Talk:Oxford Round Table/Archive 4

Citations and External Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that the first two citations are no longer accurate: 1. http://apps.sos.ky.gov/business/obdb/showentity.aspx?id=0346425&ct=09&cs=99999 shows the Kentucky incorporation is 'Inactive' and has a form showing it was dissolved - http://apps.sos.ky.gov/business/obdb/OBDBDisplayImage.aspx?id=3258043 2. http://apps.sos.ky.gov/business/obdb/showentity.aspx?id=0527045&ct=09&cs=99998 shows the same, listed as 'Inactive' with a dissolution form - http://apps.sos.ky.gov/business/obdb/OBDBDisplayImage.aspx?id=3258044

This means that the organization is not currently incorporated in those places, therefore the incorporation location claims of the first sentence in this article are partially false and should be removed. Sidewaystory (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Last Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORT contributor

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

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

Well well: a nice ip address. One that makes it clear that pigeonpiece is Kate Kemball. Thanks for that. Very usefull! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.198.107.109 (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I have no idea who Kate Kemball is.. For that matter, I have no idea who those other people are either. I ignored the first comment because it seemed ridiculous, but now it shows me that people are really, truly out to get ORT and they post on this forum as well as the 'Chronicle' forum, which is one of the reasons I believe it holds no merit. My IP address would never match a Kate Kemball and that can be researched, since you have so much time and speculation. I'm sorry this page wasn't deleted before; it's obviously a playground for the petty. Geez.. comment on ways to make the page better, no WP:NPA. PigeonPiece (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea who any of the individuals are, yet you have a burning interest to edit this article in ways to make the ORT look better, you are an SPA, you know about an unsearchable 1993 Times article about the ORT, and now you know what has been filed with Illinois Secretary of State even before it's published. 130.126.128.166 is the IP address of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (uiuc.edu): no wonder you knew about the old ORT webpage at faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/falexndr/privatecolleges/1991.html. It is pretty obvious you have inside information about the ORT, whether you want to declare your COI or not.Academic38 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: "Citations and External Links Policy"

Request for comment regarding the WP:EL and the 'Chronicles for Higher Education' external link. 'Chronicles for Higher Education' violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Comments? PigeonPiece (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle Forums thread on the Oxford Round Table is explicitly cited in this article, so it certainly makes sense to have it available as an external link for the reader. Furthermore, the CHE thread was the subject of an article in Times Higher Education on 21 December 2007, stating that the Oxford Round Table had come under fire from academics. Thus, a reliable source that is an authority on higher education takes the thread seriously, despite the fact that it is obviously anonymous. PigeonPiece suggests above that there is no way of knowing that the posters to the CHE thread are academics. It strains credibility to think that a thread in a forum set up by an academic publication, for academics, specifically addressing an academic issue is drawing a bunch of comments from non-academics. It defies common sense. A truck driver would have no interest in the Oxford Round Table nor the background to make a meaningful comment about it. The vast majority of posters in the thread have track records comparable to a WP list of an editor's contributions, making it easy to see that they are indeed academics. By contrast, the posters in that thread who are essentially SPAs at the Chronicle Forums are people defending the ORT. In fact, PigeonPiece is essentially an SPA trying to make the Oxford Round Table look better, something we can see beginning with PigeonPiece's very first edit and continuing to the present.Academic38 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see below. I cannot agree that unknown individuals can be cited as authority figures on the Oxford Round Table and that these unknown individuals' forum page should be linked to this Wikipedia page. PigeonPiece (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, no forum page is being cited as an authority (reference) on this article. As for external links, let's recall a distinction between policies and guidelines, a distinction PigeonPiece made here when it seemed to suit his/her purposes and now would apparently like to overlook. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dont know exactly what you are referring to citing that strand. PigeonPiece (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: "External Link Inquiry"

I believe that the 'Chronicles' link violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Another editor does not believe so. Your input is greatly appreciated. PigeonPiece (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The CHE discussion linked to is their blog. Normally we would not include it, but I think this is an exception. It contains over a hundred well-informed comments by the sort of people who would know about it and are accustomed to responsibility in their writing. DGG (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to give the reason that you think this link should be avoided? There doesn't appear to be one. Dlabtot (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DGG says, "The CHE discussion linked to is their blog." That's exactly the reason it should be removed. People also keep stating the 'Chronice' blog is frequented by people who 'know what they are talking about.' There is no way to prove that. I was able to sign up to use that page and I have never been to an ORT event or been invited to one. This Wikipedia page is redirecting people to a page that can be posted on by anyone and that is probably the reason that Wikipedia cites those links as unreliable.

In answer to Dlabtot's question regarding 'why': It is a blog, started by a person who may or may not have authority on the subject. It is also a discussion forum, which is stated as a 'link to be avoided.' Please read the rules before asking these questions; I do not feel I need to do so much outlining when the reasons are laid out perfectly by Wikipedia;) Please see the External Links page and look under 'Links to be Avoided.' Please read number 10 and 11; they characterize the nature of the 'Chronicle' blog. PigeonPiece (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If PigeonPiece considers that the forum participants on the CHE site have *thousands* of other posts throughout other discussion threads on that site, on areas relevant to professors, I think you can hardly dispute that those discussions are populated by academics. It's called circumstantial evidence. True, you might question how professionals have the time to spend on that board, what with the demands of teaching and research, but really, you have to be ignoring every bit of evidence to claim that the CHE forum participants are truck drivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athoughtforyou (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy seems clearly against the inclusion of this link. Since the discussion at the link is referenced in the citation in the 'Criticism and litigation' section, it seems redundant as well. Dlabtot (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The "policy" WP:LINKSTOAVOID starts out as follows: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" and then it lists examples which include discussion forums. The link to the CHE discussion forum about the Oxford Round Table clearly falls within the exception (i.e, it is a link to the Chronicle of Higher Education forum page that is the subject of the ORT wikipedia article?) Athoughtforyou —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I'm afraid you are mistaken in referring to this as a policy. As PigeonPiece noted here, there is a difference between policies and guidelines. This one is a guideline, not a policy. This is no doubt why DGG felt it possible to contemplate an exception in this case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dlabtot, if redundancy were a criterion, we would not have links to the subject of articles! External links are there for the convenience of the reader, and as I stated in my detailed comments in the previous section, it makes sense for the reader to be able to go directly to a discussion forum that is explicitly referred to in the article. Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not true that there is a link in the text. The CHE itself is wikified - there is a link to the Wikipedia page on the Chronicle itself - but there is no link in the text to the discussion forum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant to say that it was a convenience for the reader to have an external link to the thread that is explicitly discussed in the article.Academic38 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

everyone knows what a blog is, and what it is not. Linking to it doesnt mean we endorse every varying opinion there. It's the most accessible general public informed discussion on the subject I know, & therefore constitutes a unique resource on the subject. DGG (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether the link is there for convenience or not, that has no relevance. The link violates Wikipedia and unless someone can argue how it does not violate the policy, I will need to remove it. The subject does not need to be linked to a mentioned thread, especially when the website 'CHE' is already linked and the 'discussion forum'/'blogged started by whomever' violates 'External Link' rules. I will remove it soon and if someone wishes to place it back on there, they are not following Wikipedia rules. Please do not mention again that you can verify that authorities are blogging on that page; you have no proof, just speculation!!!!!!PigeonPiece (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I said above about why this doesn't violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID guideline? It falls within the exception that the guideline starts out with? Do you disagree with that, and how? Athoughtforyou (talk —Preceding comment was added at 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PP, you created this RfC, and now you propose to ignore the view expressed by a long-standing and well-respected editor. Hardly a wise approach for an SPA, wouldn't you agree? And darling, please stop ignoring the distinction between a policy and a guideline, a distinction you well understood as evident here when it appeared to suit your purposes. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Athoughtforyou, please explain what exception this falls under? PigeonPiece (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

maintaining the spirit of proving a link to a unique outside resource that provides the best available source of information on the subject. I know its unfortunate for those who are trying to defend the importance of this organisation to find that such a link provides information that they are not quite all they have proposed themselves to be, but that's the way it is with information DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC) it shows what it shows, not what one may want it to show. DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding New Officers Link

Everything is on file with the State of Illinois. Please feel free to locate. PigeonPiece (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say since you're in Illinois. However, it is not in the link you give. I'm looking at the Corporation File Detail Report at the source you give (Illinois Sec. of State) and no officers are listed. If you don't put up something verifiable I'm afraid it will have to be deleted.Academic38 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can pay $6.00 to have a certificate of good standing sent to you with the information on it. You can also use that page to search 'Oxford Round Table.'PigeonPiece (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And when you search for 'Oxford Round Table' and then click on 'Oxford Round Table, Inc. NFP', the result is a page that gives empty fields for President and Secretary (and no field at all for Treasurer). Very straightforward. This information is not in the source provided; it is therefore unsourced. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why the Oxford Round Table does not have that info up there, but you can purchase a certificate of good standing and the information will be present on there. PigeonPiece (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do these interesting sources keep coming from?

The new reference for the addition today by PigeonPiece, here, raises yet again the question of PigeonPiece's association with the Oxford Round Table. The reference is to the introduction of Vol15/#4 of the Journal of Education Finance: www.journalofeducationfinance.com/toc/tocintrovol15no4.html (web link). Now, with a reference of that form, one might expect to find that similar references would work for introductions to other issues of that journal. But: at this moment, www.journalofeducationfinance.com/toc/tocintrovol15no3.html (web link) doesn't work, nor does www.journalofeducationfinance.com/toc/tocintrovol15no2.html (web link) or www.journalofeducationfinance.com/toc/tocintrovol16no4.html (web link).

The question is, how does User:PigeonPiece know about this web page? The Journal of Education Finance is edited by Kern Alexander, the founder of the Oxford Round Table. I think that someone who works for that journal has created a web version of the intro to 15:4 for the express purpose of acting as a source for this Wikipedia page and has fed that information to PigeonPiece. The reference for the source works fine for the information PigeonPiece has added - but this nonsense of PigeonPiece pretending not to be associated with ORT should really come to an end here. Notice now posted at Conflict of interest noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One more point: this web page (added as a source today by PigeonPiece) is so new that it hasn't even been picked up by Google yet. Do a search on any significant text string in Google - you won't find the new web page in the results (in fact, you won't get any results at all). (Soon, of course, it will be picked up by Google - but as of today it isn't.) Question: how does PigeonPiece know about this web site? Answer: not by virtue of having performed a normal internet search. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if google picked it up. The sources are cited and that is all that matters. I will be adding that source again.PigeonPiece (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources

The article contains a number of references that fall afoul of the restriction on use of self-published sources (see WP:SELFPUB). To address this (and in hopes of removing the "self-published sources" tag), we should consider which ones should be deleted. The note on Lammert is a straightforward violation of #4 (claims about third parties), so I have removed it. For the article in its current form, then, the following references fall in the self-published category: 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20. Also 13, the Montana press release, is self published by derivation, because it draws solely on information fed to the Montana press office by ORT itself.

Any thoughts on which (if any) of these should go? (Such thoughts to be based, naturally, on the relevant policy.) Two considerations might apply. First, the policy says the material used (from self-published sources) must be relevant to their notability. Second, the template (in the article) says self-published sources can be used only as primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As a start, the sentence referring to Michael Beloff, using notes 12 and 13, should go. That is equally a violation of #4; moreover, there is no point is highlighting one academic out of the thousands who have attended. Beloff is mentioned in the next section, anyway, where he would need to be wikified if we follow my suggestion here.

Second, note 3 can be replaced with note 4, though the quotation has to come out since it's from the website. Also, we should get rid of the pretentious wording of the sentence. Perhaps something like this would work. "The Oxford Round Table is not affiliated with the University of Oxford, and Oxford University has stated" etc., ending with what is now note 4.

5, 9, and 10 are okay. I'm not sure about 6. I think the quote and note 11 should be deleted per violating #2 (contentious) and #3 (self-serving), as there is substantial doubt whether what the quote says is in fact true (see the Reader Comment below the Newman article, for example).

18a-d can be safely deleted, as 15a-d independently verify the claim, so there is no need for a self-published source.

19 and 20 seem okay to me.

This would substantially reduce the self-published content (leaving only 5, 9, 10, 19, 20, and maybe 6) and ought to be sufficient to have the template lifted. Academic38 (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Made some changes. I left 18a-d; those establish that the papers were indeed presented at ORT, something not apparent from 15. I also left 6; I'm not sure we want to treat that one as a self-published reference. It is an academic journal, after all; the fact that PigeonPiece came up with a web site containing that introduction helps demonstrate conflict of interest, but it doesn't make the source itself any less reliable - it did previously exist as a printed issue of the journal. In the current version, then, we're left with 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 16 - and those seem okay to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

unless you really object, I'd like to remove the articles also--we do not includes under conferences a list of all the articles published that derive from there, for major conferences--not these-- that would come to several thousand tems for each annual session--it's inappropriate weight here . We do indicate books that are entirely based on the conference proceedings, but thats another matter. Are there any here? I don't seem to see them. DGG (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't object at all - I was in favor of this quite some time ago, but User:Obscuredata (now banned for sockpuppets) objected and I didn't think it was important enough to fight over (anyway I think it was Obscuredata, can't remember exactly). But I agree that there is no particular reason for them to be there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to the reference to articles in Cambridge Journal of International Affairs and Journal of Education Finance? I have no objection to removing them, either. Academic38 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think we went a little too far: if books based entirely on the conference proceedings are appropriate for inclusion, then I think the McGill book can reasonably be included (though of course there is no reason to list individual chapters). I've restored it - but I also don't really mind one way or the other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, I think you are right--done the way you did it, without the authors of the individual chapters. DGG (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

COI template (NPOV)

The main obvious issue on this article at the moment is the COI template. The core issue for that template is NPOV. With recent changes, it seems to me that there aren't really any problems with NPOV now. Do others agree? Would it be appropriate to remove that template? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The creator of the article is long gone, and our collective efforts since February have fixed the NPOV problems.Academic38 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Information Update

Okay, the point of Wikipedia is to keep the page updated as more information becomes available. It seems that there is a COI with some of the posters because they are removing cited information. Please allow others to update this page with cited information. Also, Nomoskedasticity and Academic38, if I remember correctly you are only suppose to utilize the talk page because of our COI involvement with the Chronicle blog.. Please correct me if I am wrong. PigeonPiece (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1. You continue to try to ignore the responses to your own RfC on external links above. 2. As per WP:SPS, you may not cite other Wikipedia articles as sources (as you are trying to do for these two participants you want to mention); anyway, those articles do not establish that these people attended the ORT. 3. Per the discussion above, listing individual participants and publications violates WP:WEIGHT. 4. In relation to all of these issues, if you want to make changes to the article, get consensus here first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Wikipedia links. You keep mentioning my log-in so I didn't think it would be a problem to say what have been decided previously; that the aforementioned should not be editing the page because they are not suppose to due to their conflict of interest. Also under your WP:WEIGHT argument, the Chronicles violates the clause that 'Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.' I am adding cited facts from web sources other than the Round Table website. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The only conflict of interest story relevant to this article is here. In any event, I'm done responding to this repetitive illiterate nonsense. If other editors have any concerns about my approach to editing this one I will be happy to respond. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored Nomoskedasticity's version, which is what i take to represent consensus on the basis of the RfC. I warn PigeonPiece that repeated reversions changing the consensus content is disruption, regardless of how they are spaced. This dispute has continued too long, and he edit war here must stop. DGG (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing Vivian Williams' Association

Why does someone keep removing Vivian Williams' association with Oxford? It is fact. Please do not remove this again. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right that the affiliations should be indicated, and I think I found a concise way to do it without repetition. DGG (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel an accurate reflection of the parties involved is an edit war. It seems that individuals here wish to play down the legitimacy of the round table by acting as if no University of Oxford individuals are involved. It is also strange that individuals such as Norbert Lammert (Presidenf of the German Parliament), Michael Beloff (President of Trinity College, University of Oxford [1995-2005]) and Stephen Heyneman (World Bank) keep being removed, although they attended and contributed to Round Table publications and conferences. Certain people seem to feel that this is a gossip page as opposed to informative setting. Again, I will be removing the 'Chronicles' link. However, the revised revision that accurately showcases Dr. Williams' affiliation in the 'Conference' section is reasonable for now. PigeonPiece (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you will not be permitted to remove the Chronicles link. You put up an WP:RfC, and you lost. Academic38 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, only people with interest in the Chronicles page responded. It violates Wiki rules and I will continue to remove that blog. PigeonPiece (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More vandalism/whitewashing from Urbana

It probably won't come as a shock to the regulars here, but the IP address 98.222.133.47 is located in Champaign/Urbana, Illinois, home of PigeonPiece. To be exact, it is Comcast Illinois. Thanks to Superflewis for catching several of the vandalisms, which consisted of removing the criticism section, then removing the mention of the Kentucky for-profit Oxford Round Table, Inc. Academic38 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Publications

The source in publications refers to a link to a book I purchased where all the names were mentioned. Please to not remove them. -Astutescholar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astutescholar (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The source you gave in the article text leads to a requirement to purchase a report on the Oxford Round Table Limited. Thus there is no easy way to verify that this company is even related to the Oxford Round Table in the United States. Your credibility is not enhanced when your very first edits are to remove "critical" statements and put in a bunch of Listcruft fluff. Nor does your transparent use of a sockpuppet do much for your credibility, either. Academic38 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confusing the U.S.-based ORT with the Oxford-based Oxford Round Table described here (http://www.whatsonwhen.com/sisp/index.htm?fx=event&event_id=19686), which is clearly a different organization. Academic38 (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The link provided by User:Academic38 above is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the Oxford round table. I believe this user is making things up and is also the same person as Nomoskedasticity. It makes no sense to take out academic sources I am researching on this subject. Astutescholar (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How am I "making things up"? The other Oxford Round Table clearly exists. My point was precisely that the other Oxford Round Table has nothing to do with the subject of this article, but what you have given us so far did not exclude the possibility that it was the other one you were talking about. I am not saying the ORT has not established yet another corporate entity in the UK, just that you need to give us a verifiable source that this is so. Once you do so, we can certainly add its creation to the company history section and list it in the introduction. But a source only you can see isn't verified, at least not yet. As for your other changes, why don't you look at Wikipedia's policies, such as Listcruft, so you will understand why those additions are inappropriate? FYI, I am most definitely not Nomoskedasticity, but you pretty clearly look to be Educationatlarge. Academic38 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the assement of Educationatlarge (talk · contribs) who edited evading a block of Astutescholar (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Removing McGill Reference

Academic38 and N...(whatever) continue to remove 3rd party sources and then use that as a reason to blast those adding materials. When the lock is lifted, I will update this. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk PigeonPiece(talk) 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The page is only semi-protected so any autoconfirmed users can still edit the page. You appear to have met that threshhold. Toddst1 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, could you explain what you are talking about? The McGill/QUP book is listed right there in the "Publications" section. The "companies house" reference is a separate issue. Does a search there lead to something that doesn't require one to pay to see it? So far I haven't found it. But as I said above, once we get something verified about this apparent Oxford Round Table corporate entity, by all means it should be included. BTW, given that you popped up again all of one hour and two minutes after Astutescholar's last post, after almost a month's absence, I have a suspicion that you and Astutescholar are the same person. Academic38 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what PigeonPiece is saying. PigeonPiece added a link directly to the McGill Queens website to prove authenticity and it was removed by someone. I have been reading this page for a bit and the main complaint seems to be lack of third party sources. I believe that Pigeon Piece is simply trying to provide the third party sources that others have argued so hard for. And then someone removes the 3rd party sources.Lonestar1234 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The link was a third-party source, so I don't see how that's the objection. My recollection is that he kept trying to list a large number of chapters from that one book, what we usually call Listcruft. Academic38 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

elements of UK

http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/index.php/view/Content-Main/page/certificate_of_incorporation.html

This incorporation certificate states that it is relevant for England and Wales. Scotland is a part of the UK, but this is not incorporated in Scotland, so proposing minor edit here to change "United Kingdom" to "England and Wales" in the first paragraph. Sidewaystory (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Academic38 (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Conferences

Unlike the rest of this section, the final paragraph,

Oxford Colleges lease their facilities during spring break (March and April) and during summer (July, August and September) for academic conferences and other activities. These activities are coordinated by Conference Oxford, an arm of the University of Oxford.

is completely unrelated to the subject of the article. It should be deleted, per Wikipedia:TOPIC. Alarich2 (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't quite see what the problem is in regard to relevance. ORT rents space from the colleges via Conference Oxford, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that this para, as written, is not about the ORT's Conferences (the section topic) or about the ORT (the article topic). Rather, it explains something about Oxford, namely Conference Oxford, and in the current context this is a digression and a distraction. We copyeditors see and have to fix this sort of thing all the time---indeed the WP guideline I cited reflects generally accepted editing practices.

I might have been unclear in one respect. When I said it should be deleted, I meant that it should be deleted here, in order to improve the readability of the block consisting of this section and its predecessor and successor. It needn't necessarily be deleted altogether. If it has a proper place, it would be in the opening, at the point where the distinction between Oxford University and the Oxford Round Table is made, because that's what it relates to. But frankly, I think this item could be deleted altogether without loss, exactly because this point has already been made in the opening. Alarich2 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where ORT is "based"

Welcome to User:Alarich2 -- always lovely to have a new editor on the page. An edit to the lead now has the article claiming that ORT is based in the UK as well as in Kentucky, Illinois and California. I'm guessing that we're going to have to have a discussion about what the word "based" means. The people who organize the ORT are in California (Shenette Campbell) and in Illinois (Karen Price). There is no one in the UK who works for the ORT. It is of course possible to send mail to ORT at Harris Manchester College and they will forward it to ORT people in the US -- but this is hardly where the organization is based when the only people who work for the organization are located in the US. Thoughts, anyone? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please leave me out of that discussion if it happens. I made this edit on the basis of the ORT's contact information, which lists administrative offices in the US and the UK, the former in Long Beach, CA (as already noted) and the latter at Harris Manchester (which was not noted, which I sought to correct).

I now gather that debates aimed at deconstructing what the criteria for being "based in" a location should be based upon have taken place here before. I view these as unproductive. Alarich2 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No one can be compelled to participate in a discussion here, and if you find it unproductive then certainly it need not burden you. Now, it might then be difficult to gain consensus for the inclusion of the "based at HMC" claim. In any event, the existence of a contact address at HMC is insufficient to justify use of the word "based"; there is no one employed by ORT at that address (unlike the address in California). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My letter of invitation said I should submit my conference fees to the office in Long Beach, California. I think that tells us where the organization is really based. Academic38 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Academic38, read my edit before you attempt to respond to it. That's exactly why it mentions California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alarich2 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Types of conference sessions and speakers

I added a short subsection to the conferences section to help flesh out what sort of topics these conferences cover. There were no specific examples in the article, so I added a few names and conference session topics. Names were selected on the basis of wikipedia inclusion, i.e. if I could find a wiki article that covered the person in question, I added the name. If not, the speaker was left out. This criteria is in keeping with the wikipedia guidelines, to my best knowledge of them. Sidewaystory (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

reverted -- please see WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:SELFPUB. I do appreciate the fact that you're interested in working within policies/guidelines, so please do consult these. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's not true that there are no examples in the article -- that section does contain treatment of the 1993 conference. Significantly, it does so using reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem unusual in wikipedia articles about academic conferences to list dates, topics, and participants, since they are all relevant to people curious about a particular conference. I read through the LISTCRUFT description, and I don't see how this example qualifies, but it is a subjective category. In SELFPUB, it says that a self-published source (like the Oxford Round Table website) can be used as a source in an article about itself if it doesn't violate the following:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed; (material is relevant)

2. it is not contentious; (names of attendees is fact only)

3. it is not unduly self-serving; (list is minimal and does not contain commentary about the attendees or the conference)

4. it does not involve claims about third parties; (no claims are made other than fact of attendance)

5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (attendees and topics are directly related)

6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; (webpage authored by Oxford Round Table employees)

7. the article is not based primarily on such sources. (this is a bit subjective, but the article contains a variety of sources and doesn't seem overly dependent on this source)

A reasonable party looking for information on a conference would probably want to know some of the following:

• type and general history of conference and conference organization
• objective of the conference
• upcoming sessions (dates, topics, keynote speakers)
• past sessions (dates, topics, keynote speakers)

After looking through many other academic conference pages on Wikipedia, this whole article is not much in keeping with the tone of the rest. It has odd specific details and a much more personal tone than most, and jumps around in time in a confusing way. These are a few examples that I think could be useful in reshaping this article into something up to Wikipedia standards:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Congress_of_Actuaries
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macy_conferences

Sidewaystory (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you reach your conclusion regarding WP:SELFPUB: condition 4 (does not involve claims about third parties) seems incompatible with using an ORT reference to establish attendance of third parties. More generally, this article used to contain a large number of references to the ORT website, and my guess is that other editors on this page (myself included) are not going to want to see that number increase again.

As for those other articles, I don't find them terribly informative, precisely because they are primarily "listcruft". Rather than conclude that they are models to follow, we might conclude instead that they simply aren't very good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case, do you object to the addition of names of attendees, or to the source of the names, or both? Do you additionally take issue with addition of information about recent conference topics? Surely conference topics are relevant information for an article on a conference, do you disagree? There are other sources available about the attendees, for example: I entered the search string "Mads Andenas, round table" into Google, and the 6th result is a news page from Harris Manchester College: http://www.hmc.ox.ac.uk/latestnews.html. This site appears to be the home page for the college itself (main page http://www.hmc.ox.ac.uk/) and references the fact that this person will be in attendance, as well as the subject of the conference. Could you please clarify your particular objections, as I don't agree that this information is irrelevant or out of place in an article about an academic conference, and believe we should find a way to improve the quality of this article. Quite simply, it is a confusing and jumbled mess of information that seems to be the result of a bizarre and protracted edit war, according to the history. In addition, much of what has survived doesn't seem particularly applicable to the topic at hand, but a more likely fit for a biographical page (although I don't know that it would pass the 'notability' requirement for biographies of living persons). Sidewaystory (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

COI Concern

Sidewaystory, it's nice that the ORT has sent someone here who is actually intelligent, but would it be too much for you to clarify your connection to the ORT? A random newbie editor would not care whether the Forum on Public Policy were indexed by Ebsco, let alone know that it's indexing was "coming soon." Nor would anyone but an insider think to Google Mads Andenas and "round table." You seem like a smart, reasonable person, but it would certainly save all of us a lot of trouble if you broke with the practice of your predecessors and admitted your COI. It will then be a pleasure working with you. Academic38 (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen from the history of this article that the discussion and attacks can become quite personal, and I would not like to get embroiled in that aspect of wikipedia disputes. My concern here is that this article does not conform to wikipedia standards. The spirit of the article is not neutral, based on a 'reasonable person' interpretation, which we must appeal to as a unifying guideline to the application of editing rules and regulations. We are not editing to achieve some Platonic ideal form of an article, we can only attempt to reach a fair approximation of the truth. In some cases, such as this, the a fair view is difficult to agree upon. Sidewaystory (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising a conflict of interest concern is in no way a personal attack. Not replying to the question is hardly going to make that concern go away. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

comment

1. The solvay article in particular should not be used as a precedent. It was very specifically an exception, and argued as such at AfD on the basis of the exceptional historic importance of this particular individual meeting, unique in the history of physics. I can think of a very few individual meetings known to me that might also justify articles, but I think that extrapolating to the ones I do not know, it would be less than a dozen--world-wide, ever, on anything.
2. Series of meetings are more likely to be notable. te ORT Forums are probably not among them, as they do not have wide discussion about them, or play a seminal role in the progress of the discipline. The default for most such series will be to integrate them with the organization.
3. We do not publish tables of contents. If any can be found, they should be removed as unencyclopedic content unless a very good case can be made. It is normal, however, in discussing a series of conferences, to mention the most important of the papers or speeches. A mere list of the people who were present or who gave talks is however, not usually encyclopedic.
4. On a slightly different point, we almost never list officers of a society except the president, or sometimes the person who fills the ceremonial position & the actual executive--just as for companies we list the CEO and the Chairman only. The usual exceptions, but they must be justified. DGG (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Does #4 amount to a suggestion to pare down the penultimate paragraph in "Company history and officers"? Seems okay to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with paring down that paragraph. Perhaps the coordinator should be listed, since by all available evidence she is the one running the day-to-day operation.Academic38 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG, can you recommend an article or two related to academic conferences that would make an appropriate precedent to follow? Sidewaystory (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While I would welcome this as well, I suspect it might be difficult. Most regular academic conferences are sponsored and organized by disciplinary associations, not by private companies. Finding a "precedent" relevant to ORT might indeed be challenging. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"edited volume" vs. "contributed volume"

Alarich2, I'll see your Georgetown UP cite and raise you an Oxford UP cite. :-) From OUP's guide for authors, "For books written by a team or edited volumes, this should include the name and affiliation of the suggested author(s) for each chapter, and a note of whether they have agreed to contribute." (my emphasis) http://www.oup.co.uk/authors/academic/

So it appears that your contention that "contributed volume" is the standard academic publishing term may not be correct. I can live with your version, but it literally grates on my ears. I'm curious if anyone else has thoughts one way or another. Cheers. Academic38 (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors of this Page Biased

I will be posting to this page to document that individuals are defaming the Oxford Round Table and Wikipedia administrators and editors are doing nothing about it. The content of this page does not highlight the purpose of the Oxford Round Table; it is simply a gossip used by individuals that defamed ORT and were sued because of slander.

I hope that Wikipedia does something soon.CivilVoice123 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article months ago and have observed the ongoing content disputes as a non-affiliated third party off and on ever since. However, I hadn't actually read through the whole thing in a long time before doing so just now. Amazingly enough for all the tugging back and forth, the article is informative and seemingly balanced at this point. I don't see any basis for claims of defamation.

Just throwing in my 2 cents... Zeng8r (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

CivilVoice123, have you heard of the policy WP:NLT? You and your buddy Sidewaystory keep throwing around the term "defamatory," which is an implied legal threat. Neither of you, nor any of your predecessors from the Oxford Round Table, have ever said what in the article is defamatory. Care to give it a shot? You did say you were going to document it, after all.

Only one person was sued by the Oxford Round Table and, to the best of my knowledge, she does not post here. Moreover, the Oxford Round Table lost its lawsuit against her, as you well know.

Are you perchance a sockpuppet of our friend PigeonPiece? Your diction and your obsession with deleting the external link to the Chronicle of Higher Education thread on the ORT suggest that you may be. Academic38 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)