Talk:Oxford Round Table

Single purpose accounts

→ See also: Talk:Oxford Round Table/Archive 2#Single purpose accounts.

The following are all essentially single-purpose accounts whose actions here are disrupting Wikipedia in the apparent furtherance of an external agenda.

• Obscuredata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tepid1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Academic38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Drstones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• OrionClemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Amelia9mm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Franknfair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Academic2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Coligny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Any edits to the article itself by these individuals, or any other single-purpose account, may result in an immediate block from editing. Comments may be made on this talk page but should be restricted to specific, actionable suggestions for improvements to the article.

Note that this article has been the subject of a legal complaint to the Wikimedia foundation and is under active scrutiny from administrators and others. All edits and comments must strictly conform to policy, specifically WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources in "Company history and officers"

Here is what the WP "primary sources" guidelines say about when an article can include primary sources:

1. only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
2. make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source

It is unclear to me how this section uses primary sources in any other way, so I would argue that the "sources or references" tag should be removed.

I did find one error that needs correcting: The Illinois Secretary of State database only lists the "agent," not the incorporator, so Fieldon King Alexander should be referred to that way, though he may well have been incorporator as well. (Perhaps something like "The Oxford Round Table, Inc. was founded as a for-profit Illinois corporation in 1998 with Fieldon King Alexander, another son of Kern Alexander, as its agent.") Thanks in advance for your comments.Academic38 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is someone who has never posted to talk editing this section? Especially when it is their very first edit? Will someone neutral please undo this?Academic38 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left an invitation to PigeonPiece (talk) to come to the talk page with suggestions for edits to improve the page. There is one issue that might be addressed right away: PigeonPiece, are you by any chance a reincarnation of Obscuredata ? Would a Checkuser request perhaps reveal that the IP addresses used by the two accounts are the same? It is of course important to assume good faith, but given the level of conflict on this page recently it also seems important to make sure one's cards are on the table in this regard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all... I would like to help this page out a bit. I would like to add more about the Round Table because I am not sure if the editors of this page have enough information about the Round Table to accurately edit this page. I understand the page may be deleted, but it needs work! I would like to add more information in the initial opening. Also, I deleted all the information about the officers because it seems irrelevant. I checked the history and the page seems more coherent without all of that information, but I am willing to discuss it. I will add more information regarding the Round Table itself, which I assumed was what Wiki is all about ;) On the AFD, people are arguing about how much press the Round Table has received in order to keep the page, so let's add some relevant information. Nomoskedasticity.. I would appreciate no personal attacks. I have not said anything personally about you and would appreciate the same respect. Thanks! PigeonPiece (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have information that is available from third-party sources? That is what the article most needs. Please do not make deletions without consensus. The existence of for-profit entities is one of the things repeatedly brought up at the Chronicle thread, so it is hardly irrelevant. Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can find third party sources that speak of what the Oxford Round Table claims to be. As far as the Chronicles, I don't know much about it , but from what I gather it is a forum or blog and that is not acceptible as a reputable source. I won't delete anything farther without consensus, but if I can cite stuff properly, I will add it. PigeonPiece (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add that most "third-party" stuff I've seen simply repeats material verbatim from the ORT website. That would not be acceptable. Genuinely independent material, which is what is needed to satisfy the reliable source policy, is hard to find, so if you've got some, that's great. By the way, if you have a WP:Conflict_of_interest, you are supposed to declare it.Academic38 (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I just joined this discussion and you are already asking me if I have a conflict of interest? Academic38,do you have a conflict of interest? Academic38, are you willing to help me add more information regarding the Oxford Round Table? Let's start there.. Please let me know.PigeonPiece (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the people who has written in the Chronicle thread; according to Pairadox, that means I have a conflict of interest (I disagree, but he's a neutral editor and I am respecting his ruling). Do you have a conflict of interest?Academic38 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Academic38, if you have a conflict of interest, you do not need to be included in even the discussion. I think that is still using your conflict of interest to contribute to the page. When I decide to contribute to the page, I am not going to really 'answer' to you or feel the need to take into account your opinion. I have not read the Chronicles, really, but from the discussion here, it seems pretty odd. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoah there PigeonPiece, any one can participate on the talk page constructively. Disruption is not to be tollerated, from what I've seen academic38, is fine here, though might recuse from actual changes to the article that are anything but minor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that PigeonPiece is yet another single purpose account, and one with prior knowledge of Wikipedia (citing WP:NPA in their second edit is a dead give-away). One doesn't have to explicitly declare a Conflict of Interest if one's edits show there to be one. I'll forego the checkuser for now, but if you start editing the article in ways that are disruptive or biased I will reconsider. I want EVERYTHING of a controversial nature to have consensus on this talk page before it reaches the article. Pairadox (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I just got here and you all are already attacking me. Please stop. It is neither constructive or helpful. Guarding this page with your life obviously shows that Pairadox is yet another sigle purpose account. I do not have any conflict of interest. Are you satisfied? Now, I would like to get this page in working order and if you cared so much about 'neutrality' or unbiased accounts of the Round Table, then we will work together to construct a page that has accurate information about the Round Table. Now, it's start with the opening. People on the AFD claim that there is so much information out there about Round Table. Can someone please direct me to an individual website that shows what this organization actually is? I am not referring to blogs or forum posts or the company's website. If not, I will suggest that this page be deleted for lack of notability.PigeonPiece (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea that I am a single purpose account is so ridiculous that I'm surprised PigeonPiece isn't embarrassed by it. Shall we compare contribution histories? Mine shows a wide range of articles to which I contribute, including schools, comic books, dates, colors, nightclubs, pop stars, music articles and astrology, just to name a few. PigeonPiece, on the other hand, shows edits to... this article, this talk page, and two user talk pages about this article. So who's the single purpose account? Pairadox (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

back to the reliable sources

so, still the only reliable third party source in the article is the times education piece. PLEASE find something else, that discusses the company and conference. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something can be made of a brief discussion in this, a few paragraphs from the bottom. Obviously it's not going to be a core resource, but perhaps a small contribution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a fine source that the lady went to the conference. Not good for notability of the conference, and third party description of the activities. I end up at meetings all the time that are noticed in the paper, and discussed in articles, and even my name is in the articles sometimes. Doesn't make any of it (especially me) notable. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I appoligize for being such a hard ass on the references, but in a contentious article like this good references are the only way forward. Check this out for how ugly it can get....Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education and subpages. I would really like to avoid having you all get involved in something like that. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that article is also a source that the ORT is essentially a for-profit organization, which contradicts its portrayal of itself as a not-for-profit on its website and on its invitation letters. However, a neutral editor suggested that alternative press wasn't adequate to meet the reliable source guidelines unless, perhaps, it had won awards. Nomoskedasticity then presented evidence that the paper had in fact won awards during that editor's tenure, but the issue was dropped there due to the AfD.

In addition, here is a selection from Richard Margrave, "International Partnership," The Times, November 1, 1993. I think this is a strong second article.

[first 4 paragraphs omitted]"Russia is not alone in recognising the importance of links between business and education. Recently, more than 30 policy makers and experts from countries as diverse as South Africa, Norway, Ethiopia and the Philippines met to pool their experience of education-business links. The 1993 Oxford Round Table on Education Policy was attended by education ministers, academics, state government representatives from America, agencies such as the World Bank and the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, as well as multinationals, including the Apple Corporation, Boeing, BP and Honeywell.

"The strongest theme of the conference was the recognition that the central issue confronting all nations is how to respond to the new global economy. Inevitably, countries start from different points. America is a role model and pioneer, where the place of business in the classroom is regarded as natural.

"However, representatives from developed nations were markedly less optimistic about the future than those from the developing world. The confidence and vitality at the forum of countries such as the Congo and the Philippines was founded on the recognition that the creation of a well-educated workforce is the key to leaping forward.

"Dr Dneprov described the system in the former Soviet Union as having been grey and black. His task now was to introduce colour to the map. He regards the international business community as a vital resource on his palette.

"The author was a participant in the 1993 Oxford Round Table. He is head of press and public relations for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, and a former shadow cabinet adviser on education policy."

In addition, I wondered if you could comment on my suggestion at the top of the previous section that the primary sources used in the "company history and officers" section are in compliance with WP rules on primary sources.Academic38 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

the primary sources are fine, for what they are used for (it is perhaps excessive in this article, and the section itself is overly detailed IMO). However, primary sources do not confer notability just as self published sources do not confer notability. The article has an excess of both of these. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the material in that section does not confer notability. I don't mind seeing the section tidied; I'm sure it would help. However, part of the reason it is so detailed is that so many corporations named Oxford Round Table were created. Could this section be tidied and the tag removed since the primary sources are fine for this usage? I also agree that there are too many references to the ORT website; perhaps we can address this section by section.Academic38 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the reference to the excerpt above? it seems ok, more about the conference than the other things people want to use. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference is Richard Margrave, "International Partnership," The Times, November 1, 1993.

I found it via Nexis. I see this article as helping to establish notability; again, I agree that the primary sources (and obviously the ORT-based sources) do not confer notability.Academic38 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section on "Company History" is a bit out of proportion with the rest of the article (in part because of sole use of primary sources). I propose deleting the following lines; this would result in a version that would say a bit about the early history going back to 1989 but would otherwise retain information only on the incorporations that appear to be currently active (there seems to be no information available about the "Godstow Hall" version apart from the business registration). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fieldon King Alexander, another son of Kern Alexander and now president of California State University Long Beach, incorporated the Oxford Round Table, Inc., as a for-profit Illinois corporation in 1998. It was involuntarily dissolved in March 2000.

In December 2001, the non-profit Oxford Round Table of Godstow Hall, Inc., was incorporated in Kentucky by several members of the Alexander family.

The two non-profits and the for-profit Kentucky corporation are the only ones currently active.

I'm not sure what you mean about no information on ORT of Godstow Hall. The KY SOS site has annual reports through January 2008, and even an amended annual report later in January 2008. So it is very much active. I think the other two cuts are fine.Academic38 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems okay to use quotes from third party publications regarding whether to Round Table is notable; I will use third party quotes to bolster the initial opening. I will post here first, but if other sections can be cited in such a way, the opening can as well. ThanxPigeonPiece (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro actually looks pretty good to me. An encyclopaedia article isn't always better for being longer - and a bloated intro in particular is best avoided. Perhaps additional material would be useful in other sections, though. But let's see what we come up with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We might also consider whether adding quotations is the right approach. If we add too many quotations, someone is likely to come along and add a tag such as the one at radical feminism. Using quotes in moderation seems to be fine, but encyclopaedia articles aren't supposed to be composed mainly of quotations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add more stuff about it being a journal. The Round Table publishes papers resulting from these conferences and I don't think that this article emphasizes that at all. Also, no one addressed my question earlier. A lot of people on the AFD discussed that there was so much written about the Round Table and that it was notable; if this is true please direct me to that. Nomoskedasticity, can you please delete your suggestion regarding the "company officers". One of the first things I noticed about this page was how lengthy that section is. If you think that introduction doesn't need length, but info about the 'Company officers' needs so much space, that's a problem.. All that 'Company officer' info is irrelevant to me. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who said you knew of lots of third-party sources, and now you are asking to be pointed to articles written about it? That does not make sense. Nomoskedasticity's suggestions were ways to shorten the "company history and officers" section, which seems to be what you wanted, so I don't understand why you dislike his suggestions. There is already a subsection on the journal; what do you propose to add from third-party sources? Conceivably a sentence mentioning the journal could be added to the introduction; I would not be opposed in principle. Finally, the AfD is archived somewhere, so you can see what articles were cited.Academic38 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems possible that PigeonPiece uses English as a second language, and I wonder if he/she meant to say, go ahead and delete the material that was proposed for deletion. So:

Concrete proposal - if no one objects by the end of tomorrow (27 February), can we please proceed with the deletion of the first and third sentences in italics above. Best if a "neutral"/non-SPA editor actually makes the change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't use ESL, but I also don't have time to edit and monitor this page with my life like most who post here. I can edit, as I am neutral and have not proven myself otherwise. Please keep that in mind. And if all of you have been accused of non-neutral behavior, deciding what can be added or deleted on the talk page seems just as controlling of the situation as actually editing the page! I will make the changes unless someone would like to input that the passage be changed in a different way. Thanx PigeonPiece (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um - then why exactly are you requesting that I delete from the talk page a suggestion I made here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Citation 28 in the article leads to nothing. I am going to delete that citation if another reliable citation cannot be added before Monday. There is no reason we should have links that lead to nowhere on this page. Thanx. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found another source and will put it in place of the broken link. Thanks for catching that.Academic38 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic38, thanks for adding that, but I am still going to edit out that information until a better source is used. That is just a picture. I don't know if it's his mother, his sister, his cousin or just someone with the same last name. That is not a good citation and I will be removing that tomorrow if something more concrete fails to surface. People, people.. we are trying to collectively get this article together and links to pictures and blogs is not going to do the trick! Thanx PigeonPiece (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "conferences" section

I propose inserting the following text as the second paragraph of the section:

One of the earliest conferences, in 1993, was on the links between education and the business sector. It brought together education ministers from major developing and transition countries, representatives of major multinationals (such as Apple, Boeing, BP, and Honeywell), U.S. state officials, and the World Bank. A major highlight was a paper by Dr. Edward Dneprov, education minister of Russia, on education reform there.Academic38 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessary think that this is a good connection or contribution. The purpose of the Round Table is basically educational policy. I believe we need to eliminate the emboldened section of 'Contributing Attendees' because it is useless (I mean only one person is listed!). We should add the individuals and information that are more educationally based since that is the expressed purpose of the Oxford Round Table under the "Conference" title; and we, as independent editors, do not control their expressed purpose, we are just here to highlight it. Also, picking something to highlight from 1993 is not really helpful to today's Oxford Round Table; and this is evidenced by the elaborate "Officers" section. The "Officers" section states that prior to 2008, the Round Table was run by a different core entity which means it may have had a different purpose or have been in a different position than they are in today. We need to keep this page up-to-date and relevant, so I am going to object to this addition. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that says an encylopaedia entry must describe an entity only in its current state; historical description is entirely normal. The proposal is fine with me; for one thing it helps establish notability. Anyway, objecting on the grounds that contributions should be "educationally based" doesn't make much sense, given that the proposed addition discusses education and education ministers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am more concerned with the fact that only one "Contributing Attendee" was listed. I think it is basically not needed information, so we need to either delete the "contributing attendees" or make that section better. I have read past posts and some of the people removed should have been left. Academic38, I am going to retract that the information above should not be added. But if other editors agree that it is outdated materials, let's discuss. PigeonPiece (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement on the 1993 conference. I also agree with you that the "Contributing Attendees" section is a problem. I tend to think that the section should be cut. In its previous incarnations, the section was just a list, which is a violation of the "Listcruft" policy. That is why the tag is on that section. I'm having a hard time envisioning ways of improving it that would not run afoul of the policy, but I'm open to suggestions.Academic38 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nomoskedasticity, please stop with your harsh, abrasive comments. An encyclopedia should be up-to-date. I didn't say it should be 'educationally-based' for the heck of it; I stated that we are here to simply manifest in words the purpose of the Round Table, not add whatever we want, however we want. I retracted the statement that it shouldn't be added, but I will not stand for your 'my way or the highway' attitude. This is a discussion, you do not reign supreme. I simply stated that the information in the 'officers' section in some ways contradicts that newly added materials. With an entity changing officers, any intelligent person would assume that things within the Round Table may change. I am willing to agree to this addition because since the editors will agree to use the 'Times' to comment on the Round Table, I have found many other articles in the 'Times' regarding the information disseminated at the Round Table; I will also use those to bolster and cite other sections; and no one should find problems with it if they agree to this change and this particular citation. PigeonPiece (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you point me to the "Times" articles you have found? I have the premium Nexis news service and don't see anything from there other than the 1993 article. I searched for "Oxford Round Table" in all available dates. Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have an article dated October 8, 1993. It is entitled, "All Rhodes lead to reform" by Huw Richards of The Times. It has independent information regarding the Oxford Table and I will be using that information to add more to the opening. I am dissatisfied at the opening of the article. It used quotes from the website and we need some more third party sources. No one has objected to the information you wanted to add regarding the above paragraph; I will insert it now.PigeonPiece (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article, and I agree it is usable (I'm curious how you found it?). It's actually in the Times Higher Education Supplement - perhaps this is why it did not show up in Nexis (the THES is sold separately from The Times). Using this article as the source (it is on p. 8, by the way), I propose adding the following sentence to the "Conference" section: Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In its early years, the conference was held every other year, and the organization financed the attendance of participants by raising funds itself (more than £80,000 in 1993).

No, I am going to disagree with adding that. I really don't think that is relevant information. First and foremost to get this article in order we need to have more about the publications and conferences at the actual event, not all of this information that acts as supporting 'documentation.' Once we have a good article that pertains to the Round Table, then we can start adding more information. As it stands, as an outsider, this article tells me nothing really about the actual event, but rather has detailed information about the people that run it and the controversy that bloggers started. That's simply not a good encyclopedia article. Nomoskedasticity, why don't you use the article to write about the actual Round Table? It contains a lot of that type of information. Thanx PigeonPiece (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I see the difficulty. If I understand you correctly, in your perspective the "Oxford Round Table" refers to the event/conference, whereas in my understanding the name refers to both the event and to the company that organizes it. I'm not sure why it would be necessary to avoid working on one aspect and wait for work on the other - and in any case there is nothing to prevent you from proposing the contributions that seem appropriate to you. (I was happy to agree to the recently added paragraph describing the conference, proposed by Academic38.) Now, issues like this are typically resolved with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We agree that the source in question is reliable, correct? I also think the proposed addition conforms to NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nomoskedasticity here. It is not enough to argue that you "don't think" something is "relevant," without reference to Wikipedia policy. Moreover, your views on what is relevant are incomprehensible to me. ORT is an organization that holds conferences; therefore, information on both the organization and conferences is relevant. If the proposed addition is factual, neutrally presented, and verifiable from a reliable source, it should be added. As far as I can tell, Nomoskedasticity's proposed sentence meets all those criteria. BTW, I still haven't seen the article, but I agree in principle with PigeonPiece's proposal to edit the introduction to replace ORT-website info with material from the Richards article. Could you propose some wording?Academic38 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nomoskedasticity, you are correct; I believe the Round Table refers to the conference. If you view their website, that's what it is about. Nomoskedasticity, you can speculate on what the Round Table refers to, but in actuality, according to 'itself', the Round Table is the conference held. I can understand why you would think it refers to its officers (maybe you read this particular article beforing editing), but the Round Table itself does not highlight the officers (as far as I can see) and as agents to expose what the Round Table is about, we should take cues from the Round Table itself, not brazenly spin the article to fit our own understanding. Right now I do not think that particular quotation adds to the information that needs bolstering. I will read the article again and let you know what I think, but let's hold off on adding that quote for right now; further discussion is needed. Academic38, I do not think we need to necessary replace all of the Round Table's link because the article is not that thorough; but we could replace a few. I will read it and propose something. Thanx PigeonPiece (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here. The article already has a tag concerning excessive use of self-published sources. Instead, articles here are meant to use reliable sources. The organization's own web site might be useful for certain purposes, but information from reliable sources must take precedence. With that in mind, it is not true to say that I am "speculating" about what the ORT refers to - I am drawing on reliable sources. According to these sources, it is both a conference/event and an organization; this fact is not changed by the way the organization presents itself on its own web site. Now, you say that in your opinion the proposed addition doesn't "add to the information that needs bolstering" - but I would like to suggest again that you consider your views in relation to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not to personal impressions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to look through all of the sources today to see what they are all about. Nomoskedasticity, what does your statement above refer to; I stated that we should use other sources as well. We really need to change this page up and it seems those still here what to keep it the same, which is the opposite of what was discussed on the AFD. (I went back and read this strand; it was intense;) Nomoskedasticity, I would suggest that you direct me to reliable sources that you are referring to that specifically relate to the fact that the ‘table’ refers to the organization (its officers, their history) as opposed to the conference. Please do not direct me to the ‘Chronicles for Higher Learning’ because that page appears to be nonsense and soon I am going to propose we remove that link, there are better secondary sources regarding the Round Table. For now though, can you direct me to another source that highlights the officers as opposed to the conference itself. Thanxx PigeonPiece (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another post that fails to explain what is wrong, with reference to policies/guidelines, with the sentence I have proposed adding. The source we can talk about here is a source that you yourself have identified. There is no need, for the moment, for me to find additional sources for you; you are well aware of the one in question.

If we can't move this forward, I will be requesting mediation. In the meantime I would also be grateful for comments from more established editors here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, it would be far more constructive if you proposed the additions you want to make to the article, which you have not done although you have been here since Feb. 14. I think you need to read more about Wikipedia's rules, because you are not referencing them in your objection to the sentence Nomoskedasticity proposed from the source you identified. I personally do not see where you have a case against adding that sentence, as it is factual, neutrally presented, and verifiable from a reliable source.Academic38 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If we were strictly adhering to Wiki rules, a couple of things about this article would be changed. In reading the "guidelines" of Wiki, you would understand that many of the "rules" are "guidelines." As far as not proposing anything, this article has enough stuff that needs to be reworded, worked on and deleted, so honestly, Academic38, I am not as concerned about adding as I am about editing. When I have time to find items regarding the conference, I may proposed some things. (Nomoskedasticity adds: this paragraph appears to have been added by PigeonPiece)

Perhaps I misunderstood or wasn't clear, but I thought you wanted to edit the introduction with additions from the article you found in the 1993 THES, while subtracting things from the ORT website. That's what I meant by "additions" in my last comment. Perhaps it would be clearer if I simply had said you should propose some specific edits. We seem to be making some progress toward consensus. You accepted that Lammert couldn't be added because the only source was the ORT website; I accepted that the photo wasn't enough to establish that Shenette Campbell is now Shenette Alexander. If we stick to verifiable info from reliable sources, we can continue to improve this article.Academic38 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mediation may need to be requested. I just do not see why the editors wish to focus on the people rather than the organization, which is what the Oxford Round Table refers to. Regarding the intro, like I stated, when time permits, additions will be proposed. ThanxPigeonPiece (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm baffled. You now say that the "Oxford Round Table" refers to the organization, in contradiction to several earlier posts. And it doesn't make any sense to claim that I am "focusing on the people". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By organization, I mean 'conference.' I guess I have to be super clear in this discussion. PigeonPiece (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Convenience Break

Let's start again, shall we? I propose to add the following sentence to the "Conferences" section. It refers to the conference - which I understand is the main thing you want this article to do. It does so using a reliable source. There are no problems with NPOV that anyone has identified. More generally, it doesn't make the "Oxford Round Table" look bad (nor is it my intention to do so). Do you have any objections to this that are founded on Wikipedia policies/guidelines? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In its early years, the conference was held every other year, and the organization financed the attendance of participants by raising funds itself (more than £80,000 in 1993).

If it does not add meaning to the article, why add it? Things articles are suppose to be well written and meaningful. I just do not see the point of adding that information. Where would you add it? Will it fit in; will it flow well within the structure of the article? What does add to this terribly written article? PigeonPiece (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it adds a third rock-solid secondary source to the article, which will forever extinguish the "notability" issue raised in the AfD discussion. Second, it adds information about the conference, which is what you said you wanted. Finally, what if you tried using policy arguments rather than impressionistic comments like the ones you make above? And again, no one is stopping you from proposing other additions from the same article, which I presume is why you pointed out the article -- and you were saying almost four weeks ago that you would be proposing additions. How can it take four weeks to write 2-3 sentences?Academic38 (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, the onus would be on you to state what is objectionable about it; if you "just do not see the point", the problem is yours, not with the proposed addition. There's no need for me to repeat the justifications already offered. For all I can see, you might as well be opposing it on the grounds that it consists of only 28 words instead of 29.

The sentence can go at the end of the first paragraph or at the beginning of the second. Is there really anything more to say about this?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The response to the RfC below leads me to the following conclusion: it is implausible that any neutral/ouside editor is going to find this proposed edit controversial or objectionable. If no proper objections are raised by Wednesday this week, I intend to add the sentence as proposed. The RfC can remain in place a bit longer; if I'm wrong and someone responds with a significant concern, the sentence can always be removed. I fully understand that the editing process here had to be brought under control (relative to prior to the AfD). But it really shouldn't be this difficult to add something so unproblematic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still going to object. Please show me exactly where that quote is and what information supports it. ThanxPigeonPiece (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is absurd. The article is the one you yourself brought to this discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess my objection is that you do not know if the Round Table raised the funds "itself." How about constructing a sentence that is closer to the text so you are not implying anything? This article is full of that. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How does an organization raise funds but not do so "itself"? I don't see how that makes any sense. Will you please tell me where on the web the Huw Richards article is reprinted? I tried searching both Yahoo and Alta Vista with ["Oxford Round Table" Huw] and couldn't find it.Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the wording still be changed because there are too many implications within this article. Unless the sentence reflects more closely to the text, I believe the information is too loosely interpreted. Organizers may have included groups other than the Oxford Round Table concerning all of the company's involved. PigeonPiece (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that last sentence means. In any event, if you are concerned about "implications", perhaps you could say what those implications are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not sure what implications may be gathered from that sentence, but the sentence should reflect the text accurately. As of now, it does not and I still object to that sentence. PigeonPiece (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Contributing Attendees

I have found various places on websites (not as many as I'd like) that have information about contributing attendees. We really need to clean up that list. We either need to make it prose or take it out. There are a number of notable, contributing attendees that are not listed. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would favour deleting the section. I have had a look at some of the other articles in the Conferences category, and I haven't seen any that include a section on participants like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To keep things neutral, we should further discuss deleting the entire section. Since the Round Table is a conference that hinges on its attendees and their publications, it is definitely notable. But whoever took out all of the other individuals that have attended, really had no bases to do so, and since I went back to see who actually attended, a lot of the attendees are notable. We need to make it prose that is a part of the 'Conferences' section. I know that Wikipedia has rules about actual listing of things, but whomever decided that noting that the President of the German Parliament attending the Round Table is not a notable thing, is wrong, plain and simple. Things like that we definitely relevant to this organization and need to be added.PigeonPiece (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding about the deletion of the German dude is that the only source for it was the ORT website - so this ran afoul of the stricture against excessive use of self-published sources. The problem was not lack of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the problem with citing him. PigeonPiece (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have actually found the following link and it can be used to verify the Norbert Lammert attended the Round Table. faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/falexndr/privatecolleges/1991.html . I will add that when editors here are able to view the link. PigeonPiece (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is just a link to a page maintained by Kern Alexander. It's no different in status from the ORT page itself; it is just as much a "self-published" source as the previous one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that page is actually maintained by the University of Illinois, hence the website address. It is a third party source and if you did not think it should be added we can discuss it further then request mediation. PigeonPiece (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the root page here and then try to tell me this is not ORT publishing information about itself. Surely you see that "falexndr" in that web address stands for F. Kern Alexander. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it stands for Fieldon King Alexander. He was also at UIUC at one time, and he is one of the alumni listed (1997). Kern Alexander's first name is Samuel. And Nomoskedasticity, you are right: it is the website of the 2000 Oxford Round Table, so it is not a third-party source.Academic38 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this section shouldn't be integrated into a single sentence near the end of the "Conferences" section just above? There's my 3rd-party suggestion for the day... Zeng8r (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to that - as long as the sources involved are not the ORT itself (there's already too much of that) and the individuals in question are notable. I take the latter to mean that they already appear on Wikipedia; I don't think an article should be created about someone simply so that they can be included in a list here, however. In any event, I would consider your suggestion an improvement over what exists - this term "contributing attendees" is a bit ridiculous, in particular. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting adding or moving anybody as I don't really know anything about this topic. All I did was cut and paste the two people listed into a new sentence and removed the "Attendees" section. The controversial attendees are still hidden in the code for others to add or not add as consensus sees fit. I'd suggest just adding any additional people to the list in the new sentence, tho, leaving "among others" at the end as a compromise catch-all. Good luck and be nice, everybody... Zeng8r (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Zeng8r. That looks much better and when we locate further resources about attendees, I will add them to your newly construted sentence. PigeonPiece (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations and External Link

I checked all the links and they work; which is good. Conversely, the 'Chronicles' definitely should not be listed as an external link. There are many other relevant links regarding the Round Table. A forum posting should not be used as something reliable. Also we should continue to discuss the state of the 'Contributing Attendees.' I checked some of the names and they had third party sources. Should they be added again since all Wikipedia needs is third party sources. PigeonPiece (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. I disagree about deleting the Chronicle website link. The 2007 THE article establishes that that discussion is notable. Yes, it is anonymous, but it is a discussion board for active academics. A truck driver would not be able to construct a useful post for that thread. And anonymity has virtues as well as vices: anonymity makes it possible to say what you really think without fear of reprisal, though at the risk that people will spread misinformation without fear of getting caught. Many of the posters in that Chronicle thread have track records in other threads that make what they say more reliable than it would otherwise be--kind of like Wikipedia.

As for the "Contributing Attendees," I am skeptical that we can create something that isn't Listcruft, but it would be a lot easier to evaluate if you proposed a specific edit with genuine third-party sources.Academic38 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The CHE is not being used as a source. External links are different from sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my problem with the Chronicle for Higher Learning is that it seems to be very odd to me for some reason. I just have read the 'External Link' requirement page and the Chronicle for Higher Learning breaks several of the rules. Please read WP:EL under 'Link to Be Avoided' and the Chronicle forum/discussion/blog breaks all of a good amount of rules. I was drawn to the External Links because when I was attempting to fine info regarding the Table, many other links that could not be cited in the article because of Wiki guidelines, seem like they are much more revelant than the Chronicle blog for External Links. I propose adding another link and removing the Chronicle link because it does not adhere to Wiki guidelines. Academic38, your statement regarding who posts to the board can neither be confirmed or denyed because the postings are anonymous and nothing can be proven. It could be truck drivers with no idea about what they are talking about or otherwise; that is why Wiki discourages forums as reliable External Links. More discussion needed, but I am going to suggest the Chronicle be removed. It is already referred to under the THE explanation and does not need to be listed as an 'External Link.' PigeonPiece (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read WP:EL and I don't see that it breaks any rules. What rules are you claiming it breaks? You really need a stronger argument than "it seems to be very odd to me for some reason." The December 2007 THE story has already validated the Chronicle link.Academic38 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, It's a bit rich to start invoking "rules" here, when you have conspicuously failed to do so in response to repeated requests above. In any event, as you yourself have pointed out here, there is a distinction to make between policies and guidelines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the Times article justifies the link to a "blog." It can be argued that it justifies a link to the 'Chronicles for Higher Education" website but not to a blog that God knows who started. Academic38, you claim that my only argument is "it seems odd...", however this is not true. If you read carefully the WP:EL under the section "Links To Be Avoided", you would have your answer as to why the link to the 'Chronicle' blog is not up to the guidelines at all. Nomoskedasticity, I am not attempting to use rules only when it seems fit. You and Academic38 are asking me to point out regulations in the posts above and yet now you are stating that even though the "Chronicle" blog link breaks Wiki guidelines, I should be okay with it because I was having a discussion about other rules above. No, that will not work for this page. I will discuss things with the other editors on this page, but I will not be bullied into not asking questions about additions I think are irrelevant. I will not be bullied by semantics because you have some affinity for the 'Chronicle' blog. We can discuss this more, but I will request mediation because that blog is just that, a blog and gives no relevant information about the conference of the Round Table at all. I mean, I tried to read through it and it serves as nothing more than gibberish and opinions; and for right this article, we can not rely on a forum posting or blog that anyone can post to.PigeonPiece (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As anyone can see, you were not discussing your views in relation to policies and guidelines above (in previous sections), and so it is perfectly clear that you are doing so here because it appears to suit your purposes. You have also failed to respond to the point relating to the distinction between policies and guidelines, a distinction you yourself noted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly capable of reading carefully: what rules are you claiming it breaks? There is a list under "Links to be avoided," and I don't see how it fits in any of those categories.Academic38 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The following "links to be avoided" explanations below are the ones that I believe a forum started by a blogger is not worthy to be placed on the 'External Links' list. You say these are academics, but who are you? I have no idea who started that blog and linking it to Wikipedia is not good for this page. There are other more worthy external links that we could use.

"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." You may argue that the people that post on the Chronicle are 'recognized authority' but this cannot be proven. PigeonPiece (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but use common sense overrides the rules you cite. The Chronicle website is not a social networking site and it is not a blog. It is a discussion forum but most discussion forum threads do not get written up in Times Higher Education. There are literally millions of discussion forum threads on the web, and it is just this one that a THE reporter saw as worth reporting on. I think if a reporter at a prestigious newspaper believes that the posters to a thread are academics, and the entire Chronicle website is set up for academics, your pretending not to believe that they are academics violates common sense. And remember, it is a guideline of "links normally to be avoided," in any event.Academic38 (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic38's points are good. In addition, a specific reason to provide an external link in this case is that the article itself discusses the forum in question.

Funny, this notion that discussion forums can be problematic because "anyone can post": sounds like the talk pages of a certain on-line encyclopaedia I can think of. Perhaps that is why this particular issue is treated as a guideline subject to the occasional common sense exception. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree that just because a source covers something, it automatically gives credibility to what is covered. I am not necessarily advocating the removal of the reference to the 'Times' or the 'Chronicle' website in general, I just don't think that particular 'External Link' provides any substance to the readers of this article. That discussion forum is anonymous and at some instances non-sensical. I guess don't see why you are so adamant about keeping it. I made a simple suggestion because it seemed to overtly violate the fact that a discussion forum should not be used as an External Link. I read a bit of the forum and I thought it strange that someone was seeking the same information we were discussing over here (you may remember our discussion regarding the use of a link with some woman's name.) A lot of the information over there seems to want to discuss the Round Table in a slightly senseless light and I don't think people that use this forum should have discussions over there and then insert there discussion into the Wiki forum. I guess we will need to ask someone else to join the discussion. And not the person that posted things about my (of all people's) cred. ThanxPigeonPiece (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not listening, so I will not waste my breathe repeating what has been already said. Let me just point out that Pairadox is the person who issued my WP:COI warning, so is hardly biased in my favor. You ludicrously accused Pairadox of being an SPA, yet your refuse to admit your own obvious WP:COI. You try to defend the undefensible. That is why you have no credibility.Academic38 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Will ignore the above statement about my credibility. I do not believe a forum should be used as an External Link. I will be asking for mediation.PigeonPiece (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How would you know about a 15-year old non-searchable article about the Oxford Round Table and the location of its former webpage if you didn't have an intimate knowledge of the ORT? You aren't fooling anyone by pretending not to have a WP:COI.Academic38 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop; WP:NPA. I used Yahoo! search engine containing both Lammert's name and Oxford Round Table. That's how I found the third party website that you all will not allow me to use. I know about the article because there is a place on-line that an ORT publication was scanned to. In some of the earlier versions of this article that page is referred to. That article is re-printed in the back of one of the ORT's publications. Why are you so suspicious? You know, not everybody uses 'google' to search; there are many other search engines that yield more credible information. So do your research before making accusations. PigeonPiece (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I said the Times Higher Education Supplement article was non-searchable, not the archived ORT website at UIUC. And I agree with you that Yahoo is a better search engine than Google; I like Alta Vista best, however. I am still not clear how you got to Huw Richards' article; could you be more specific? Are you saying the Richards article is reprinted online? Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"I know about the article because there is a place on-line that an ORT publication was scanned to." PigeonPiece, are you going to tell us the location/url of this on-line "place" you are referring to? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The information can be searched. I found this information a bit ago. If you need further information, please use your search engine of choice. Thanks PigeonPiece (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Although no one responded to this strand, (I guess they believed the issue to be dead) we still need to discuss the removal of the 'Chronicles for Higher Learning' link. It does not add any significant information about the Oxford Round Table. It is nothing but peoples' opinions. I could sign up and I am not necessary a part of the academic community, and I have certainly never been to the Round Table. The argument that ‘the blog/forum is for academics’ is ludicrous considering the forum is open to the public. Not to mention the fact that it seems like anyone can start a forum without presenting academic credentials. PigeonPiece (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose removing this 'Chronicles' link by the end of the week. If someone does not agree, I have requested help to discuss this matter. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally oppose this. The reasons you have given are not valid.Academic38 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic38 or anyone else that opposes the removal of this link, please explain what is untrue about my former statement. I will copy it again here so you can answer. I have highlighted information that should be addressed, as those are the things that constitute it as unworthy of an 'External Link'. Please read the following and answer accordingly so we can get this resolved: 'It is nothing but peoples' opinions. I could sign up and I am not necessary a part of the academic community, and I have certainly never been to the Round Table. The argument that ‘the blog/forum is for academics’ is ludicrous considering the forum is open to the public. Not to mention the fact that it seems like anyone can start a forum without presenting academic credentials.'

Thank you for your responses. PigeonPiece (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, look at it this way: the final section ("Criticism and litigation") refers to the CHE forum, presenting it as a sensible discussion. You, on the other hand, say that you think it is nonsense. Let's assume that you're right - let's say it's nonsense. Wouldn't you want people who read this Wikipedia article to go to that external link and discover for themselves that it's nonsense? Do you actually want them to read the final section of this article and go away only with the impression they have gained?

I would suggest that you create a RfC and try to get other editors to weigh in here. I continue to think that this is the kind of situation where it is acceptable to make a common-sense exception to a guideline (not a policy). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, simply repeating your argument does not make it any stronger. I concur with Nomoskedasticity's suggestion that you create an RfC. And while we are on the subject of answering questions, when are you going to say where on the web the Huw Richards article is? You keep saying that it is...Academic38 (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep offering the same defense as well and it makes no sense. You are not answering the things I asked that, if answered, would be in direct violation of WP:EL. That link adds nothing to what the Oxford Round Table seems to be. I should create a RFC when I get the chance; I actually have a life. The Higher Learning blog spot is nothing but losers blogging idiotic, speculative remarks. Defend them if you want, but it makes no sense. I believe you (Academic38) may be blogging over there; that is the only thing I can think of. It was quite suspicious how we were debating Shenet Alexander's relationship to whoever and that same day someone requested that same information over on that blog page. Was not it decided that those who were blogging over there should not be posting on this entry? If that link is kept, I will be adding another link as well. I can find many more relevant links to the Oxford Round Table. Academic38 and Nomoskedasticity, you should have no problem with other links I include since the link you are fighting to keep is blatantly breaking WP:ELPigeonPiece (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Forum on Public Policy, just like the CHE thread, is specifically mentioned in the article, I have no objection to adding it as an external link. Please note, however, that Wikipedia is not a link collection, so if you think you are going to add a bunch of "third-party" links that actually just repeat copy from the ORT website, I will object. An example of that, which should be removed as a source in the article, is the press release from the University of Montana.Academic38 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the U of M link that you are referring to? Also, I will add a RFC but the Chronicles link obviously breaks the External Link rule and I will be removing it if you can not give me a better reason. You keep saying 'common sense', but common sense would prove that the 'Chronicles' is breaking the External Link rule. PigeonPiece (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The U of M press release is footnote 12 in the article. If you remove the link without consensus or an RfC, it will be reverted. I'm not going to waste my breath restating my points until we have an RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic38 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tampered Mc Gill Information

Why were the 'McGill' publishing citations removed from this website and replaced with Oxford Round Table sites? Those Round Table sites are not third party sites. I'm changing the references back to Mc Gill/Queen. PigeonPiece (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the archived talk here before you even think about changing it back to references that don't support the claims being made. And watch it with the accusations of "tampering" - your credibility is already pretty low and such false accusations don't help it any. Pairadox (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I introduced the word tampered, but you do not have to address me that way. I am simply trying to get third party sources on here. Can someone else with manners please explain why the McGill/Queen references have been removed? ThanxPigeonPiece (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add the McGill/Queen reference because it is third party and has the information listed about the authors of the paper being referred to. Unless someone can offer a reason why I should not add a third party source, I will do this by Wednesday. PigeonPiece (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, forgive me, but what are you talking about? As best I can tell, the references for the "Policy Papers" section have not changed recently. You first complained about this on 12th March - but the only thing that has changed in that section recently was the google books reference, here, and that change was made on the 13th. As the page curretly stands, footnote 13 (supporting material in the "Policy Papers" section) links to a page from the McGill-Queens University Press catalogue. What exactly is bothering you here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, the link in the footnote that simply says "Elsevier" doesn't work. What was this a link to? If it's another link about the book "The University", then perhaps this is no big deal - this would mean that all four of those successive footnotes (currently 14-17) relate to the same book, a bit of overkill really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A non-working link can be changed. The other links are fine with me. PigeonPiece (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: "Proposed addition to conferences section"

Request for comment on dispute above in "Proposed addition to conferences section" concerning whether to add the sentence beginning "In its early years the conference was held..." Is the proposed sentence acceptable? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I frankly don't understand why this would be controversial. — Athaenara ✉ 07:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indexing of Forum on Public Policy

I do not know who 128.91.58.125 is, but it appears he/she is correct that Forum on Public Policy is not indexed by Ebsco. I then looked at Gale, and it does not appear to be included in that index, either: http://gale.cengage.com/tlist/sb5091.pdf. It skips from Fortune to Frontiers.Academic38 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Last Section

I proposed the following addition to the last section. That section needs more balanced and since everyone here is okay with the 'Times', I have used their words.

'Despite the alleged criticism, an article in "The Times Higher Education Supplement" has noted that 'the Oxford conferences are going very well' and has gained 'international interest.' PigeonPiece (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And what would be the source of these claims? Certainly there is nothing in the 21 December 2007 THE article that would support it. And it hardly makes sense to respond to a 2008 controversy with a 1993 article, if those words are in the Richards article, which you have still not told me where it is reprinted online.Academic38 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as where I located the item, please see above statement in the 'proposed additions...' section above. You do not dispute the article exists, so I do not feel the need to respond to any more questions about it. We have decided to use the article. Information about 'Amoco, BP, Boeing' was included from that article, and another reference to the article is being debated above. The article is valid and it can all be cited. The sentence shows that there is a balance and the current version does not. The editors on this page seem to be concerned with citations and the proposed addition has one that reflects the text accurately. PigeonPiece (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the article on the web or not? You say it can be searched, but it doesn't come up on any search engine with the search terms I listed, not with Yahoo, Google, or Alta Vista. Why don't you just say where it is? Why are you trying to hide information that would allow me to make an educated response? "Apple [not Amoco], BP, Boeing" comes from the article I found by Margrave; is it the Richards article, too? In any case, a 1993 article cannot answer a contemporary dispute, unless you believe in time travel.Academic38 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article can be found because I did it a bit ago. Ask Nomoskedasticity because that person agrees it is searchable and found the article, even proposed to use the "outdated" article to help this entry; and at that time, Academic38 had no problem using the article. The sentence I proposed refers to the conference and the other information in that section refers to the problem an individual has with the Round Table. The information I propose deals with the Round Table and can be cited. There are many other sources on the internet that praise the Round Table, but since everyone agreed we could use this article, I decided to be a good, neutral editor and follow through with that agreement. I propose adding the sentence sooner rather than later.PigeonPiece (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not searchable - I found it on microfiche in my university library after you provided the citation. You must have found it through some other mechanism, not a search engine.

The use of the 2007 THES article on the ORT page here is dated - it refers explicitly to an article published in 2007. Your proposed sentence should do the same. Likewise with the way this one is used in the "Conferences" section. So, perhaps: "A 1993 article in the Times Higher Education Supplement noted that 'the Oxford conferences are going very well' and had gained 'international interest'." I would not be opposed to this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

One additional thought - perhaps this sentence should go in the "Conferences" section; after all, it doesn't really fit the category of "Criticism and Litigation". cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, why don't you admit where you actually found it? It obviously is not on the Internet.Academic38 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support Nomoskedasticity's suggestion. It should go in one of the first two paragraphs in the "Conferences" section. I am not opposed to using material from that article, but it is not a response to the controversy. And I would like to see the article.Academic38 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me currently. I will place the material in the article. PigeonPiece (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the information that was in discussion about the organization raising money itself. That information is not clarified correctly and should reflect the text better. More discussion is needed and a consensus should be reached. I am not in agreement.PigeonPiece (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your objection is no clearer now than it was before. In what respect does it not "reflect the text"? How is it "not clarified correctly"? What are the "implications" that you were concerned about? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but we already had an WP:RFC on adding Nomoskedasticity's sentence, and the outside editor agreed that it could be added.Academic38 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the outside comment? I do not think it reflects the text accurately; that is my only complaint. I will review what the other editor wrote, but I am still not in agreement. PigeonPiece (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment is a little bit below the light bulb two sections up.Academic38 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ORT contributor

Pigeonpiece - I can't figure out which you are - must be either Karen Price or Shenette Campbell Alexander. Which is it? 143.167.40.86 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic38, are you perhaps a clone of Pairdox, Academic2007, Nomoskedasticity, Drstones ? Do you happen to go by the street name Sloane Mahone ?130.126.128.166 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)