Talk:Oxford Round Table/Archive 3

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. Thanx PigeonPiece (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)

Tampered McGill 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 McGill/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)

Indexing of Forum on Public Policy

I do not know who 128.91.58.125 [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)

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)

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:

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).

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)