Talk:Oxford Round Table/Archive 1

Attribution

All of the material taken from the Oxford Round Table webpage is block-quoted and footnoted to attribute that material to the original source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstones (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability

CorenSearchBot is in error. The Oxford Round Table is a controversial venue that has hosted thousands of American Academics over the years. It is certainly notable enough to merit an entry. And the material taken from the webpage is properly formatted and cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionClemens (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I've removed the controversy section because the whole of the thing seemed to be sourced (and admittedly so) from some kind of electronic bulletin board. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony the controversy section needed work but is very relevant. The ORT is highly controversial in academia. Please restore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionClemens (talk • contribs) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstones (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I had to delete it again. Even a casual observer of your CHE bulletin board can see you inciting people there to edit this page to attack the institution described. I think that marks this out as an attack page - it certainly doesn't meet notability criteria - and I'm recommending it for speedy deletion please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coligny (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The content of that controversy section does not constitute an attack. Evaluate the page on its contents, not on extraneous factors. Academic2007 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's OK; I just put it back again. And quit deleting the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstones (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See, now we're getting somewhere . . . more credible information, more balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstones (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the appeals discussion, because the reference relates to the district court case being summarily dismissed. No appeal is reflected at this reference. Please provide support for the appeal having been filed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic2007 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is the muppet who changed "tortious" to "tortuous"? Tortious is the correct (legal) term. Academic2007 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Coldmachine^Talk 22:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the "muppet" comment. Yes, I'm a newbie. Academic2007 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, no real harm done. It can be a bit of a minefield at first to get to grip with guidelines, believe me I know! Coldmachine^Talk 09:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've changed some of the more emotive language in the Controversy section to make it seem more balanced. (Coligny) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coligny (talk • contribs) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I plan to add information pertaining to several controversial aspects of the ORT that have disappeared from the section. One issue to add is high cost. Another is the existence of for-profit and not-for-profit corporations with the same officers, while the ORT advertises itself as "not-for-profit" and does not acknowledge the existence or purpose of the various for-profit entities. There may be others, but those two are all I plan to add for now. Comments?Academic38 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence Obscuredata keeps putting first in the controversy section comes from the very last sentence of the THES article. There is a reason for this: you need a context in which to put it. The same is true in our controversy section. So why have you put it at the beginning again?Academic38 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Undid vandalism (someone who has never posted to talk page deleted controversy section).Academic38 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please think before mischaracterising edits. The controversy section is not reliably sourced and so should not be here. The parts that can be sourced are not representative of the sources. For instance, a grad student was invited yes, but no reliable source has said "that's stupid". The stuff about the legal issues is not really relevant to an article on the corporation; unless the dispute itself can be established reliably. --Nilfanion (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the term vandalism in this context. However, as anyone can see there has been a significant effort to arrive at consensus on this page. I would anticipate that any major edits or deletions performed by anyone who does not participate in that process on this talk page will simply be reverted (as I have now done). Obviously anyone is entitled to edit, but edits that emerge from a process of consensus building might prove to be more durable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tidy up required

I've done some tidying up on this article, but it is in need of some additional work for it to be anything close to encyclopaedic. At the moment a great deal of it appears to be original research, and there is also the risk that it may be viewed by some editors as an attack page. I may request community wide input to see if this can't be tidied up some. Coldmachine^Talk 22:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have tagged the article with a POV check request, accordingly. Coldmachine^Talk 22:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There are incorrect comments concerning the corporate entitites of Oxford Round Table. Footnote 1 does not show that Oxford Round Table Inc. NFP [the Illinois not-for-profit] actually runs ORT; it only documents that the corporation exists. The Oxford Round Table website does not state which corporate entity actually runs it. Moreover, the Illinois not-for-profit was only incorporated in May 2007, after the controversy at the Chronicle of Higher Education website began, so it does not account for which corporation ran the Oxford Round Table for the first 19 years of its existence.

The officer list does not make sense. Compare footnote 8 to footnote 1: footnote 8 gives the list of officers of the Kentucky for-profit corporation, not the Illinois not-for-profit. The question of multiple corporate entitites is one of the very things that makes the Oxford Round Table controversial. --Academic38 (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

legal threat

DrStones is attempting to use Wikipedia to continue his attack on the Oxford Round Table. Dr. Stones has a malicious assault on the Oxford Round Table via the forum on the Chronicle of Higher Eduation. As a result of this thread there is now litigation in Queens Bench, London and continuing litigation in the United States. Legal counsel involved in this litigation, Wyatt, Tarrant and Combs, Nashville and Louisville, have been informed of DrStones use of Wikipedia. Franknfair (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted on WP:ANI about this when I noticed the legal threat, and the user in question was blocked. This issue should be remedied at this point. Coldmachine^Talk 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

more tidy

I did a wee bit of tidy-up, the article needs some real references to establish notability. They mostly seem to be to the companies various websites, and primary sources on the legal issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Threeafterthree, could you say more about removing the "broken link" to the website of the Illinois Secretary of State? The link works; did you remove it because seeing the information requires entering "Oxford Round Table" into the search box? This seems like a merely technical point; the information is available and correct. Thanks... Academic2007 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Let me try that and see what happens. --Tom 19:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. i tried that out. What I got is that the for-profit has been dissolved which contradicts the next citation?? Anyways, not really a bid deal, is it? Thanks, --Tom 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not a big deal. The idea that something has been dissolved is apparent from the Illinois site, but from the Kentucky SOS site we get something different (and the article does make the distinction). It matters mainly because the question of sources for this article has been raised, so I think it's useful to preserve as much as possible (to the extent it can be relied on, of course). Academic2007 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add that Kern Alexander III is affiliated with Cambridge as well as Warwick? My letter of invitation is signed by him and lists his affiliation as Cambridge. Here is his page at Cambridge. Academic38 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Noteable attendees

Can that section be tidied? It is full of red links without citations for most. Anyways, --Tom 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what you call this section, it seems to me to be WP:LISTCRUFT. Academic38 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on recent edits

A couple of recent edits have provided references that establish the existence of particular individuals but do not support the claim that they have been associated with the Oxford Round Table.

In addition, some newer material (which I have moved to the "Conference" section) is copied from the organization's main page, without quotation marks. I am referring in particular to material that is referenced with notes 9 through 14. I assume this is a copyright violation, so I would like to encourage the contributor to remove or re-word it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic2007 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed it myself... Academic2007 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When this page is unlocked, I suggest we remove any of these individuals who are not documented to have attended the ORT.Academic38 (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not one of the links regarding Oxford professors attending the ORT documents that they in fact did so. For Vaisey and Ball, the link was broken; for Mould, Waller, Woods, Beloff, and Lammert, the link works but provides no evidence of connection to the ORT. In fact, the Woods article link is actually about his successor. Finally, in the case of Southwood, the article states that he was involved with a government group known as the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. It appears that the editor who added Southwood got the two names confused because of their similarity. All of these should be deleted unless valid references can be given. Southwood should be removed immediately because it is clear that the editor was in error. Academic38 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert war

There now appears to be a dispute between myself and Obscuredata. I invite Obscuredata (and others) to discuss the issues here, in an effort to resolve them and avoid a pointless revert war.

My perspective is clear in my edit summaries: Obscuredata's changes are not supported by references. For example, Obscuredata refers to a 1/2008 annual report (and changes the names of company officers), but this editor leaves in place a reference to a 5/2007 annual report that does not support the changes he/she is making. In addition, he/she adds a number of "notable attendees", but the references provided do not support the claim that these people have been associated with the Oxford Round Table.

In addition, this editor is copying large amounts of material from an external web site, without quotation marks. (This refers to material referenced with notes 9-14.)

I have left warnings about vandalism and the three-revert rule on Obscuredata's talk page.

I contend that my revisions are supported with the references I (and others) have included, and I invite comment from other editors on how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic2007 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing the material I just added here (this section) - still getting accustomed to this... Academic2007 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment both of you are in danger of violating the WP:3RR rule; this attempt to bring a solution about via discussion on the talk page is essential, however. Obscuredata should respond here, as requested, to help editors reach a consensus view. Coldmachine^Talk 04:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Following the most recent failure of User:Obscuredata to respond to calls for discussion re the ongoing revert war, I have reported this individual for a breach of WP:3RR. Coldmachine^Talk 20:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful for advice on how I should proceed in these circumstances. I want to play by the rules and not be a party to a revert war - should I refrain for now from making the changes I consider appropriate/necessary? I have just done an edit to deal with copyright violation, but perhaps I should hold off in regard to other matters? Thanks... Academic2007 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello all.. I just joined.. I didn't even know we were suppose to do something on a TalkPage. Anyways, I've already talked to conflict resolution and they informed me that everyone is blocked while this settles. I will cite sources that shows that the individuals attended. Also, I am going to remove the areas of the article that have needed cited source for some time now. Obscuredata (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another key issue to note is copyright - your edit of 4:34 21/1 simply copies large amounts of material from the organization's web site. I request that this be removed as quickly as possible.

Perhaps we can also then address the issue of company officers. The reference given lists Alexander, Alexander, and Campbell. If you can't provide documentation of a change in company officers, then please restore this section to reflect the documentation provided. Academic2007 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. Regarding the information copied from the website, I'm not removing factual information. Why does information from the source in question need to be removed? That does not make sense. Since I am working directly with ORT to ward off the incorrect changes that continue to be made, I don't see why there is an issue. I am getting clerance to use the information. Also, footnotes coming..now. Obscuredata (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The passages copied from ORT's web site are, essentially, marketing materials. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to act as an advertising platform.

I invite comment from other editors on this issue. Academic2007 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually please use this forum to point out exactly what you are referring to as 'marketing materials.' The only statement that could possibly be in question is the statement that begins, 'The purpose of the ORT...' All of the other information is factual information taken from the source to confirm that such events took place. 'Who, when and where' are confirmed by and backed up by a source that has been cited; and everyone on here is very into citing! I am willing to edit the above sentence ('The purpose of the ORT..') to say 'According to their website, the purpose of the ORT..'. I am willing to neutralize it that way, but beyond that, I don't think a sentence that states the purpose intended by those who incorporated the entity, should be removed. Stating the purpose of something is not a marketing ploy. Obscuredata (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The main text of the home page of the ORT contains 732 words. Currently, 636 (87%) of those words appear verbatim on this wikipedia page (refs 5 through 11). Again, I invite comment from other editors (in addition to Obscuredata) as to whether it is appropriate for someone who is "working directly with ORT" (or indeed anyone) to copy large amounts of material from an external web site of this type and place them on wikipedia. Wikipedia is effectively acting as a mirror site for ORT with this material here. Academic2007 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I invite anyone to add their comments. Factual information is just that, factual information! If you disagree with the facts, that is the problem. I guess what I have qualms with is that someone wants to continue to contribute outdated, (sometimes) false information, yet when it comes to confirmed facts, there is an issue. The information I added is the definition of what the ORT is; you can not disagree with their purpose or goals because there are 'Articles of Incorporation' and 'Round Table' documents that support the statements listed. It seems that information directly from the source is much more reliable than second-hand, twisted up information. Is Wikipedia's goal to post inaccurate, second-hand information? I highly doubt it, so I am not going to remove that information, as it is fact and can be cited without question. Obscuredata (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are the Articles of Incorporation? They are certainly not on the ORT web site. The Illinois non-profit was incorporated on May 22, 2007, so there is no way that it established the ORT. There is no indication which of the Alexander family corporations runs the ORT, nor any acknowledgement that they also have a for-profit Oxford Round Table, nor any explanation of the relation between the two: which is that they both have the same officers (in the Kentucky non-profit and for-profit versions). It also remains the case that you have not documented that the officers of the Kentucky for-profit are the officers of the Illinois not-for-profit. Academic38 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my view is this, in summary:

• In the interests of avoiding further edit warring over article content, I'd recommend that any changes to the main article be discussed here first, and consensus for change established, before the main article is altered.
• Cool heads prevail.
• Sources used for supporting claims or content in the article should be in line with the general notability guidelines. This means that sources should be reliable and, to answer the issue being discussed above about material being taken from the ORT website, independent of the subject. This guideline "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."

Of course, this is a guideline and it's sensible to use the ORT website and affiliated resources where appropriate. I think copying content, verbatim, is not appropriate. I also think that a sentence on the purpose of the organisation, which reads "According to their website, the ORT blahblahblah", doesn't infringe WP:NOTE and would therefore be acceptable. Coldmachine^Talk 10:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is basically sensible - though it is actually quite constraining to accept the idea that any change has to gain consensus in advance. It's not my understanding that this is how wikipedia normally works. But perhaps for a while...

The only concern I have in the moment relates to the prospect of "freezing" the page in its current state. It seems clear to me that some of the content goes against wikipedia policies: conflict of interest and verifiability, in particular. As the verifiability policy notes, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I would therefore suggest it makes more sense for the material in question to be removed for now, and then anyone who wants to include it can try to convince others that it does actually conform to the relevant policies and guidelines.

In other words, I'm not sure why the default starting position for formation of consensus should be the page in its current state (again, bearing in mind what I consider the relevant WP policies). So, I'm inclined to remove the copied material, but I'll hold off for a bit to see if anyone has some quick thoughts. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomo, I agree with Coldmachine that copying content verbatim is inappropriate. I think you should remove the copied material. Can you delineate exactly what you think should go? Academic38 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Now things are just getting silly - another big list of names dumped here straight from the ORT web page. And what on earth is an "Oxford Round Table Academic"? I don't want to get into another revert war, but really it's getting absurd. Academic2007 (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed non-notable individuals from the article (red linked): these should not be restored unless notability is established. Also, I tidied up the structure a little and removed a section of WP:LISTCRUFT. Coldmachine^Talk 09:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have locked down the article for 48 hours to give you time to discuss this issue and reach a consensus. I will be dishing out blocks if the revert warring resumes after the protection expires. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for locking the page. The intent of this page was to allow all parties interested in this topic to come to a civil solution to the debate over the ORT. Unfortunately, the debate seems to have devolved into wikivandalism and an effort to actually, at times, disrupt the posting of credible and referenced work relevant to the topic. My hope is that, after the lock-down, a balanced and positive product will result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstones (talk • contribs) 02:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

Is anyone else concerned about potential WP:Conflict_of_interest in relation to Obscuredata's edits? Obscuredata writes that he/she is "working directly with ORT", and as Academic2007 notes many of this person's edits have the function of placing material from the Oxford Round Table's web site onto this wikipedia page. In its current version, quite a few paragraphs and 17 of the references are directly from the ORT web site.

Obscuredata has revealed (though perhaps not quite declared) a conflict of interest. The guideline on WP:COI "strongly encourages" editors with a conflict of interest to propose edits on the talk page, to initiate formation of consensus - perhaps that is the best way to proceed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am strongly concerned about Obscuredata's conflict of interest. He/she is basically trying to create an advertising page and massage the corporate interest of ORT. The policy says that people with a COI are "strongly discouraged" from editing. Obscuredata is not adhering to this policy. He/she is making edits without first achieving consensus.Academic38 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Academic38 and Academic2007 have a conflict of interest as well. You seem to believe that factual information from the source is a 'marketing tool.' The information was added to balance the 'information' provided by the controversy section. If I am forced to remove the purpose of the ORT, I will also remove all of the controversy listed because readers will have no frame of reference.

I have no idea about any 'corporate interest' surrounding ORT and your mention of that seems to imply that you have knowledge of some interworking of the situation at hand, which would flag that you have conflict of interests, as well as interest in defaming ORT. My direct relationship to ORT is that I understand the organization and would be willing to contact them in order to obtain permission to use information from their page. I can take the time to reword the information I copied from the page, but I will not remove the purpose (AKA definition) of the organization since Wikipedia purpose is to expound information regarding the subject matter at hand. While I do not claim to have a conflict of interest, even if I did, 'strongly discouraged' and 'not allowed' are two different things. Obscuredata (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring Coldmachine's post about the excessive amount of material from the ORT website. You added new material from the ORT site when you should be deleting it. You also did not get consensus to make this change per Coldmachine's post. Please delete.

I think that since ORT has at least three active corporations it has a "corporate interest" by definition, so I am unsure why you think my use of that term is odd or says bad things about me. I am posting verifiable information from 3rd party sources, exactly what Wikipedia promotes.Academic38 (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Obscuredata, I'd like to ask you to consider a couple of comments on conflict of interest and other policies/guidelines. The main point is, the relevant meaning of terms like this is given in the policy/guideline pages on Wikipedia. For example: conflict of interest doesn't mean being in conflict with the interests of ORT - it means conflict of interests with respect to the guidelines for editing pages on Wikipedia. The guideline refers to "close relationships" with the subject of the article, financial considerations, etc.

Now, if Academic38 or Academic2007 are working with or for organizations that are in competition with ORT and you think that that is the reason they are posting information you consider detrimental to ORT, then there would indeed be a conflict of interest. I don't see any evidence of that - do you? (If they *are* in that position, then they have an absolute obligation to declare it themselves.)

As for the difference between "strongly discouraged" and "not allowed" - that difference does not amount to a license to ignore the recommendation. If you want to make edits directly (and not propose them first on the talk page), then my understanding of the way to deal with "strongly discouraged" is that you should explain why you think it is legitimate to do so - with reference to the guideline itself (and perhaps other policies/guidelines). Again, not just any reasons that seem relevant to you, but in particular reasons that relate to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Moreover, in my view you should gain agreement from other editors that your case is convincing in that regard.

These comments relate to other issues raised above - WP:verifiability, in particular. In general, it is worth being well acquainted with what the policies require. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that individuals removing pertinent information for no particular reason than to present a lop-sided view is a conflict of interest. I am simply getting the facts out. I will be adding back the Notable Attendees as they are notable for the expressed purpose of the ORT and you, as a non-member can not denote who is notable to their particular entity or activities. This obsession with third party sources seems to be stopping the truth to prevail. Is that what Wikipedia is, a gossip column or an information source? Obscuredata (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As Nomoskedasticity said, what you have just described as conflict of interest is not what WP rules define as conflict of interest. I don't have a conflict of interest because I am not working on behalf of the ORT, or of any competitor of the ORT; you have a conflict of interest because you are doing this on behalf of the ORT.

The use of third party sources is one of the most important ways of demonstrating verifiability. Anyone can say anything on their own website. That is why the amount of material from the ORT website is excessive. Please respect the rules here.Academic38 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating With Permission

I have updated the page. I left off the list of the Advisory Committee at someone's request (don't remember who!). I have cited multiple sources for some things. Citing directly from the source as well as secondary sources. I have read over the Wikipedia source citing page and no where does it stun Primary Sources, therefore the editors of this page should not either. I am willing to discuss what information is relevant, but that does not mean I will necessary take the information down; and those that choose to continue to remove factual information are engaging in a revert war and will be reported. I have compromised and left out factual information. I have not tampered with the dubious controversy section except to remove items that needed citing for more than one month. Once again, if factual information continues to be removed, I will completely remove the controversy section as readers will not have an accurate frame of reference. It seems that people are making edits sneakily, and if this keeps happening, you are undermining the purpose of Wikipedia. Updating and changing incorrect information is one thing, but purposely removing factual information is called VANDALISM on here once again will have to be reported promptly. I am willing to add citation where people request, but I am not wanting to edit out factual information. Obscuredata (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "updating with permission"? You did not get any consensus to make the changes you describe above. You are persistently violating the rules here.

Are you saying that you reverted Coldmachine's deletions of the non-notable attendees? It certainly appears that way since there is a huge list of red-colored names in there. Coldmachine specifically stated that they should not be put back in unless notability was established.

With your threat to remove the Controversy section if we don't do what you say, you are the one threatening VANDALISM. Academic38 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again.. I am not threatening. I am working towards a solution that will allow the information to be presented accurately and if the purpose is not presented, but the controversy is, what fairness is that? I have already posted concerns about your continued abuse of me on other pages to receive feedback.

If you want to discuss "Notable Attendees", that is fine. But for your sake, I have changed the headline to read 'ORT Contributing Attendees', so we don't seem to have to discuss there 'notability' factor unless you are trying to diminish and inaccurately portray attendees. Thank you for your input! Obscuredata (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me please ask those that are adverse to factual information. Why are you continuing to remove factual, proven information? Please answer this question Academic2007, Academic38 and any others that are continually removing verified information. Also, I am not threatening to remove the controversy section, I am letting you know I will delete it, just as Academic38, Academic2007, and Coldmachine let me know that they will (and already have on several occasions) removed information without my input. (Please see above discussions where you all repeatdely threathened my work with removal.) I am an editor just like everyone else here, except you all seem to be working for the same entity that wishes to highlight controversy and not the purpose of the ORT. An encyclopedia is for reviewing and imparting the definition of something, which is what I'd like to work together to do. Thanks! Obscuredata (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read this, briefly and quickly, and there's a glaring problem with your approach to editing this article: you are making edits against a consensus which has been established by three fellow editors (myself, Academic38, and Academic2007). You are the one edit warring here, and I suggest that you read, or re-read WP:CON. I actually have no interest in this article at all and was drawn in early on by some claims about it being an attack page: I worked on the article, along with others who were invited in by way of the neutrality and various other templates which I posted, to improve the encyclopaedic nature of the article. Now it's swinging the other way with your edits to become a soapbox for your own views. Factual information is fine, but WP:LISTCRUFT should be avoided, and the content you are adding verbatim from the ORT website is a copyvio. This is why it has been removed. Continuing to revert changes by other editors, against an established consensus, is edit warring. I'll again ask an administrator to look in on this: it seems page protection might be in order, once more, for everyone to cool down and think again about the approach being taken towards editing this article. Coldmachine^Talk 19:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And I feel you guys are neglecting to portray the ORT accurately and factually; I stand by that. I do not care about you or your 'interests' and I don't appreciate other editors ganging up on me to supress factual information. I just want correct info to get out. I have continued to cite as you have asked; and if something is factual and true and cited multiple places (3rd party and even more removed) like you have asked, I don't believe I need to ask your permission to include the truth. I removed the list because I believe it was in some ways questionable, but I am not removing cited information about facts!!!! Your request for me to do so undermines ORT and most importantly, Wikipedia. I have no obligation to ORT or to you. So if you continue to revert my changes, you are edit warring with me. I have no problem with you adding stuff that is true, controversial or not, but I do have a problem when you remove factual information.

That being said, I will gladly paraphrase and reword the information that explains what ORT actually is. If that is removed, you are reverting without cause and that is a violation on Wikipedia. I just don't understand why facts don't reign supreme on this page and you are interested in portraying a lop-sided view of ORT. Anything I have added is factual and from reputable sources; not from a discussion blog as others have used. Why are you not going after them for misuse of citation? I have the info from the horses mouth, per se, and you are continually harassing me; yet in the 'controversy' section of the article, the information cited is nothing more than opinions and seemingly thoughtless dribble. I have left that alone because it was cited and apparently on Wikipedia a citation, no matter how reputable, is all that is needed to stay posted. You say you were drawn in for neutrality, but how can you keep deleting the purpose of ORT and leave the controversy section. You are contradicting yourself and that's obviously not neutral. Thank you. Obscuredata (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems With Edit

Hello again.. I am going to list my issues with other editors on this page and hopefully we can go from there. I really have only one issue:

Deletions of factual information!!!!

Please let me know why you are against factual information regarding the ORT; also, post your concerns here to start a sensible dialogue. Obscuredata (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Obscuredata, there is much more to consider here than "factual information". What you seem to be having a hard time grasping is the fact that Wikipedia has a set of well-elaborated policies, and your notions of what is "factual" do not trump those policies. I strongly suggest that you read (again?) the pages on WP:verifiability, WP:COI, WP:notability, WP:listcruft, WP:3RR, and any others suggested above. If your edits do not conform to these policies, it is unlikely that others will accept them - no matter how "factual" you consider the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was the list removed of those that contributed to ORT? Obscuredata (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the list of those that have contributed to the ORT is not trivial or without warrant to post. It is an intergral part of the ORT. At first I was updating this page because of the lack of neutrality, but now I am continuing to update it because you all seemed VERY biased. I have restored the information about those contributing to ORT. I am not going to ask your permission to update the page because you idea of a consensus is Acdemic 2007, Academic38 and that other person asking me to take stuff down and when I don't within two hours, you all remove it. I was reading some of the other strands and someone removed the controversy section; Academicwhatever's response was to state that it was wrong to take it down and you simply replaced it; that is what I will be doing if cited information continues to be removed. Please read the WP:verifiability section again because all of the data you removed of mine was verifiable. Thanks.

Also the list follows the WP:notability rule because all of these individuals have 'substantial coverage in reliable sources', which satisfies that rule. I have cited sources from places other than ORT website for these individuals, that connect them with ORT.

Also, please remove the 'Controversy' section. Not outlining the expressed purpose of ORT, yet not removing the controversy section seems to be a WP:COI; don't you think? ;) Obscuredata (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is hardly a constructive approach and your comments are verging on attacking your fellow editors by failing to assume good faith and accusing them of bias. There is clearly a content dispute here, and threatening to continue edit warring unless your preferred version of the article is in place is entirely inappropriate. I've templated you with a warning on your user talk page: please everybody cool off a bit and discuss proposed changes here before ploughing ahead with them considering the disputes which are likely to arise from doing so. Coldmachine^Talk 19:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not edit warring with you. I am editing the articles. Why am I the only person on this page that needs consensus before making edits? I am mirroring what the other editors are threathening me with so it seems you have some type of WP:COI. Coldmachine, you and other editors need to cool off. Your continue deletion of cited materials is edit warring; so please stop. Obscuredata (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

While you keep accusing me of removing material, in fact I have not removed one thing, as you can easily verify on the history page. However, you deleted the entire corporate history of the ORT, which I have now reverted because it is important and verifiable. Academic38 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some additional tidyup

I tidied up the Criticisms section a little, to make it more encyclopaedic. A commentary on the issues seems inappropriate for an article in an encyclopaedia, and also the large details provided about the legal cases seems beyond the scope of this article (the sources are there to provide all that extra detail about the process, damages, quotes and all the finer detail I guess), so I removed the large block quotes and also neatened up the prose a little. Originally this section listed four items of criticism, now I can identify only three from the section: where did the other go?! I also couldn't see a citation to support the existence of criticisms over "unclear selection criteria", so I added in a fact tag for that. These changes are cosmetic, primarily; the essence of this section remains but feel free to adjust! Coldmachine^Talk 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will work on this section. As I noted on another part of this talk page, I will add two other criticisms, and I will also get a citation for unclear selection procedure. Academic38 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

New Additions

Added 'ORT Contributing Attendees' affiliation;should not be listed w/o affiliation so they are not confused to be only associated w/ ORT. Added information about the Alexander person since all of the other editors feel that massive amounts of information are needed to explain what the company officiers and their history is. 'Intellectual Controversy' section updated to add pertinent information. Has been cited.

Added citation under 'Journal' that was requested. Obscuredata (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information about Kern Alexander. It maybe should be shortened and may need a few more citations, but it definitely should be in the article, IMO. I think the section you added to "Intellectual Controversy" should be moved to the middle or bottom of the section (I'm not sure how to place it vis-a-vis the lawsuits), because the material from the Chronicle provides the context into which the ORT's response fits. Academic38 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It might also make sense to create a separate wikipedia article for Kern Alexander. I would support the claim that he meets the criteria for notability. I agree that a bit of information about him is appropriate here, but on the other hand this page is about ORT, not Kern Alexander. Perhaps better to link his name here to a separate page where a more substantial treatment is available. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Listcruft"

What to do about these lists of "attendees" and authors of policy papers? The "attendees" in red are, almost by definition, not notable. They have been deleted a couple of times (and then restored). I'd prefer to get to a consensus about this issue here rather than simply delete them (and then see them restored again).

The list under "policy papers" is a selection from a book published by McGill Univ Press, and my understanding of the WP:listcruft guideline is that this sort of thing is generally considered not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing both (i.e. removing the list of names/articles under the policy papers section, and removing the 'academics contributing' section in entirety). Remember that WP:LISTCRUFT is only an essay, not a guideline or policy, but it essentially observes that the offending content is likely to get removed from an article by a passing editor since it doesn't really meet the usual manual of style requirements. Anyway, my !vote is remove on both counts. Coldmachine^Talk 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you probably already know, I disagree with removing them. It is important to note what individuals have contributed to the ORT, it is in-line with the purpose of what the ORT says that it is. Last time I checked, I don't think having a Wikipedia page defines you as notable or not, and if it does that can be arranged. I am willing to discuss more about the list of 'attendees', but if the 'policy papers' section is removed I will simply restore it as a paragraph. The policy papers are very relevant as they have to do with the purpose and execution of the ORT, which is what an encyclopedia strives to do. Policy papers of the ORT are more relevant than the 'controversy' section as that is hearsay, so I don't understand how someone who keeps restoring the 'controversy' section has a problem when I add more information about Oxford Round Table. In an actual encyclopedia, a complete section devoted to 'controversy' would not appear, so if we are adhering so starkly to those rules, I am inclined to remove that, as well as all the 'extra' info about the 'company officers'. As stated before I am willing to discuss. Obscuredata (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to delete the entire "Policy papers" section - though I am not sure that there is a distinct category of publications that is generally known as "Oxford Round Table Policy Papers" (something the heading seems to imply). In any event, the fact that papers presented at ORT have been published in various outlets seems perfectly relevant, and I think mention of this should stay. The only suggestion that I'm making here is that the list of chapters in that book should go: it fits the definition of listcruft, in my view - in particular because it's not clear why those four items are included and not (many) others. In other words, the list could in principle be quite large, and therefore it is presently indeterminate.

As for the comment on controversy - I have to disagree that an encyclopaedia would not describe controversy about notable people/events. Have a look at the pages on Richard Nixon, or Scientology, or DuPont. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the list of attendees should definitely be deleted, but I am more willing to consider the "policy papers" section. Not necessarily as a separate section, but I agree with Nomoskedasticity that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. And it's obvious that encyclopedias cover controversies. Academic38 (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Policy papers section should stay; I think on this consensus has easily been reached. The question is: should individual specific policy papers be listed in a form of bibliography, as is the case presently. On that point, I think the list of specific papers should be removed. I'd absolutely oppose any removal of the Policy papers section as a whole though! Coldmachine^Talk 09:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the section remains, the McGill reference needs to be removed; it doesn't support the claim that the individual authors of the book are connected to ORT, just that one of the editors is. Pairadox (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Pairadox, if you took the time to follow the link and scroll down on the McGill site, it lists all contributing authors. I have added another link that confirms the connection. The book is also on the ORT website. I am also reinserting the information in the controversy section; it was cited and should not have been removed! As for controversy, yes encyclopedias do cover controversy, but they also give detailed explanations of the subject as well. Obscuredata (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Obscuredata, I DID follow the link and scoll down to the list of contributing authors. That's how I know that the page lists the authors, but makes no connection between them and ORT. The only mention of ORT on that page is "Alexander is director of the Oxford Round Table." The source does not support the claim that the book is a result of the ORT. If you have other sources that show that, fine, but the McGill one does not. Pairadox (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I will go ahead and remove the attendees section. It is basically only supported by info from the ORT website, only two of the attendees are notable, and even if they were all notable it would still be listcruft. Obscuredata, let me point out that a press release from another institution that merely quotes material from the ORT website is not really a third-party source. You have used such sources on more than one occasion. Academic38 (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to restore the information because they are notable for the purpose of the ORT and that is what this page is about. What exactly would make them notable? I have read Wiki's rules and I believe they are notable. Obscuredata (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Objection, your honor! Obscuredata has already reverted Coldmachines's deletion of all the red-linked attendees, and is now proposing to completely restore what is clearly Listcruft. Could we have some further comment from other editors on this point? Academic38 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability is part of the issue, but it is far from the only issue. Even a list of entirely "notable" entries could be considered listcruft. There is a previous opinion that continued reinsertion of this material, against consensus, constitutes edit warring. The passage of time by itself would not change that view. I also think it is important not to lose sight of the conflict of interest issue. Before anyone restores that section/list, I would consider it essential to gain agreement from other editors; at the very least this agreement should come from editors who cannot be said to have any particular investment in this particular page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Listcruft redux?

I don't know who 69.251.238.134 is, but there had been quite a bit of support for removing the Listcruft before the AfD debate began. As far as I can tell, 69.251.238.134 took out almost all the participants and many if not all of the papers. I previously had argued for deleting the participants section but keeping the papers in some, though not this exact, form. Why don't we discuss this?Academic38 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the "non-notables" are now gone. My understanding of this issue is that even if the entire list were "notable" (appearing elsewhere on wikipedia) it would still be "listcruft" - but never mind, the changes made are clearly an improvement. One minor issue: can the title be changed to "Participants"? "Contributing attendees" is pretty awkward; the person who used that term here pretty obviously has English as a second language, and that term is a good example. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)