User talk:Theology002

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Theology002, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Hi Theology002, I see you are moving towards bringing Didier Pollefeyt into line with Wikipedia guidelines by adding references to the article. However these are not independent, third-party sources, but, to break them down:

a link to a website that the subject "is the moving force behind"
a newspaper article that simply mentions the subject's name in a list of new members of the university board (this may meet the relevant guideline on notability of academics, that The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society, but I think this is more typically taken to mean chancellors and vice-chancellors than all the members of a university council)
three links to publications by the subject (this does not count as third-party)
evidence that the subject was scheduled to give a keynote address to the National Catholic Education Convention in Australia

I am writing from a position of ignorance about the subject of the article, and about a page I only consulted because Wikipedia was mentioned in the Belgian press here in a journalistic context that rather archly implies log-rolling without spelling it out. I am more interested in editing the encyclopedia than in studying the arcana of its guidelines and policy documents, but have now been reading the documents on single-purpose accounts, conflict of interest and autobiographies and wondering whether any of these might be relevant here. All I am looking for is reassurance that this is a valid topic for an encyclopedia entry. Something as simple as a discussion of this academic's work by other established academics, or reviews of his books in reputable journals, would satisfy me as independent, third-party sources (I have come across other editors who are far more stringent in their reading of the notability guidelines for academics), but so far the article has no sign of these. The Wikipedia Teahouse will provide any help you may need in avoiding the pitfalls of producing Wikipedia content that fails to meet Wikipedia guidelines, and you can always contact me if there is anything you think I can help with. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the notabiity banner. Before removing it again you must address the issue and preferably also gain consensus on the talk page first. Please read WP:EW. Spinning Spark 00:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. I want to keep this wikipedia-page objective. Since you speak of a conflict of interest; I am a former student of Pollefeyt and have studied several Louvain theologians. Consequently, I have no interest in being subjective at all. Which alterations do you propose: would it be better to change the references to references about Pollefeyt (instead of from Pollefeyt)? Do you propose other alterations? With regards to notability: I have read through the notability guidelines for academics; according to me he meets many of these criteria (impact inside and outside field; vice-chancellor). Thanks for the feedback, as you might already have noticed I am relatively new on Wikipedia. With kind regards Theology002 (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas has already explained quite well and in great detail the shortcomings of the references. For a simpler explanation see WP:42. He may well meet WP:ACADEMIC, but saying he does is not the same as providing references that verify he does. Spinning Spark 13:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, if Pollefeyt were the vice-chancellor this would hardly be an issue. He is, rather, a "vice-rector", which appears to be one of several members of the university board that the vice-chancellor ("rector" in the Belgian scheme of things) presides over. As you say, references about Pollefeyt (instead of from Pollefeyt) would be just the thing: independent, third-party sources. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made some alterations regarding objectivity Theology002 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you are still not addressing the sourcing issue. Which of the article sources do you consider to have significant coverage of Pollefeyt while being independent of Pollefeyt? Spinning Spark 17:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again made some adjustments: added external sources. These all state what the article states as well. The page now contains interviews, articles about pollefeyt, books, a book review, projects/research centres, a list of A1 publications (linked to pollefeyts site, but also available on GoogleScholar, Worldcat, ...). I compared the present version of the wiki-page to pages of some other Belgian professors. This one has extensively more external sources than the average wiki-page. I hope it meets the criteria now. With kind regards Theology002 (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, that seems to have improved it enough to remove the notability template. However, I still think the referencing is deficient. For instance, the article claims that "The research activities of Didier Pollefeyt are situated around 5 areas". There is no source that says these five are his main areas of research. To be sure, you have provided sources showing some activity by him in each of these areas, but that is not the same as a source saying those are his main areas (forgive me if there is such a source: they are not all available online). That is a conclusion reached by synthesis of the sources, something Wikipedia editors are not supposed to do - see WP:SYNTH. For all we know his main area of research could be into the flavour of icecreams and all the other stuff could be merely filling in his spare time. I am sure that is not the case, but the references are not verifying that. Spinning Spark 23:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]