Talk:Elias James Corey

Slant of this article

Looking at recent edits and reverts on this page, I believe that the page at present seems overly negative, and not in accordance with the NPOV Wikipedia is supposed to uphold. I think there should be a section on graduate student deaths, as these are a serious issue, but much of the tone of the article goes beyond simply reporting the facts. An article like this should not seem to pass judgement on whether people are "nice people", it should instead try to present information in a dispassionate way. Whatever character flaws he may have, EJ has made huge contributions to organic chemistry, and there needs to be more balance in this article. Walkerma 16:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A very poor account of an influential scientist

This page is fairly juvenile right now. EJ Corey is one of the most influential chemists of the twentieth century, it would be difficult to carry out more than five reactions in the laboratory without encountering the massive sphere of influence that his work commands. The deaths of graduate students in his group have to be discussed within this context. Hanging the whole page around this issue, with minimal presentation of Corey's work and accomplishments, is just silly.

Corey is Certainly Above all the Synthetic Chemists Ever

I am citing the following excerpts from the Press release about Corey being awarded the Nobel prize. Please include it in the main body of the write up, as it very correctly and genuinely places him on top of the chemists of his generations and also before his times in bringing the organic synthesis to its current mature stage:

From the Press Release: The 1990 Nobel Prize in Chemistry http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1990/press.html

To perform the total syntheses successfully, Corey was also obliged to develop some fifty entirely new or considerably improved synthesis reactions or reagents. It is probable that no other chemist has developed such a comprehensive and varied assortment of methods which, often showing the simplicity of genius, have become commonplace in the synthesising laboratory. His systematic use of different types of organometallic reagent has revolutionised recent techniques of synthesis in many respects.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.139.140 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Headings added

OK folks. You're right, the article is one-sided. The only cure is to write something. I've added an image and a few subject headings. Let's fill them up with EJ's accomplishments so the article isn't so one sided. ~K 18:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

totally rubbish and one-sided article. E J is certainly the most inspiring organic chemist of our time and he certainly has redefined the way we think and carry out organic chemistry reactions. He made an endless number of contributions not only to the chemistry community but also for the betterment of mankind, and he is still continuing to do so as we speak now. He is such a brilliant organic chemist who will never stop inspiring us...

Nuclear holocaust line

I'm not a chemist and I don't want to comment on the slant of the article. But I'm removing the following phrase:

even if the world is ending in a nuclear holocaust and Dr. Corey's only chance for survival is for you to burst in and drag him to a bomb shelter, you may still not enter

as it is unverifiable, illogical (if the world ends, Corey dies, like everyone else), smacks of POV and is not the suitable tone for an encyclopedia. --JJay 00:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I agree to an extent, it is perhaps an urban myth, and if you're going to remove the phrase you may as well remove the bit about the red/green light too, otherwise it seems a bit wierd standing alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.133.215 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

I'm not sure if Corey is the subject of myth, urban or otherwise, but I have no objection if you want to remove the red light/green light bit. Whoever added the info apparently wanted to convey the idea that Prof. Corey is a hardass. Nevertheless, the traffic light on his door is perhaps verifiable, unlike speculation on his reaction in the event of nuclear armageddon.-- JJay 19:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Expansion notice

I added the expansion notice to motivate us all add to this article. E. J. is one of the greatest living chemists, and deserves a quality article. While the current content is true, it reads one-sided. So lets start writing! ~K 22:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Added

I added a qoute, information about him winning the priestly award, and a list of publications.

- Jo Jo The Magic Chimp

Why have these three 1990s publications randomly in the middle of the article? If they're truly important, why not in the references section? Why these three articles since he's published lots more than that? Olin

You're quite right, these are not presented appropriately. These publications may represent the pinnacle of Corey's work (I don't know), if they are they need to be described in prose and listed as references. I put the list into a hidden comment so the information is there for someone to expand upon. Walkerma 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Corey's Work

Something about Corey seems to inspire heated emotions in people; there seems to be as many people who dislike him as there are who lavishly praise him. A grad student told me in 1999 the story of the traffic light, which I found amusing. But he also felt that Corey has padded his career resume to the point that it overflows more in "quantity" than in "quality". For example, (according to the student) Corey has "discovered" many of his published reactions simply by having students apply as much pressure or heat as necessary until the hoped-for reaction finally takes place. (Reaction doesn't work? Just keep applying more pressure. Still not going? Keep adding pressure, plus more heat.) The result is a lot of reactions that can only be duplicated in laboratory settings, never on a large scale. Of course, the student admitted that "Corey has done some very important things." But I've heard similar grumblings about Corey from other people. (Then again, Derek Barton had one or two suicides in his own lab, and isn't remembered all that fondly by everybody...) J.R. Hercules 06:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Grad student death deleted

The grad student death section (should really be graduate student suicide) was deleted today. I was wondering what people's opinion on this was. I think it's an important aspect of the chemistry community, but the section was a bit larger than the Coery's chemistry, which perhaps made the suicide a bit overemphasized. I am personally for a revert and maybe revise. Olin 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This has happened before. We have pruned this section a bit - it used to be practically the entire article. I think we could reasonably cut it down a lot, but still leave the section in. Someone familiar with Corey needs to really give this a good rewrite with refs- I am less familiar with his work and can only do bits & pieces. Walkerma 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Controversy over Woodward-Hoffmann Rules

While reflecting on it, we must not forget that, in 1973, R. B. Woodward was involved in a similar controversy with the 1973 Nobel laureate, Geoffrey Wilkinson, over the structure and aromaticity of ferrocenes. Reflecting on their collaborative work done in 1951-52, at Harvard, much later, Woodward and Wilkinson both gave totally different accounts. In 1973, while upset at not being included in that year's Nobel Prize awarded jointly to Wilkinson and Fischer, on the work done on ferrocenes, Woodward wrote to the Nobel committee, that "Both of these concepts were simply, completely, and entirely mine, and mine alone, ...and that Wilkinson's initial reaction to my views was close to derision." Whereas, Wilkinson has stated that he had thought up the structure several days prior to his conversation with Woodward.Obviously, Woodward was a man with a history of such conflicts! Now, as for the Woodward-Hoffmann Rules, in lieu of Woodward's own words on Corey's contributions in the conceptualization of this theory, Hoffmann's biased account should not be given much weight!

http://www.orglist.net/archive/2001/0146.html The Northeastern Section of the American Chemical Society: Of Sandwiches and Nobel Prizes:

While I respect your POV, I don't think that Corey's claim to the W-H rules is verifiable, and I do question why Corey didn't mention it earlier if he really thought he had a claim to them. Wilkinson, Hoffmann and Corey are all great chemists. I think you imply (maybe you don't, and maybe it's unintentional) by your paragraph that Corey is "conflict-free," and that Hoffmann and Wilkinson were/are somehow less great, which I think is horribly misleading. Olin 16:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Source for the red/green light

Someone deleted the bit of trivia about the red/green light at Corey's office door for being "irrelevant and unsourced". We can debate whether it is relevant or not (IMO it should be mentioned in the article), but here is a published source in case someone is interested:

If you wanted to speak with the lab chief, according to former students, you would knock on the door and take your cue from a pair of red and green lights beside the door frame. Despite the unusual traffic signals, Corey also had the reputation of being very accessible.

STEPHEN S. HALL; Lethal Chemistry at Harvard; New York Times Magazine; November 29, 1998

Itub 14:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

i clicked on the link. it went nowhere. a google search got this link which worked.[1] maybe it's the same. the article was halfway neutral. the suicide segment certainly needs to be rewritten. It has way too much emphasis.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

I removed the phrase "Some see this as an indication of the difficulty associated with this project and of the unrealistic expectations that the student may have place upon himself at the time." There are a lot of reasons why a project may not have been continued. "Some see..." make this sound like a POV, weasel wordy, if you will. Olin 15:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Graduate Student Separate Page

Tried that. And didn't work. Apparent somebody has a redirect from Alton back to Corey. Half of Corey's page doesn't need to be about Alton. Alton committed suicide because he had a genetic susceptibility plus whatever environmental disruptor he faced. Somebody else would have told the prof to go tweak himself and gone to med school. There has to be some personal responsibility too. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Corey was 70 years old when the Alton dead occurred. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, when i tried to create an Alton page i created it under some other chemist name, Anderson somebody, i left a note on it and deleted all content. very embarrassing. I"ll be OK. That's why i didn't notice the redirect. That brings up the question of how to get rid of redirects once made. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new Jason Alton page. If there is a redirect, once you get redirected you can click on the small link at the top of the page and it will take you to the actual redirect page itself. I did that and copied the older text into the Jason Alton page. Can you check that you think it's OK. I notice that all this stuff needs citations - could you find some? The only thing referenced right now is the total synthesis paper. Walkerma 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn it. the error propogates. the unfortuante guy's name is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Altom. Altom not Alton. that's why the link above is a dead link. i clicked on Walkerma's contributions to see where he created it. I"ll let him fix it or at least give him the reasonable opportunity to do it. I sure would hate to screw it up again. thanks for the info about the redirects. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)It is so easy to get mixed up. Actually the link was done correctly, the page on ALTOM is correct just the discussion name ALTON is wrong. There is nothing to fix. Whew. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The Impact of Corey's Phenomenal Contributions on Synthetic Chemistry

[2]

'E.J. Corey is one of the most important chemists of our century, says Peter Dervan of Caltech. Born in Methuen, Mass., and educated at M.I.T., Corey is one of the most prolific organic chemists of this century. His area of specialty is synthetic organic chemistry -- that is, developing new reactions and building naturally occurring chemical compounds from scratch. In the course of a career whose productivity is almost without precedent, he and the members of his lab have synthesized more than 100 naturally occurring chemical compounds, many of them with significant medical or industrial implications. He was born brilliant and he'll die brilliant, says A.I. Meyers of Colorado State University. I would rank him as one of the two or three greatest scientists in the century, and the entire pharmaceutical industry has been living off his chemistry for years. The extended family of Corey group members has published, by one estimation, a phenomenal 100,000 scientific papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.2.4 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

AFSP reference is misstated

The paper from the ASFP is not a reprint of a NYT article, nor was it written by Keith Richburg. It is signed with the initials "HH and MA", meaning it is essentially anonymous. As it stands, the article gives this source undue prominence. I am going to revert to this version] unless we can decide how to better incorporate it, or whether to incorporate it at all. Skinwalker (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, I've now fixed the citation and streamlined the section. Skinwalker (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Skinwalker's version. We shouldn't give undue weight to the ASFP report, and a line noting that they believe Corey was scapegoated is sufficient. Gigs (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Skinwalker's Request that All Changes to the Graduate Suicide Section be Posted Here

I am perplexed as to why Skinwalker keeps insisting that any change to the graduate student suicide section that, in my opinion, takes the focus off of Corey as being responsible for Altom's death be discussed in this section. I look forward to a discussion in this forum with Skinwalker regarding why a reasonable person would not draw the conclusion that this issue is personally important to Skinwalker and that Skinwalker wants to pick and choose which facts to include in such a way that Corey is to be held responsible. If Skinwalker cannot be objective about this issue, then Skinwalker should not be making any changes to the Corey page.

It is vitally important to recognize the role of depression in suicide. Indeed, the AFSP clearly states that depression and not Corey was the most likely direct cause of Altom's suicide. Not to recognize that depression most likely played a major role is to condemn those with depression and the families who suffer with them to inadequate intervention that might save people's lives. If you do not understand the cause of a condition, you cannot intervene in a way that can improve the condition. By placing a "blame" on someone for an individual's suicide, you ignore the only possible life saving intervention - a recognition of the terrible illness of depression that can be fatal - and intervention addressing the illness itself.

I would like Skinwalker to explain why Skinwalker deletes any mention of depression in the graduate student suicide section. If Skinwalker does not believe depression to be a major - and often fatal - illness, I would like to know what reasoning brings Skinwalker to that conclusion. I am interested in ensuring that people suffering from depression get the help they need. I am left wondering what Skinwalker is interested in accomplishing and by what authority Skinwalker has decided that he/she is the determiner of truth in the Corey page. Skinwalker should not be arbitrating content on the Corey page. Skinwalker seems to be too personally involved.

Trvthchem (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Trvthchem

Thank you for taking this to the talk page. I would suggest reading about wp:dispute resolution if you would like some other editors to take a look. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

From Trvthchem (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Trvthchem Thank you CutOffTies for the information. I have posted the following to the "Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard". "At issue is the content of the Graduate student suicides section of the page on Elias James Corey. The main article cited in this section is the New York Times Article “Lethal Chemistry at Harvard” that according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) is an example of problematic reporting that unfairly scapegoats and harms Corey. All attempts to either delete this section or provide a balanced view that depression most likely played a role in a specific graduate student’s suicide (Jason Altom) have been consistently removed. The content on graduate student suicides should, in my opinion, either be removed or reflect the fact that the AFSP clearly states that Corey was not to blame for Altom’s suicide. The constant reverting by some editors to a version that blames Corey is, in my opinion, not only in direct contrast to all that we now know about the need to clearly identify depression and intervene effectively but is also a form of cyber bullying of Corey. I would like the edits that either remove this section or provide a balanced view to remain without reversion to the version I consider biased. The AFSP does not consider the cited New York Times article as a valid and reliable source of information on Altom's suicide. What is the next step?"

Just a quick note - I am traveling in rural Southeast Asia and do not have consistent internet access. I will comment further next week. I support Anythingyouwant's recent edits. Skinwalker (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPN Discussion

Click here if you'd like to join the discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseless

Per the cited source:

According to the notes he left, he was certain that his dreamed-of career in academia was doomed. Those fears were apparently baseless. Corey did not want to comment for this story, but students and professors say Altom retained his adviser's support.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I mistakenly checked the wrong source. Revert if you want, but I would prefer that we paraphrase as "apparently baseless". Thanks, Skinwalker (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Article too long

This article seems needlessly complicated and too long. There is also no reason to include large numbers of organic reaction mechanisms in a Wikipedia article, which should be written for general audiences. Sure, one or two reactions is fine. Leave it at that. I would recommend cutting it down a bit. He may be an important scientist, but he is not Einstein either.Boab (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elias James Corey. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120111165854/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/03/01/whose_idea_was_it?pg=2 to http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/03/01/whose_idea_was_it?pg=2

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Who else committed suicide in EJ's lab????

Help! I am trying to find out the names, death-dates, and suicide methods, of the OTHER two grad students, BESIDES Jason Altom, who committed suicide in EJ Corey's lab--there were THREE total suicides there. I've been searching the internet for MORE THAN TWO HOURS and I cannot find their names anywhere. Does anyone out there in Wiki-land know their names, and can you find a source??? Please reply to my TALK page. Thanks! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

On top of what this user mentioned I'd also like to know if the other two students blamed Corey for their suicides. If that's the case then Altom's suicide cannot be blamed on mere "delusion", an accusation which I find highly suspicious especially when considering that there is no evidence that Altom showed signs of psychosis or any sort of pathological paranoia. Corey is a chemist and not a psychiatrist.

If the other two students also blamed Corey then that would be enough circumstantial evidence to launch an investigation and find out what actually led to those events. Tons of Harvard students experience pressure and yet they don't suddenly develop paranoid delusions and suicidal ideation. I mean a total of three suicides under the supervision of the same guy should definitely raise some very serious questions of what actually happened. And to reiterate what HandsomeMrToad asked: does someone here know the names of the other two students who committed suicide? Unfortunately I can't access the article that was referenced as a source. Thank you. 80.187.65.173 (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like theres a typo on one of the structures in the section "Corey-Nicolaou macrolactonization". The top right structure of the sequence labeled "2-pyridinethioester" which has (2-pyridyl)-S-O-C(=O)R has an extra oxygen between S and the carbonyl. Also that structure is not a thio ester, see this page for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thioester. I've made many 2-pyridyl thioesters for my PhD thesis using that method (the first 4 structures) and it doesn't leave that oxygen there. Someone can check one of the references in that section if you need extra proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.236.10.226 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Also known for section

The info in this box has several things attributed to Robert Corey Robert_Corey - I'm going to delete it, but just wanted to make it clear why this info is being removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hichris (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Typo in a structure

Looks like theres a typo in one of the structures in the section "Corey-Nicolaou macrolactonization". The top right structure of the sequence is labeled "2-pyridinethiol ester" which shows (2-pyridyl)-S-O-C(=O)R has an extra oxygen between S and the carbonyl. Also that structure is not a thio ester, see this page for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thioester. I've made many 2-pyridyl thioesters for my PhD thesis using that method (the first 3 reactions) and it doesn't leave that oxygen there. Someone can check one of the references in that section if you need extra proof. Here's an additional primary source where they use these 2-pyridyl thioesters: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja00795a055. Aug. 15, 2024

Altom Suicide Section Contains Unrelated Information

I think the Altom Suicide section should only contain information related to Jason Altom's suicide - otherwise the section should be renamed. I seem to have gotten myself into an argument with other editors as to whether, for example, mention of the other deaths in Corey's department is relevant. I think they are not and mention of them should be removed.

For accuracy, the other deaths occurred in 1987 and 1997. The 1987 death of a third year student was ruled a suicide by cyanide poisoning, but occurred 11 years before the Altom suicide. The 1997 death involved a first year student who had been in the Corey lab less than two weeks and - according to a Crimson article dated August 8, 1997 - the cause of death had not been determined six months after the student died. However, the rumored cyanide poisoning had been ruled out by the medical examiner. A New York Times article dated October 21, 1998 (After Suicide, Harvard Alters Policies on Graduate Students) states that neither of these two deaths had anything to do with the "students' work in chemistry". As such, the mention of the deaths is irrelevant to the Altom suicide.

One editor objected to my removal of mention of these deaths as having the "effect of improving Corey's image." This statement shocked me. I was unaware that removing mention of the prior deaths would affect Corey's image in any way. Corey's image seems to be quite good - just look at the entire Wikipedia entry. It could also just be my interpretation or misinterpretation of the editor's statement, but it seemed to me that this editor was quite opposed to anything that might improve Corey's image - that somehow Corey's image needed to be tarnished. I am not sure why that would be.

Also, not to be picky, but I am a stickler for accuracy - the sentence in the section "Altom's suicide caused controversy because he explicitly blamed Corey, his research advisor, for his suicide" which cites the November 29, 1998 article "Lethal Chemistry at Harvard" as the source is not accurate. I read this article and no where in this article does it say that Altom explicitly blamed Corey.

Indeed, the article states that Altom's notes contained what I would characterize as statements about graduate student lives in general such as "Professors have too much power over the lives of their grad students" and the need for a faculty committee to "provide protection for graduate students from abusive research advisors". Notice the plural use of "professors" and "advisors". The statements were as noted by the Crimson - a policy memo. I see no mention of Corey by name or that Altom was talking about one particular professor or advisor.

In short, these statements seem to reflect on the general condition of graduate students and are not a direct hit on his own advisor. I have a PhD - I have been a doctoral advisor - I think the sentiments reported to have been expressed in Altom's notes are ones with which almost all graduate students could agree. It is also noted in the article that "those who knew Jason Altom best were as stunned and confused by the anger of his letters ... as by his death." Altom had not expressed the views contained in the letters while alive.

Altom's death was a heartbreaking tragedy. The death of any student is a tragedy, but when the cause is suicide it is particularly heartbreaking and unsettling. For this reason, this section deserves to focus on Altom and represent as accurately as possible the motivations behind his suicide and irrelevant material excluded from the section.

The AFSP says that Altom presented warning signs of depression. The suicide of a close friend/relative is very hard on the living "left behind" and the living often look for someone to blame. Including irrelevant information because it might have the "effect of improving Corey's image" strikes me as a "let's find someone to blame" statement. I believe that the real culprit - the blame - is depression.

I was asked by another editor if I had some "conflict of interest" in making the edit to remove the irrelevant information. I think the implication was that I had some wish to improve Corey's image. Corey is not the important part of the suicide story. Depression is. Suicide is all too common - student suicide is not unknown.

Not to be flip - but Corey certainly cannot be a factor in all suicides or even all student suicides so something else is happening. That something else is most likely depression. My "conflict of interest" is that I just don't want to see students commit suicide and to be proactive in that we need to recognize that depression is the main driver.

In summary, below is what I think the section should contain. As you can see, I have just removed irrelevant information and left the rest of the section unchanged.

Jason Altom, one of Corey's students, committed suicide in 1998.

Corey was reportedly devastated and bewildered by his student's death. Corey also claimed he never questioned Altom's intellectual contributions. "I did my best to guide Jason as a mountain guide would to guide someone climbing a mountain. I did my best every step of the way," Corey states. "My conscience is clear. Everything Jason did came out of our partnership. We never had the slightest disagreement."

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) cited The New York Times article on Altom's suicide as an example of problematic reporting, arguing that Altom presented warning signs of depression and suicidal ideation and that the article had scapegoated Corey despite a lack of secondary evidence that the advisor's behavior had contributed to Altom's distress. According to The Boston Globe, students and professors said Altom actually retained Corey's support. FinchSc (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for creating a new account and using the COI template. If you want to remove the claims that he was responsible for the suicide, you also have to remove the part where he was "devastated and bewildered" by Altom's death since they both rely on the line of reasoning. We already have a source that says Corey was scapegoated due to bad reporting, so why bother editing it all out anyway? I say let the readers come to their own conclusions after reading that section, since it looks balanced to me. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

My intent was to take out the irrelevant information and not touch the rest of the section which is why I left the "devastated and bewildered" part in the section. I considered Corey's reaction relevant because it conveyed how devastating suicides are to the living "left behind". But I see your point and am not opposed to taking that part out.

As I stated - Corey is not the story - depression is. And I firmly believe - my "conflict of interest" is - that as the focus on depression increases in discussion of suicides - especially student suicides, the probability that people will look for signs of depression in students and intervene - and save lives - increases.

Are you suggesting that the section be (with proper citation of course):

Jason Altom, one of Corey's students, committed suicide in 1998. The death received national attention including an article in the New York Times. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) cited The New York Times article on Altom's suicide as an example of problematic reporting because:

"the reporter neglects the role of depression in Altom's suicide. By ignoring the likely role of such a psychiatric illness, the reporter runs the risk of normalizing suicide by repeatedly suggesting that it is a near-inevitable part of the stressful graduate school environment in the sciences ... Jason Altom gave many indications that he was troubled and in need of help ... The Times story does not indicate that anyone tried to persuade him to seek it." FinchSc (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I see you've been trying to remove this content for 15 years now. Do you have any conflicts of interest with the subject? It is very important you answer honestly, since only then we can move forward with what you want. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by conflict of interest with the subject. Am I a chemist, no. Have I ever studied or worked at Harvard, no. Have I ever met Corey, no. Have any of my students committed suicide, no. Have any students in my general "orbit" committed suicide, yes. Do I know people who committed suicide or suffer from serious depression, yes.

Do I know people who are still tormented by the suicide of a friend or loved one decades after the suicide, definitely yes. I often wonder if the people who commit suicide are aware - on the other side - of how truly devastating the suicide was to those "left behind" and wish for a "do-over". Those "left behind" are certainly tormented by a wish for a "do-over".

I forget what specifically motivated me to initially change the Altom section, but I probably came upon it in a general search on student suicides and the section seemed inaccurate.

As with the current situation, I did not think my edits were a big deal and was not that invested in the section 15 years ago until someone started pushing back on the changes with what seemed like a personal vendetta against Corey. In this case it was DMacks line about "improving Corey's image". I forget what it was the first time. That vendetta struck me as unfair and unproductive. I hate unfair and unproductive. And once in a "discussion" - I tend not to be able to let it go.

As for why I circled back to the Corey page now. I am an older person - retired - and that causes reflection on past events and lessons learned. My thoughts turned to depression- how truly devastating depression is, the primary role depression plays in suicide, and how little people intervene to help those with depression. It also seems to me that serious depression is on the rise especially among young people.

So I remembered and got to wondering if the edits I made in the Altom section really reflected the role of depression. If it did not, I wanted to set things straight. You have probably noticed that the edits I made to the section this time were revisions of my own edits. I did not think that revisions to my own edits would cause such a stir but, well, here we are.

And just a point of accuracy - I have not been trying to edit this section "FOR" 15 years. I edited it 15 years ago and did not come back to it until now - 15 years later.

I forget, but may have added, some other info to the Corey page 15 years ago as I found interesting information while looking at the Altom suicide and people pushed back. I tend to be quite thorough and like to present information I find interesting. My class presentations always included interesting anecdotes about people, locations, etc. mentioned in the content. I think it helps students to find the content - sometimes very dry - more interesting and put the content in context. FinchSc (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I assure you that none of us have any personal vendetta against the article subject. We're simply trying to maintain the neutrality of the article, and as I've mentioned before, your changes make the article less neutral.

How do you explain this? It says "personal photo of Trvthchem," which means you are Elias James Corey or someone who has met him and took a picture. This contradicts your claim that you've never met him. Again, answering honestly is the only way we can move forward.

There are several other articles you can edit about suicide and depression that would have a far greater impact than editing a subsection about a chemist. WikiProject Psychology is a good place to start. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how my recent edits make the article less neutral. I find it odd that we are arguing about edits to my own edits. I am trying to correct the fact that I do not believe that my original edits displayed neutrality. I am accusing myself of not writing a neutral article/section 15 years ago and want to correct that misrepresentation of the facts.

I truly forget all the details of how that photo came to be. It was 15 years ago, but I vaguely recall that I ran into someone somewhere - maybe on a trip to Boston - who had an association with Corey or had met Corey and I mentioned my Wikipedia "discussion".

The person had a personal photo of Corey taken at some public event and I thought it would be a good idea to add a photo to the Wikipedia page - to put a face to the person discussed in the Altom section. Did I mention that I am very thorough?

The person agreed that I could use the photo but did not want to be identified with it so we agreed I would upload it under my username. I have never met Corey nor have I ever been at any event public or private where Corey was in attendance.

I don't understand your comment re: editing other articles "that would have a far greater impact than editing a subsection about a chemist." Altom committed suicide - the circumstances of his death - his depression - deserve to be discussed in the section on his suicide - the subsection "about a chemist".

The Corey page seems to attract great interest. It seems to have many contributors. Corey seems to elicit strong feelings. Altom and his death are strongly associated with Corey. The circumstances of his death should be accurately discussed on the Corey page. FinchSc (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll believe your story. Let's wait until an uninvolved editor steps in. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan and the best path forward. I see that there are now 137 requests for review. Yesterday there were 146 requests. This request is the last one. Assuming about 10 requests cleared per day, I guess we can expect an uninvolved editor will step in within two weeks. I guess for now, we wait. FinchSc (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

While waiting for the uninvolved editor to step in, I decided to get a genealogy copy of the death certificate for the 1987 death, 1997 death, and Altom's death in 1998 - to determine the official information on each death.

A genealogy copy has all of the info found in a death certificate, but is not an official death certificate. Anyone can order such a copy from the State of Massachusetts and the information I needed to get a copy is publicly available on the web.

In the 1987 death, the Manner of Death is suicide. In the 1997 death, the Manner of Death could not be determined. In the Altom death, the Manner of Death is suicide.

The 1987 death and the 1997 death are irrelevant to the discussion of the Altom suicide. The 1987 death occurred 11 years before Altom's death and the 1997 death resulted from an undetermined manner.

As I stated above, A New York Times article dated October 21, 1998 (After Suicide, Harvard Alters Policies on Graduate Students) states that neither of these two deaths had anything to do with the "students' work in chemistry" - referencing the 1987 and 1997 deaths.

It is also worth noting that the Wikipedia article states that "As of 2010, approximately 700 people have been Corey Group members".

As such, the mention of the 1987 and 1997 deaths is irrelevant to the Altom suicide and should be eliminated from the section on Altom's suicide.

I think the section on Altom's suicide - if it is to remain - should read:

Jason Altom, one of Corey's students, committed suicide in 1998. The death received national attention including an article in the New York Times.

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) cited The New York Times article on Altom's suicide as an example of problematic reporting because:

"the reporter neglects the role of depression in Altom's suicide. By ignoring the likely role of such a psychiatric illness, the reporter runs the risk of normalizing suicide by repeatedly suggesting that it is a near-inevitable part of the stressful graduate school environment in the sciences ... Jason Altom gave many indications that he was troubled and in need of help ... The Times story does not indicate that anyone tried to persuade him to seek it." FinchSc (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm taking this to the BLP noticeboard. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I took a stab at the one sentence that FinchSc brought up, about "explicitly" blaming Corey for the suicide. The source didn't seem to match that sentence so I've updated it to be more accurate. Open to changes Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Sock-the-guy: I really like the change you made and I think it accurately reflects the material in the source. FinchSc (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact, I think Sock-the-guy captures so well the whole issue that I would be happy if just the first paragraph as Sock-the-guy has written it was the whole Altom Suicide section. Nothing else. FinchSc (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks but I think the second paragraph adds some context as to why it belongs in this article, and also id prefer if someone with more experience made that call Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• A whole standalone section about the suicide of another person in which the subject wasn't credibly involved is probably WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure whether or how to merge the content into the rest of the body; it just doesn't seem to fit. While coverage about the decedent talks about this subject, that coverage is not about this subject centrally, and probably isn't biographically noteworthy in this subject's biography. The decedent has his own article. There's no need to occupy undue space here as a section. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Are you recommending that the entire Altom suicide subsection be eliminated from the Corey Wikipedia page? If so, I support that recommendation. My point was that if Altom's suicide were to be mentioned on Corey's Wikipedia page, the discussion should reflect the role of depression. I certainly agree with all of your reasoning. Who makes the final decision to eliminate the section? Who actually deletes the section? And how do we keep it from coming back? FinchSc (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

• The suicide should be mentioned and linked to its respective article given the number of sources that have discussed Corey role as an advisor. What was inappropriate was the inclusion of the AFSP opinion articles about the NYTIMES coverage since they are not RS. As for inserting it to address the depression angle, let me quote something from one of the cited reliable sources:[3] "More than a few observers suggest that it’s Mr. Corey and his supporters who are deluding themselves. People are blaming Mr. Altom’s suicide on mental illness instead of using it as an opportunity to assess the cutthroat culture of top-flight graduate programs and the potentially dangerous climate of the Corey group, they say." Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Morbidthoughts - I don't have a problem with the removal of the sentences you removed. Although I think removal of the section is a good idea, the current version (with your change) except for the line "Altom was the third member of Corey's lab to commit suicide since 1980" (which is factually inaccurate) seems neutral to me.

  I would like to see that line removed since as stated above in Talk - the 1987 death was suicide, the 1997 death was cause undetermined, and Atom's 1998 death was suicide. The line accurately reflects the source, but the source was inaccurate.

  Just one point re: your reason for removing the sentences you did. This is not an either/or situation: either Altom's suicide driver was depression or there is a "cutthroat culture of top-flight graduate programs". Both can and I argue both are true. Graduate school in general regardless of the university or discipline is cutthroat and every day is an opportunity to reevaluate it.

  Corey has had more than 700 students and there have been thousands if not millions of graduate students. Two members of the Corey group committed suicide - more than 698 did not. Graduate students at other universities commit suicide. The common driver across all the suicides - I argue - is depression.

  Having said that, graduate education needs to be changed. In my opinion, every day it becomes more unworkable and counterproductive. FinchSc (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the applicable quote from the New York Times Magazine article (November 29, 1998), "it was the second suicide to hit the Corey group in less than two years and the third since 1980" and later states about Lam's death, "His death was later ruled a suicide". The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 23, 1998)[4] consistently states, "There have been eight graduate-student suicides at Harvard since 1980. Four of the students were in the chemistry department, and three of the four, including Mr. Altom, worked for the same research adviser: Elias J. Corey." Both RSes felt it was pertinent to mention the three suicide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts: I agree that is the quote re: the Corey group deaths, but the statement is inaccurate. Lam's death was never ruled a suicide. A Crimson article dated August 8, 1997 states that more than six months after Lam's death, the cause was still undetermined. See further up in Talk.

In addition, also further up in Talk, I discuss that I got a genealogy copy of Lam's death certificate (same information as a death certificate, but not an official copy) from the State of Massachusetts. The Manner of Death is stated as "could not be determined". The New York Times Magazine and the Chronicle of Higher Education got the official cause/manner of Lam's death wrong.

Lam's death was never ruled a suicide despite rumors to the contrary. I also got genealogy copies for the 1987 death (Manner of Death: suicide) and Altom's death (Manner of Death: suicide) FinchSc (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

FinchSc, engaging in sleuthing IRL to confront an WP:RS or two is unhelpful and unconvincing as to your position, and presents more of a distracting problem than it aids you in any way. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what sleuthing IRL is. But I am not arguing about the WP:RS. I don't disagree with Morbidthoughts on the changes Morbidthoughts made. I was agreeing with Morbidthoughts, but added that in addition to that edit, I would like to see the first line of the second paragraph which is unchanged by Morbidthoughts should also be changed/eliminated because it is inaccurate.

Now it is something of a problem because the line is properly sourced - but inaccurate. Just like saying I found a source which says 2+2 = 5 and state that 2+2 = 5, but that is inaccurate 2+2=4 regardless of what an inaccurate source says. Regardless of what the New York Times and the Chronicle say - Lam's death was never ruled a suicide. FinchSc (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

So it seems to me that there are a few choices re: the inaccurate sentence "Altom was the third member of Corey's lab to commit suicide since 1980." if the "Altom suicide" subsection is to remain on the Corey page.

1. Take the entire sentence out and have the second paragraph begin with "Corey was reportedly ..."

2. Rewrite the sentence to be: "Altom was the second member of Corey's lab to commit suicide. The first was in 1987."

3. Rewrite the sentence to be: "Altom's death was the third of a Corey group member. The first death was in 1987 (suicide). The second was in 1997. Although this 1997 death was widely rumored to be a suicide, the official Manner of Death was "could not be determined". The third was Altom's in 1998 (suicide)." FinchSc (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS (guideline on reliability of soures) and WP:NOR (policy on research and analysis of sources) gives substantial preference (some would say almost exclusively) to secondary sources (such as news and scholarly publications) over primary sources (such as original investigator's reports and government or other legal filings). That doesn't mean they get it right, but it means we can't second-guess or do our own research to re-evaluate the primaries and contradict the secondaries, but instead have to respect the authority and reliability of the secondaries and can only find other equally strong secondaries that have an alternate conclusion. And why is it unreasonable that a 1988 secodnary source (CNN, Chronicle, etc.) could not have updated or corrected information that was not available in a single primary source from 1987 (death certificate)?

Morbidthoughts hits on the idea of WP:DUE (policy on content neutrality vs bias), that choose topic-weight by following secondary sources and what they feel is worth mentioning.

But one style is to say who said it, rather than making a direct statement in WP voice. For example:

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that there have been three suicides among Corey graduate-students since 1980."

But if those sources also mention general mental health or grad-program aspects, or especially that the result is a programmatic change in the group or at Harvard, that also would be worth mentioning. That additional detail emphasizes how Corey (as group leader, or the group for which he stands) has more active involvement, and helps keep the focus on Corey (which is what the article is about) and the context or larger picture rather than just the individual grad-students' actions.

How closely do the secondary sources tie these specific deaths to Corey, vs that they just happen to have been among his group? If this is just potentially a statistical fluke, and the real story is that grad school is cut-throat and has an unusually high incidence or risk-factor of mental health concerns including leading to suicide, then that is a topic, and one that deserves its own page, and only passing mention here in Corey's page. DMacks (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

DMacks: The secondary sources cited in the Corey Wikipedia page do not tie the 1987 and 1997 deaths to Corey. In addition, there are other secondary sources which clearly state that the 1997 death was not a suicide and that the 1987 death and 1997 death had nothing to do with Corey/chemistry.

For example, according to a Crimson article dated August 8, 1997 - Lam's cause of death had not been determined six months after the student died. However, the rumored cyanide poisoning had been ruled out by the medical examiner.

A New York Times article dated October 21, 1998 (After Suicide, Harvard Alters Policies on Graduate Students) states that neither of these two deaths (1987 and 1997) had anything to do with the "students' work in chemistry".

So if one is going to say: The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that there have been three suicides among Corey graduate-students since 1980 then it should be expanded to:

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that there have been three suicides among Corey graduate-students since 1980. However, a Crimson article states that the second "suicide" was not a suicide. The cause of death had not been determined six months after the student died and the rumored cyanide poisoning had been ruled out by the medical examiner. In addition, the New York Times states that neither of the deaths prior to Altom's death had anything to do with the "students' work in chemistry".

Note: The reason I decided to obtain a genealogy copy of Lam's death certificate was to see if a cause of death had been determined after the Crimson article was written. It was not. Lam's death was never ruled a suicide. The cause of death stated in the Crimson article is accurate - not determined.

There is no source (secondary or primary) which states that either Lam (who was a first year student who had only been in the Corey lab for less than two weeks) or Chou (1987 death) made any comment whatsoever about Corey, the lab, or graduate student life.

The secondary sources on the Corey Wikipedia page which mention "three suicides" just mention them as if they are all related to Corey and the lab but do not provide any evidence that the first two deaths are in any way related to Corey.

As I have stated, I feel the main point of the Altom suicide - any suicide - is depression. However, I most certainly agree that another and valid "story is that grad school is cut-throat and has an unusually high incidence or risk-factor of mental health concerns".

Reforming the current graduate school (and post doc) experience is a valid topic and endeavor on its own. Objectively one can cite many examples of how the current system is deeply flawed even when students are "successful" - graduate and find jobs they wanted. FinchSc (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Quick note: I may have lost track of which year was which. But the general point that "later refs can improve upon or have different details than were known earlier" remains. DMacks (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

HArvard Crimson (August 1997): Lam's cause of death undetermined

New York Times (November 1998):[5] "death was later ruled a suicide"

DMacks (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

DMacks: But the November 1998 New York Times statement "death was later ruled a suicide" is just wrong - inaccurate. Lam's death never was ruled a suicide. Why the New York Times reporter decided to write that is beyond me. However, it is not unknown for a "responsible" journalist to report an inaccuracy. I won't rant on the number of times in my life I have seen press reports on an incident or person just be wrong.

It seems to me that information about a person on Wikipedia cannot ignore the facts in favor of problematic inaccurate reporting. Otherwise sensational tabloid reporting becomes more definitive and credible on Wikipedia than truth - primary source facts. FinchSc (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)