BLP article? (It seems to me that subjects of articles think that this is meaningful, but it doesn't seem that this makes someone notable in my experience.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

General comment

Since the article has been nominated for deletion + there seems to be an ongoing issue where people add content and then it's removed:

• I removed all the profile information and sources from Kashdan himself. Generally profiles for newspapers, magazines, or almost any other purpose are written by the subject, and are therefore: 1) not necessarily fact-checked and 2) may be promotional or worded in a promotional way.
• I added a citation for the profile from the APA, though, because it is very unlikely that they would publish content that says that they are associate editors for key journals if it was untrue.
• It seems likely that the concerns about tone and promotion will become non-issues if people with a conflict of interest or a Connected contributor don't contribute to the article or and instead request edits on this talk page.
• I am not sure if some of what I added would be considered "fluff". I hope not, but it would be much more preferable to edit the sourced content than remove it entirely.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• • clarified above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

COI tag

I removed the COI tag because the article has been rewritten and edited with reliable secondary sources.

But, if the COI / close contributor adds or changes content, it will be returned. See COI box on the top of this talk page for a way to {{request edit}}. (More info at Wikipedia:Edit requests.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of COI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcourt656. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions have been removed, the page should reflect this

What evidence is required to show that the GMU sanctions are over because Kashdan followed the protocol and has been fully reinstated and embraced by the university since 2020? It is inaccurate to leave the reader assuming that there are any current restrictions in his teaching or mentoring. This is an internal mechanism. There are emails and documents that testify to these facts. Right now, it is written as if there is no terminal endpoint.

In addition, proper details and nuance should be provided. Kashdan and the other graduate students accepted an invitation from one of the accusers to attend the Claremont Lounge. In the court records, Kashdan and the graduate student witnesses testified that the accuser said it was a bar for after dinner drinks and made no mention of a strip bar. These details are important. An accusing student omitted the detail that they are taking four people to a Lounge that has strippers, this same accuser bought a lap dance for one of the students - who refused the accuser, this same accuser accepted a lap dance paid for by one of the students, and the same accuser bought a lap dance for Kashdan - who refused it. There are three witnesses who testified to this.

There has to be some level of precision in describing this 3 year old event. Or minimize its mention on this biographical page. There is a larger question of defining a person's entire biography by mistakes that have been fully resolved by following the protocol requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.155.47 (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The current article text is a fair brief part (a single paragraph) of the article. Anything that goes in the article (particularly regarding a matter like sexual harassment / similar) needs to be backed by reliable sources; requirements are especially high for a biography of a living person. I've added text indicating that the sanctions were intended to be temporary -- the WaPo mentions 2 years. We mostly can't use court records for a WP:BLP, and should not in any case go into that level of detail (among other things, I believe it would tend to have the opposite effect of what you are going for). It's possibly that trimming the text a little further would be possible. Pinging @CaroleHenson and XOR'easter: who have also recently worked on the article to see if they have an opinion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(But note possibility or likelihood that IP editor is Jcourt656, editing in circumvention of indefinite block.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I made this edit, to keep record of the incident, but without the details. How is this?

Based on the number of previous sockpuppets, it's wise to check the contributions of new users to this page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I like the further shortening of the paragraph in question. The salacious details are not so important. It might or might not be worthwhile mention that the harassment issues were with graduate students (both as a mitigating detail, and also to help explain why they continued to let him teach undergrads). Disclosing that Kashdan contacted me off-wiki with some questions. He appears to be trying to follow our policies (possibly after trying everything else), and as long as that remains the case, I think the WP:BLP considerations outweigh any possible connection the IP may have with banned or blocked users. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Russ Woodroofe, Great points. Sounds good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Carole, I did contact Russ offline in hopes that this page could fix some of the media inaccuracies for the sake of click bait. For many, this Wikipedia page is the first place people go to find information on me. I would be grateful if it was slightly modified to be more accurate. Such as:

1. So that people do not make false assumptions can you include the following: Kashdan was not accused of physical contact, advances, or even an uncomfortable one-on-one meeting. In this case, the harassment charge was limited to group conversations in graduate-level classes and gatherings (sexuality is one of the topics in his courses and research as featured in the media Time Magazine).

2. I filed a lawsuit against George Mason University because of a lack of due process (buried in the WashPo article). I never had a chance to examine the evidence, cross-examine the witnesses, or bring in other witnesses who offer evidence that contradicts the accusers. I would appreciate it if due process was listed, not anti-male bias (which is not a legal term rather a term used by the journalist to catch eyeballs).

3. Can you change the subheading to reflect #1 - Allegations of Sexual Conversations? This way readers do not make false assumptions about what the allegations entail.

I appreciate your consideration. It is disconcerting to think that people assume I engaged in behavior when this is about conversations with graduate students who initiated studies of human sexuality with me.

Gratefully,

Kashdan 100.15.218.21 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That last link is broken use this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267328170_Creating_Clinical_Psychology_Graduate_Courses_That_Lead_to_Peer_Reviewed_Publications_A_Case_Study 100.15.218.21 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment that IP editor is very likely Jcourt656 / Gmupsychologist1 / other blocked socks; I have explained the WP:UNBLOCK procedure in private communications. Pinging @Revirvlkodlaku, Pdx5990, CaroleHenson, XOR'easter, David Eppstein, WikiDan61, and Melcous: as recent editors to the page. I've done what I'm comfortable with here, and would like input from other editors. Not immediately WP:SOCKSTRIKEing because of BLP concerns. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits: I've gotten more off-wiki contacts from Todd Kashdan, who has made similar requests to the IP. The old WaPo and new Inside Higher Ed article both give a period of roughly two years; the Inside Higher Ed article uses the past tense. I've edited to reflect these sources, and I think in a little better line with our WP:BLP policies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that we can only go by what is in sources such as the Washington Post and Inside Higher Ed stories. Kashdan would like us to clarify that the formal investigation only concerned certain types of conduct; we can only do that if published sources say what is requested to be said. As for whether the lawsuit was about bias, due process, or free speech: the WaPo story appears to say that all three claims were made but only the bias claim was found to be actionable, and that was the claim that the court actually ruled against. (Which is to say: there appears to be a legal reason, and not merely a motivation from audience interest, for making the bias claim into the focus of the story.) I'm not convinced that the details are significant, as the main point here is that the lawsuit did not prevail. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

David, I am noticing a flurry of activity yet again on my page. Now the allegations have been moved from a heading to an entire subsection. And there are factually incorrect details on this page. This doesn't make sense to me.

As time progresses, it would make sense for false statements to be less, not more prominent.

Can I ask that the suggested edits be considered or alternatively, that this page be deleted? 129.174.252.250 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

There are so many errors to this page and incomplete information which would be relevant for anyone interested in my biography.

1. I did not get a teaching position at the University at Buffalo. I was hired to create The Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University right out of graduate school.

2. My work with John Roberts was when I was a graduate student. But it would make sense as a biography to detail less about the people who I worked with and more on what we did. So this should be under Early Life and Education. IN fact, my thesis and dissertation were supervised by John Roberts. My thesis was on positivity deficts in people with social anxiety disorder. My dissertation was on the impact of social anxiety disorder in clients in treatment for depressive disorders. We wanted to know how being socially anxious impeded progress in group treatment, where socializing was part of each session.

3. Yes, I received funding for The Well-Being Laboratory from the Koch Foundation but why not also mention the $184,000 in funding from the National Institute of Health to study social anxiety disorder and emotion regulation. And detail what the Koch Funding was for - “We are investigating the value of ideological diversity in groups. We are examining the biases that prevent people from expressing or listening to ideas that run counter to prevailing views,” said Kashdan. “We are fine tuning strategies to become intellectually humble and sufficiently curious to consider ideas that emerge from members of other groups.”. After all, the purpose of the page should be information for the readers.

4. I never did this research on my page:

Kashdan has found that losing one's job can affect a person for several years, because even after they get a new job, they wonder how long it will be until they lose that job. It is less disturbing, though, if the person was part of a mass layoff than if they were the only person let go.

Why not detail the research showing how socially anxious people can become bullies, which was featured in the New York Times.

Why not instead detail the work I did on sexuality, which has been featured in Time Magazine.

And the work I did on the importance of constructive dissent in groups, which was featured in Fast Company.

And the work we did on mindfulness in athletes featured in The Washington Post.

And the work we did on the situations when feeling bad is more beneficial than feeling good, featured in Forbes.

5. And I made edits to the Allegations section because I was never barred from mentoring graduate students. I also edited it to be clear I sued George Mason University as soon as false allegations were made because of the lack of due process that should be afforded anyone in a university or any justice system. That is, being allowed to view the evidence, question and point out the lack of veracity of accuser statements through cross-examination, and be allowed to present evidence that conflicts with the stories provided by accusers. None of this was allowed which is why I sued. And it states in the articles cited that I was never given due process - because I wasn't demoted or fired. Which is absurd but true.

For these reasons, I am asking for permission to put factual information in the page and edit it properly. Or that this page be deleted. 129.174.252.250 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply 1-DEC-2023

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:

1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.
4. Reasons should be provided for each change.

• In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the four required items are shown as an example:

Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." 2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." 3. Using as the reference: Prisha Harinath (2023). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. 4. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with all four items from your request.

References

Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  23:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Why I believe this page should be deleted

This page is supposed to detail my career. However, there are no useful details on this page. 1. The first paragraph is a short list of topics I study but with no useful details for readers to learn anything.

2. The second and third paragraph merely list where I obtained degrees and my two mentors. No details are provided on what research my mentors conducted or what I studied. Saying curiosity affects relationships is vague.

3. For the section on research, the first sentence does not describe what John Roberts and Kashdan studied. It was a series of interesting experiments that are not detailed. And only one research grant is listed with no detail on what the grant enabled the Well-Being Laboratory to study.

4. The second paragraph on research spends 1/3 of the space just to say Kashdan published a book chapter - that was published in graduate school. This is odd to focus on out of over 250 scientific articles and book chapters. Why not focus on the questions and results? The last sentence of the paragraph does not describe Kashdan's curiosity research. He did NOT study how curiosity relates to better performance. He did not study how curiosity relates to being open to learning. He did create a new model, the Five Dimensional Model of Curiosity as detailed in the Harvard Business Review and Oxford Review and Entrepreneur. He did study how this model suggests we explore which dimensions of curiosity are related to different elements of workplace well-being. He did explore how curiosity as a momentary state and personality trait related to a sense of meaning in life. He did explore how other people including friends, family, and strangers evaluate curious people. He did explore how curiosity leads to less defensive reactions when threatened. These and other topics would be interesting to highlight his work.

5. Oddly, his main lines of research are curiosity, purpose in life, psychological flexibility, social anxiety, stress, social relationships, sexuality, resilience, and well-being. Only 1 of these 9 areas of research are even covered and none of the details of this work is summarized. Instead, the entire 3 paragraph research section mentions work he didn't do, spends the majority of time on a book chapter he wrote in graduate school, and a sentence on gratitude that is inaccurate - he never studied how gratitude relates to interactions "with others in their work." There are statements that are false and a lot of omissions. The research section as written is not a summary of his work in any of the topics studied.

6. The largest section of the biography is his court case against George Mason. This is an unfair characterization of a living person's life to spend more time on this, which has been resolved in 2021 when the sanctions lifted. And it doesn't even detail why a court case was primarily filed - because of a lack of due process. That is, he never was allowed to view the evidence, or question the accuser accusations, or bring in multiple witnesses in the group conversations who attest that the harassment did not happen. It is what everyone is entitled to but for some strange reason, he was deemed ineligible for due process because he was not severely demoted or fired. This makes this section a hit piece. Which is why, on top of the 5 reasons above, this page should just be deleted.

7. The awards and honors section fails to include the large list that would belong in a section titled as such including:

ACADEMIC AWARDS/HONORS 2018 Fellow, Society for Personality and Social Psychology 2015 Fellow, Association for Psychological Science 2015 Fellow, Association for the Advancement of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies 2015 Fellow, Association for Behavioral and Contextual Science 2013 American Psychological Association (APA) Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology (in the area of individual differences) 2012 Distinguished Research Fellow Award- International Society for Quality of Life Studies 2011 Psychologies Magazine list of "58 people who have changed our lives" 2010 Distinguished Faculty Member of the Year- GMU Alumni Association 2010 Outstanding Faculty Award Finalist, State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (top 29 in state) 2009 Outstanding Faculty Award Finalist, State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (top 29 in state) 2009 Author Teleseminar-Message Contest Winner (“best-up-and-coming author with the most relevant, compelling and powerful message”) 2007 Mason Emerging Research, Scholar, Creator Award (given to 3 distinguished faculty within 10 years of receipt of doctoral degree) 2006 Early Career Award- Association for the Advancement of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies- Anxiety Disorders Special Interest Group 2005-2006, 2010 Nominated for George Mason University Teaching Excellence Award 2004 Merv Wagner Research Award - South Carolina Psychological Association 2004 MUSC Psychology Intern Research Paper Award -2- 2003 Anxiety Disorder Association of America Trainee Award 2002 Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology Dissertation Grant Award 2002 College of Arts and Sciences Dissertation Fellowship 2002 Positive Psychology Summer Institute Fellowship 2002 Wisconsin Symposium on Emotion Travel Award 2001 Excellence in Teaching Award - Undergraduate Psychology Association/Psi Chi 2000-2003 Travel Scholarship to the International Positive Psychology Summit (4 times) 1998-2001 Presidential Fellowship Award, University at Buffalo

Summary The page does not detail the scientific discoveries by Kashdan. It does not detail his work. Some of the details about his work are flat out wrong - mentioning research he never even conducted. Because of the extensive errors and omissions, rendering this page too perfunctory to be a living person's biography, a deletion is requested. This page primarily serves to slander a living person without doing the work of providing error free, sufficient biographical detail about what he is known for.

If a biography of a researcher is warranted, summarize his work. Here are three sections that are missing for example, about his research:

1. His Model of Psychological Flexibility, including his three definitions. His Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index, which is widely used in the field of psychology to measure and study psychological flexibility.

2. His Model of Purpose in Life, including his three part definition that is even featured in a documentary film.

3. His Five Dimensional Model of Curiosity, allowing people to move from asking whether someone is curious to how. It would make sense to list these widely used five dimensions and how they relate to particular well-being outcomes. Which he also explored in the workplace.

4. And his five books. None of them are mentioned. Mere references are provided and that is it. Curious? The Upside of Your Dark Side. The Art of Insubordination.

In the end, this page should be deleted because of how it is being wrongly used to describe a living person's life as a researcher and author- which is why someone created this page. Too many errors, listing things he didn't do and failing to list the important contributions. Several people have tried to point out and fix errors. Several people have tried to add details on the contributions. They have been deleted by administrators. Thus, please delete this page. 100.15.218.21 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Todd Kashdan

A tag has been placed on Talk:Todd Kashdan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this page is filled with inaccuracies and missing useful information for a reader

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ==

As requested, this template has been added. See the numerous reasons above. 100.15.218.21 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

The section on allegations is disproportionately long. It is 15 lines. Much longer than sections on scientific research contributions. Can it be reduced? The information on the dates and details of the lawsuit seem unnecessary or at least far too lengthy. 74.96.67.230 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)