Talk:Oxford Round Table

All of the material taken from the Oxford Round Table webpage is block-quoted and footnoted to attribute that material to the original source.

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

Controversy

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

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

Academic2007 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Well, I put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstones (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

That's OK; I just put it back again.

And quit deleting the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstones (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please think before mischaracterising edits. The controversy section is not reliably sourced and so should not be here. The parts that can be sourced are not representative of the sources. For instance, a grad student was invited yes, but no reliable source has said "that's stupid". The stuff about the legal issues is not really relevant to an article on the corporation; unless the dispute itself can be established reliably.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Tidy up required

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

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

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

The officer list does not make sense. Compare footnote 8 to footnote 1: footnote 8 gives the list of officers of the Kentucky for-profit corporation, not the Illinois not-for-profit. The question of multiple corporate entitites is one of the very things that makes the Oxford Round Table controversial.Academic38 (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

legal threat

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

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

more tidy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noteable attendees

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

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

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

Comments on recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

Revert war

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

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

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

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

I contend that my revisions are supported with the references I (and others) have included, and I invite comment from other editors on how to proceed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, my view is this, in summary:

• In the interests of avoiding further edit warring over article content, I'd recommend that any changes to the main article be discussed here first, and consensus for change established, before the main article is altered.
• Cool heads prevail.
• Sources used for supporting claims or content in the article should be in line with the general notability guidelines. This means that sources should be reliable and, to answer the issue being discussed above about material being taken from the ORT website, independent of the subject. This guideline "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc."
• Of course, this is a guideline and it's sensible to use the ORT website and affiliated resources where appropriate. I think copying content, verbatim, is not appropriate. I also think that a sentence on the purpose of the organisation, which reads "According to their website, the ORT blahblahblah", doesn't infringe WP:NOTE and would therefore be acceptable. Coldmachine^Talk 10:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict of interest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

Thank you for locking the page. The intent of this page was to allow all parties interested in this topic to come to a civil solution to the debate over the ORT. Unfortunately, the debate seems to have devolved into wikivandalism and an effort to actually, at times, disrupt the posting of credible and referenced work relevant to the topic. My hope is that, after the lock-down, a balanced and positive product will result. --DrStones --Academic38 (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating With Permission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems With Edit

Hello again.. I am going to list my issues with other editors on this page and hopefully we can go from there. I really have only one issue: Deletions of factual information!!!! Please let me know why you are against factual information regarding the ORT; also, post your concerns here to start a sensible dialogue. Obscuredata (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Also, the list of those that have contributed to the ORT is not trivial or without warrant to post. It is an intergral part of the ORT. At first I was updating this page because of the lack of neutrality, but now I am continuing to update it because you all seemed VERY biased. I have restored the information about those contributing to ORT. I am not going to ask your permission to update the page because you idea of a consensus is Acdemic 2007, Academic38 and that other person asking me to take stuff down and when I don't within two hours, you all remove it. I was reading some of the other strands and someone removed the controversy section; Academicwhatever's response was to state that it was wrong to take it down and you simply replaced it; that is what I will be doing if cited information continues to be removed. Please read the WP:verifiability section again because all of the data you removed of mine was verifiable. Thanks. Also the list follows the WP:notability rule because all of these individuals have 'substantial coverage in reliable sources', which satisfies that rule. I have cited sources from places other than ORT website for these individuals, that connect them with ORT. Also, please remove the 'Controversy' section. Not outlining the expressed purpose of ORT, yet not removing the controversy section seems to be a WP:COI; don't you think? ;) Obscuredata (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Some additional tidyup

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

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

New Additions

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

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

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

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

"Listcruft"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move Up Controversy Section

I think the Intellectual Controversy section should be moved up, to come right after the Conference section. OrionClemens (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; the article is about the ORT, not about the controversy surrounding its operations, and so the main body content should reflect this: the section on controversy is a useful 'lead out'. Coldmachine^Talk 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Coldmachine on this one; the article should deal with the subject first, controversies later. Of course, by that same rationale, the controversies section should deal with those controversies first, and ORT's response to them later. Pairadox (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Coldmachine and Pairadox. With that rationale, and seeing no objections to the proposal I made on this issue above, I have now created a page on Kern Alexander and moved the paragraph (under company history and officers) to the new page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the initial proposal as well. Do people agree as PairadoxAcademic38 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) does that we should move the ORT's response to the controversy to the bottom, as I argued a day or so ago?Academic38 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to start a war, but I don't think the Oxford RT information should be moved in the controversy section. It flows well and considering the page is about ORT information should begin with ORT and whatever follows is actually the response. The controversy was birthed by a few angry peoples' response to ORT; not the other way around. So the controversy is the response to ORT, therefore would come after. I will be inclined to restore the paragraph's position. Let me just say, we're getting along better, but I am not happy with the removal of the attendees, which will be restored according to the 'rules.' Obscuredata (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't hold up to even a cursory examination. ORT issued their statement in response to the controvery; by your own logic, that response should follow the text about the controversy itself. Leaving that aside, consider what that section is about - the controversy. It should therefore start out by describing the controversy. Even from a chronological perspective the ORT response should follow a description of the the controversy that sparked it. Pairadox (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the controversy started because of someone's disdain for what ORT is; that is a response to ORT. Obscuredata (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please! Many people in the Chronicle thread have been critical of the ORT, including five alone before Sloan Mahone first posted. It is not a one-person thing; there is a genuine controversy. You are edit warring.Academic38 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but according to the Chronicle thread, a character called 'DrStones' effectively created this article in order to disseminate the 'controversy'. I've said this before in relation to this page, but the content of that Chronicle thread and the way it gave rise to this article suggests that the intention of the creator of this page was to attack ORT, not to give a balanced, encyclopedic account of the institution. If anything, the controversy section should be expunged from the article, since the controversy itself is the product of speculative innuendo from a cabal of posters on the CHE bulletin board who evidently object so strongly to ORT that they won't openly accuse it under their own names of all the innuendoes they're happy to throw at it under their online monikers. The controversy section looks to my - admittedly wiki-untutored mind - like an abuse of the intent of an encyclopedia article. Colingy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coligny (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia allows other editors to move a page beyond the intentions of the person who created it. I have to say, I didn't think all that much of Wikipedia before doing some work on this page, but I've been very impressed with the way this process works. Even if I wanted this page to be unbalanced (and I don't), it's clear to me it wouldn't work. No one gets the final word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

CHE and problems here

A discussion forum on CHE is not a reliable source and should in no way be treated as one. Given that fact, for the purposes of writing this article consider that the entire discussion on CHE does not even exist. If you can establish that the controversy exists in reliable sources (not just people on CHE). I note that this page has a number of WP:Single-purpose accounts who care only about this articles. "Outside" editors such as myself and Tony Sidaway can see no way this material can be included under policy.

This edit gives the problematic portion of this article. I will now list some of the problems that none of the discussion above has addressed.

• What is the dispute? As far as I can tell it consists of people complaining about ORT on the CHE forums, there has been no actual mention of any dispute in the media for example.
• The "5 issues". These are not criticisms of ORT from reliable sources, but the opinions of its critics on CRT.
• The issues themselves are not actually criticism of ORT. They invited a graduate student. They don't put disclaimers in their letters. These are facts, not criticism of ORT. The criticism is a synthesis of the original research that has been carried out.
• The legal situation is verifiable yes. However, it can only be included if the dispute can be established reliably.

No solution that includes the criticism can be included unless the locus of the dispute can be demonstrated reliably. The legal situation between ORT and the contributors to CHE should be borne in mind.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm also an outside editor involved and have been trying to draw the article into some semblance of neutrality for some time. However, there's a few issues with the points you make above:

• WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy.
• You have made two direct reverts, and several others removing content, in a 24 hour period. I understand you're an admin, but as an editor involved in this now you are also bound by WP:3RR like the rest of us.
• The WP:SPA editors working on this article are involved on both 'sides' on the issue. There are those critical of the ORT, and those who have direct affiliations with it. You'll see a number of comments on this from me on here and WP/ANI, however it should be noted that those individuals working on this article with criticisms of the ORT have been discussing changes, working with other editors, and adhering to consensus where it has been established. Editors affiliated with the ORT have not. So, a 'guns blazing' sweeping comment about everyone is particularly unhelpful in an already tense and heated edit dispute.
• Of course the legal action taken by the ORT, and by others, can be mentioned in the article outside of the context of criticism: its a verifiable fact. The idea it requires context to be included is nonsense; I've never seen any precedent for that elsewhere on Wikipedia: if there are examples, then let me know and I can go check up on that, but as far as I understand it, if it's verifiable and fits other content policies then it can be included. And the legal issues relating to the ORT do just that.
• I actually agree with the idea of trimming down the section on intellectual controversy. Personally I think the article would look just fine with a small section indicating that there have been criticisms levelled (ref to the CHE), and that legal action has been taken. I agree that listing "5 points of contention" is unnecessary.

Anyway, in the meantime it would be really helpful if everyone tried to keep cool; coming in guns blazing into the middle of a content dispute which is under way, and making reverts, is unhelpful, as is misdirecting editors on WP:RS. Coldmachine^Talk 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As another "outside editor" who's been watching this, I have to agree that deleting an entire section is NOT the way to improve this article. Conflicts of interest are rampant here; short of barring all involved editors from the article, only incremental changes are going to work. Using the forum as a source is problematic, and will be addressed, but the concerns that have been expressed there are also noted a reliable source[1] (which Nilfanion apparently missed). Pairadox (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - here we go - a sustained discussion of the controversy section was inevitable. FWIW, I also agree that certain WP policies and guidelines mean that some parts of the controvery section are unlikely to survive. In large part this has to do with WP:RS and related items. So: posts on the CHE forum are difficult to sell as reliable sources for WP articles - in part because they are made anonymously on a discussion forum, right? Well, what then do we do about the fact that the one person who posted a critique on CHE whose RL identity became known has gotten herself sued as a result? It is blindingly obvious from that thread that a significant number of academics would be very happy to make their views about ORT known in public (e.g. be quoted in newspaper articles) but are unwilling to risk a defamation lawsuit.

So, a dogmatic insistence on "reliable sources" simply results in turning over the podium to the people with money to spend on lawyers. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good reason why WP:RS is a guideline, to be used with common sense. Others will surely disagree, but it's hardly a point to be rejected out of hand. Yes, CHE posts are made anonymously. But if anything the discussions that have taken place on the CHE ORT thread are one of the best examples of peer review I have ever seen - certainly better than some of the journal manuscript vetting instances I have witnessed.

I'd like to emphasize that point: there is a firm consensus among the anonymous posters to CHE that the invitation letters, lacking a disclaimer, mislead a great number of people into believing that they have been invited by Oxford University. When it is possible to provide a reference to a copy of the actual letter and a great number of references to university press releases announcing that Dr Schmoe has presented a paper at the "Oxford University Round Table", does it really make sense to say that the point being made cannot be verified? Again, the word dogmatic comes to mind. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This last paragraph is precisely the problem with synthesis from original research that needs to go. We are not supposed to lead our readers in that manner.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that "we" are not supposed to do this (i.e., as editors here). But the question is, why is it a problem to use CHE as a source establishing that some academics have indeed done so? The synthesis exists elsewhere. Is the CHE a reliable source for establishing the existence of that critique? The point of my paragraphs above is that it is, as long as we use common sense in interpreting the policies/guidelines here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd note WP:RS has its foundations as a corollary of verifiabilty. The complete removal of the section in the longer term is not the best idea, but what currently exists is not good at all. A ground-up rewrite may make more sense than to try and salvage the current form. The point about the legal action not being able to stand up by itself: Businesses engage in civil lawsuits regularly, do we have anything really to say about it other than it exists? Also, using CHE in any way in the text is a bad idea: the TES article may be enough to establish the existence of a dispute, though we will have to be careful as it quotes the CHE discussions extensively, to determine what parts are from the forums.

I know my initial approach was wrong. I can only apologise for taking the wrong approach, but its done. Also bear in mind that this article itself is part of the legal situation between ORT and its critics. As some of the single purpose accounts here obviously are connected to ORT and the people on CHE forums, that section should be handled very carefully.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One of the problems I see is that the sources being used do not directly support the claims being made. An example of this is found in the line, "The large number of invitations issued which are documented as having been sent to first-year graduate students," with the source Craig, Austin (July 5 2005). "Press Release - NMSU doctoral candidate to present at Oxford Round Table". New Mexico State University. Retrieved 2008-02-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). All that reference shows is ONE doctoral candidate being invited, not enough to prove the claim. Do you see the problem? A single example is being elevated to stand in for a "large number of invitations." What is a large number? What is the percentage of invitations? We simply can't know from the available sources.

As for the "people have to remain anonymous or risk litigation" argument, well, quite frankly, that's not Wikipedia's problem nor should a solution be attempted using Wikipedia. Discussion forums are not reliable sources simply because there is no way of confirming that any given discussion thread actually is representative of a larger trend or presents factual information. In essence, Chronicle Forums are no different than forums on comic books. Pairadox (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pairadox, I agree with the point in your first paragraph here, and I have no objection to that item in the list being removed. As I said above, I agree that the section is unlikely to remain as it currently is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning “Talk” and the substitution of “Criticism and Litigation” for “Intellectual Controversy, in my view both are irrelevant to Wikipedia’s purpose of providing reliable information as an online encyclopedia. Ralph Waller, Principal of Harris Manchester College, Oxford, is misquoted by the Times and he has so indicated. Moreover, the Times in citing the Chronicle poster creates a circular citation system that emanated from the Chronicle posters, now the Wiki posters. Too, the Times cites only someone at “The University”, not the Legal Office nor the Vice chancellor or anyone by name. This is not credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billingsworth (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems with the "Intellectual controversy" section

The intellectual controversy section of this article at present [2] reads at follows:

The Oxford Round Table has been subject to debate on the forums of the Chronicle of Higher Education.(ref1) Criticisms on the forum centre on five areas:

1. The large number of invitations issued which are documented as having been sent to first-year graduate students,(ref2) and to at least one convicted felon, (ref3) casting doubt on the selectivity of the conference;
2. The lack of a disclaimer in the invitation letter to prospective participants which would make it clear that they have been invited by a private corporation in the USA, not by Oxford University; (ref4) some participants have later claimed that they have attended an event at Oxford University, (ref5) (ref6) and, in numerous cases, the "Oxford University Round Table". (ref7) (ref8) (ref9) (ref10)
3. The high cost of the conference ($2940 in 2008 for a five-day conference, room and board, and tours). (ref11)
4. Despite its public portrayal of itself as a "not-for-profit corporation," ORT is a mixture of non-profit and for-profit corporations whose relations are unclear. (ref12)
5. Questions about the selectivity or prestige of the "Forum on Public Policy," emerging from the fact that few libraries carry it and few academic articles cite papers from the journal, as well as the lack of information about paper acceptance rates, citation rates, or inclusion in published journal rankings. (ref13)

Participants have offered accounts of their experience at the Oxford Round Table. (ref14)

According to an Oxford Round Table spokesperson, the controversy surrounding the ORT can be attributed to "a few nameless bloggers", and that within the 20 year span of the Oxford Round Table hundreds have found the event to be a "worthwhile academic experience." (ref15)

In June 2007, the Oxford Round Table, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against Dr. Sloan Mahone, an Oxford University researcher, in response to emails she had sent and posts she had made on the Chronicle of Higher Education forum. (ref16). On November 7, 2007, the US District Court in Kentucky dismissed the case, finding no basis to assert jurisdiction over the Oxford researcher. (ref17) According to the Times Higher Education Supplement, the Oxford Round Table has also recently initiated legal action against Dr. Mahone in England. (ref15)

The sources provided are as follows:

• ref1: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,30869.0.html
• ref2: http://www.nmsu.edu/~ucomm/Releases/2006/july/oxford_presentation.htm
• ref3: http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2005/02/03/news/top_news/c04e3823b74c99e886256f9d00110e7d.txt
• ref4: http://www.wisc-iboricenter.org/images/oxford/oxford_let.html
• ref5: http://www.washburn.edu/faculty/jmcconnell/Oxround.htm
• ref6: http://www.tnstate.edu/interior.asp?mid=3903
• ref7: http://www.mills.edu/news/2006/newsarticle11282006oxford_round_table.php
• ref8: http://www.k-state.edu/media/achievements/07salinaaccomplishments.html
• ref9: http://www.hamptonu.edu/academics/schools/libarts/sociology/lab.htm
• ref10: http://wc.pima.edu/~apitucco/
• ref11: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,30869.240.html, reply 251
• ref12: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,30869.345.html, reply 351
• ref13: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,30869.885.html, reply 885
• ref14: http://www.montessori.org/enews/imcenews_04_06/imcenews_04_06_oxford.html
• ref15: 'Oxford' events firm under fire (THES)
• ref16: Oxford Round Table, Inc. v. Mahone, Civ. No. 3:07CV-330-H Complaint filed (Kentucky Western District Court 25 June 2007) (docket)
• ref17: Oxford Round Table, Inc. v. Mahone, Civ. No. 3:07CV-330-H Dismissal without prejudice ordered (Kentucky Western District Court 7 November 2007) (PDF file)

Now the first thing to say is that criticisms of an institution made by people on a blog or forum are not due so much attention. Here we have an itemized list of criticisms mostly supported by forum posts and by primary sources that are given the interpretation assigned to them by those forum posters, who obviously cannot be characterized in any way as reliable sources.

Secondly, the criticism has been covered by one reliable source, the Times Higher Education Supplement. The Supplement's journalist has summarised the criticism, sought and obtained a response to the criticism from the company that organises these events, and also obtained statements by a spokesman for the university and one from the principal of Harris Manchester college, where the company maintains an office. That is our reliable source. It is that attention to journalistic standards of balance that, in part, makes it much more reliable than a few people sitting at their computers typing words into a forum. I suggest that we rewrite the section to be much briefer and based on that single reliable source, and meanwhile seek out further reliable sources.

Here's my suggested rewrite:

Criticism and litigation

On 21 December 2007, the Times Higher Education Supplement reported that Oxford Round Table had been criticised on the forums of the Chronicle of Higher Education website by people who said it was trading on the name of Oxford University, and failed to properly inform people invited that it had no formal academic links to the university. Other criticisms were that its selection criteria were poor and that it was a "vanity conference".

The University told the newspaper that such external events were "not, as such, authorised or endorsed by the university". The principal of Harris Manchester college said that although the college provided the company with an office, "we don't run the ORT in any sense", and that as far as he was aware, all ORT participants were satisfied. The company defended its selection criteria, reported that its disclaimer, which is on its website, uses "the exact wording that was provided to us by the legal office of the University of Oxford several years ago" and it dismissed the critics as "a few nameless bloggers".

One Oxford University research fellow, Sloane Mahone, had sent an email to a US academic criticising the company's practices. An attempt to sue Ms Mahone, who is based in England, for libel in the Kentucky courts had failed on jurisdiction grounds, and the company was now taking legal action in the UK. (ref1)

* ref1: 'Oxford' events firm under fire (THES)

--Tony Sidaway 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, thank you, this seems a reasonable place to start. I have some questions. How much detail is appropriate for the point about the lack of disclaimer on the invitation letters? The THES article does not make this point, but a copy of a 2006 invitation is available at (http://www.wisc-iboricenter.org/images/oxford/oxford_let.html), and there is clearly no disclaimer. Turning to the disclaimer itself, it describes the ORT as a "not-for-profit" organization (http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/index.php/view/Content-Main/page/disclaimer.html), which is contradicted by its actual corporate history. The final part of this point is that your proposed edit simply conveys that "ORT" sued Mahone, but that is insufficient since there are three corporations (at least) currently active, and Ms. Mahone was sued, not by either not-for-profit, but by the for-profit Kentucky-based Oxford Round Table, Inc.

That leads to the second point which I don't believe should be omitted, the criticism of the mingling of not-for-profit and for-profit corporations. I can understand not wanting to use the Chronicle website, so I will give you a published source, though the point is not made as eloquently there. Here is the Chico News and Review of 8/24/06 (http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=1526780: "However, as Crews writes, "Oxford Round Table, Inc., officials are plain that they 'are in no way affiliated with Oxford University,' even though they conduct their event there." In fact, they're a for-profit outfit out of LeGrange, Ky., that calls itself a think tank and rents facilities at Oxford." Again, this contradicts the disclaimer on the ORT website. How do you think these points should be handled? Academic38 (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper does mention the complaint that the letters themselves lacked the disclaimer, in the following strong sentence:

An invitation from the ORT that was sent to academics in December 2007, which did not contain the disclaimer, includes pictures of Oxford University buildings and is signed by Andy Boyle, "Research Fellow, St John's College, University of Oxford".

We can say, perhaps,"THES reported that letters sent to academics in December did not carry the disclaimer, and were signed by "Andy Boyle, Research Fellow, St John's College, University of Oxford". --Tony Sidaway 05:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Chico News & Review, I don't think the alternative press counts as a reliable source, although I could be convinced if, say, the writer on this story has won awards for journalism. --Tony Sidaway 06:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposed rewrite and above comments. Coldmachine^Talk 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, your propsed additional sentence is a good one. I still think we are sinning by omission if we don't say *which* ORT sued Mahone, however. And while the corporate history section documents the continued existence of a for-profit corporation, it is nowhere counterposed to the ORT's claim that it is a "not-for-profit" entity, which simply is not the whole truth, as the lawsuit also shows.Academic38 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source remarking on the significance of the precise body that tried to sue Ms Mahone in Kentucky? --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a copy of the court's dismissal order: http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/3276.pdf. The original filing also make this clear; it is not available on-line through the reference given (Oxford Round Table, Inc. v. Mahone, Civ. No. 3:07CV-330-H (W.D. Ky., complaint filed June 25, 2007)) without a subscription to the PACER database, but it is a matter of public record and the file could be inspected at the offices of the court.

On the use of an "alternate" newspaper as a reliable source: could someone please direct me to a WP policy/guideline/essay where that issue is discussed? In response to the suggestion to consider whether the author of the story (Robert Speer) has won any journalism awards, here is what I have found so far: he was formerly the editor of the Boise Weekly, and according to an article in that paper, "we won a pile of Idaho Press Club awards" while he was editor (http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A41337).

As for the proposed revision, I can live with it. I will be carrying on in the search for additional reliable sources. I will also have more to say about how to assess CHE posts in relation to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines on verifiability, but I don't expect to convince others in the very short term and I don't want to stand in the way of a reasonable revision. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On the dismissal order, that's fine and we know which of the three entities was involved. However what we would need is a reliable source stating the significance (or otherwise) of this fact. On that I'm still not convinced that the Chico newspaper counts--the guy is a journalist and not a corporate lawyer. We should of course reveal the corporate structure in an appropriate place in the article. And having done that it's okay to clarify in our wording that the Oxford Round Table Inc. was the plaintiff in that suit. However what we can't really say (in absence of a reliable judgment on such matters) is whether this was, for instance, because it was the only one of the three companies that had standing to sue, a quite innocent reason, or whether there was some other innocent reason, or whether these was something nefarious about it. --Tony Sidaway 12:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not all that bothered either way about specifying which incorporation of ORT sued Mahone (though I do midly prefer that it be specified). The more important issue for me is the one raised by Academic38 above: the unclear relations between these different corporations, especially in light of the web-site repeatedly proclaiming that it is a non-profit. Do we really need a corporate lawyer to tell us that something is amiss here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people may be willing to assume that something's amiss, but others will be willing to grant that there could be an innocent explanation (it isn't that unusual for reputable corporations to have non-profit and profit arms; the BBC is one that springs to mind). For our Neutral point of view policy, we seek to represent all significant opinions that have been expressed. So far no adequately reliable source, in my opinion, has yet given reason to believe that there's something funny going on. --Tony Sidaway 13:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I can also live with this revision, especially with the extra sentence incorporating the THES point that the letter contains no disclosure and clarifying that Oxford Round Table, Inc., was the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Thanks again.Academic38 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Responses to my suggested rewrite, and the addendum about the absence of disclaimers in letters sent in December, seem to be positive. Unless there are objections or further suggestions between now and 6th February, I proposed to replace the "Intellectual controversy" section as suggested. --Tony Sidaway

I would not be opposed to the changes. Obscuredata (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the changes. Concerning “Talk” and the substitution of “Criticism and Litigation” for “Intellectual Controversy, in my view both are irrelevant to Wikipedia’s purpose of providing reliable information as an online encyclopedia. Ralph Waller, Principal of Harris Manchester College, Oxford, is misquoted by the Times and he has so indicated. Moreover, the Times in citing the Chronicle poster creates a circular citation system that emanated from the Chronicle posters, now the Wiki posters. Too, the Times cites only someone at “The University”, not the Legal Office nor the Vice chancellor or anyone by name. This is not credible.

The last paragraph concerning Sloan Mahone implies that Sloan Mahone has prevailed. In fact, a letter from her lawyers, Nabarro of Theobalds Road in London (May 30, 2007), distributed to several external sources, quotes Ms. Mahone, to wit: “in respect to certain words used by our client in her email, our client accepts that her choice of words was unfortunate ... our client would be willing to make a suitably worded apology in terms to be agreed between the parties to resolve this matter.” Thus, both the Intellectual Controversy and the proposed substitution, Criticism and Litigation, clearly project an image that the ORT is in the wrong when in actuality it has been falsely denigrated by Ms. Mahone and the Chronicle posters, and now, hopefully not, Wikipedia.

I have attended three Oxford Round Tables and have found it to be intellectually stimulating. I have, too, lately been informed about the Chronicle posters operating through Wikipedia. The proposed “Criticism and Litigation” section should be deleted. It falsely implies that the Times and the Chronicle criticized the ORT. Actually, the Times merely quotes “U.S. academics” on the Chronicle thread who created the “controversy” in the first place. No independent information or authority is cited by the Times other than the anonymous Chronicle posters (now doubling as anonymous Wikipedia editors). Incidentally, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the unnamed Chronicle posters are “academics” at all. They may be truck drivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apprec8coetzee (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny, this is exactly what "Billingsworth" said above. There must be a Wikipedia term for this, but I don't know what it is. And did anyone notice that someone named "CommunityInfo" created or updated several WP articles just before Obscuredata posted his verions showing his group of attendees with many more blue links than it previously had?Academic38 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the term for this: "original research." It's not admissible on Wikipedia.Academic38 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am certain that a bunch of truck drivers went out of their way to hear of the Chronicle on Higher Education, sign up for its website, find a thread called "Oxford Round Table," claim they had received invitations and, in a few cases, even gone. And then went and did all the research on the Oxford Round Table's many corporate incarnations, price-shopped Oxford hotels and accommodations through Conference Oxford, and priced comparable conferences. Would it be too much for me to say I don't believe you? Nor, apparently, does the Times Higher Education Supplement reporter.Academic38 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and why did you change your name from "Aristotle13"?Academic38 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Academic38, I've refactored your interspersed comments to the end of Apprec8coetzee's post. It's usually frowned upon to insert comments into the post of another, as well as making it difficult to tell who wrote what. If you feel you really must interrupt, please follow the guidelines at WP:TALK. Pairadox (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the interruption/insertion guidelines. I will be sure to follow them in the future.Academic38 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The “posters” on the Chronicle of Higher Education thread who have spent untold hours during the past year defaming the Oxford Round Table have now obviously turned to Wikipedia as a vehicle to expand their assault. The Chronicle, of course, does not sanction the content of the thread, most of which is untrue and with malice.

The “posters” latest attempt to discredit the Oxford Round Table shifts to a red herring attack that ORT letters of invitation do not have a “disclaimer” asserting that the ORT is not associated with Oxford University. We request that none of this be permitted on Wikipedia for several reasons.

First. Several years ago the Oxford Round Table, in consultation with the head of the Legal Office of Oxford University, devised a “disclaimer” to be posted on the ORT website. The Legal Office provided the precise wording now used by the ORT on its website.

Second. The Legal Office of Oxford University did not require, nor feel it necessary to place a “disclaimer” on ORT letterhead. Only on the Website.

Third. All ORT letters of invitation refer to the Website and clearly invite all persons to refer to it for information.

Forth. No ORT letter of invitation has ever implied or inferred that the ORT is a part, or attached to, Oxford University. Letters of invitation do, as the Legal Office approved, give the name of the college in the University of Oxford where the meeting is to be held (location).

Fifth. Locations for Oxford Round Tables are decided in cooperation with Conference Oxford, an arm of Oxford University, established 12 years ago to solicit conference business for the 39 Oxford colleges. None of the conferences themselves are a formal part of Oxford University.

Sixth. Finally, the issue of “disclaimer” has nothing to do with the history, nature, or definition of the Oxford Round Table. The argument about the disclaimer is irrelevant and should not be a part of any Wikipedia treatment of the Oxford Round Table. The entire discussion is a phony issue, the true purpose of which is to further the malicious intent of a very few “posters” on the Chronicle thread who have now engulfed Wikipedia in their designs. Tepid1 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"We request"? Who is this "we" that you represent, Tepid1? Nevermind. See the section below. Pairadox (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and performed change I discussed. In my opinion it goes some way towards restoring some balance and due weight, by relying on a published source (THES) and giving due prominence to the company's official responses to criticism. --Tony Sidaway 06:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking much improved now. Coldmachine^Talk 08:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I incorrectly spoke above; I meant it to read I oppose the changes. I do not agree with the changes or the current title. This purge is a blantant attempt by biased Chronicle posters to further denigrate ORT. For example, it completely ignores that Mahone admitted fault as expressed through her lawyers and her proposal to apologize. There are other information sources that cite as such and will be updated in this new 'section.'Obscuredata (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this revised statement of your opinion. I would like to give an accurate picture of the Sloan Mahone affair, but the date of the admission of fault and offer to apologise described above by Apprec8coetzee, May 30, 2007, is nearly a full month prior to the filing date of the court docket in the Kentucky case, June 25, 2007. Although I don't think the bare fact of the lawsuit as described at present in the article is prejudicial to ORT's legitimate interests or represents Dr Mahone as prevailing, I might be persuaded that there are better ways of writing about it from our available sources.

Incidentally I've no dog in this race. I'm not associated with any of the principals in this affair, I have no wish to slant the article in any way, by inclusion or by omission. I operate here in my capacity as a regular Wikipedia editor with no special powers. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete for sure. Wiki has been duped by the contrivances of anonymous posters, Dr. Stones, LarryC, Untenured et al. and UKProf (Sloan Mahone) all of the Chronicle thread that is devoted to closing down the ORT. A review of the Chronicle thread clearly reveals the conspiracy of these bandits, with malice aforethought. End the thing.Billingsworth (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Very Strong Delete: It should be deleted because the entire site was created to cast calumny on the Oxford Round Table. The anonymous posters daily enter, directly and by implication, scurrilous biased information about the ORT. The incorporation argument pretends that there is something sinister about the ORT, when in fact it is almost a carbon copy of the Wikipedia incorporation in Florida. Drop the whole thing and do a service to everyone.Apprec8coetzee (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: As I review this Wiki it is entirely a paraphrased transfer of defamatory statements made the posters on the Chronicle thread. The Chronicle posters have for over a year sought to close down the ORT. The Wiki is the road to that Nirvana.Aristotle13 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, that's not suspicious at all; three spanking new editors, all SPAs, post their delete votes within within a five minute window on the wrong page. Pairadox (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, now "they" have figured out which page to spam. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Contributing Oxford Round Table Attendees

Please stop removing the changes that adhere to Wiki guidelines. Those who have attended the Round Table should be list under 'Contributing Oxford Round Table Attendees', which is central to the explain of the conference. They have been cited to Wikipedia pages and you have no right to change the structure, so it can then be erased. Thankx Obscuredata (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't adhere to Wiki guidelines. Please see Coldmachine's post of 25 January. The attendees mostly aren't notable, and it's just Listcruft. Listing half a dozen or so of the many hundreds who have attended is NOT "central to the explain [sic] of the conference."Academic38 (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Obscuredata, your versions don't adhere to Wiki Manual of Style guidelines. Per WP:HEAD, "Only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized" and "avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy." So it's "Contributing attendees," not "Contributing Oxford Round Table Attendees." Pairadox (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful for advice from editors who have a longer tenure here and whose neutrality is unlikely to be questioned, on how to deal with edits made by someone who clearly has a conflict of interest and which seem to go against consensus (or at least are made without gaining consensus). I gather that I am also perceived to have a conflict of interest (because I have previously participated on the CHE forum? I think I am nonetheless in a different sort of position), so I am reluctant simply to revert Obscuredata's edits. But it gets a bit hard simply to sit on my hands. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Pairadox (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people who keep reverting my changes have posted to the 'Chronicles of High Education', defaming ORT; then they use Wikipedia to refer to their rants. That's a conflict of interest. I will not answer these statements about my conflict of interest; I just want accurate statements. I adhere to rules that I have been accused of breaking; you should do the same. How about we discuss elaborating the information that actually pertains to ORT. The opening is a bit thin.Obscuredata (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This section's purpose, Criticism & litigation, is clearly a clever indictment of the ORT. Even to an objective bystander.Turion999 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 12, to a press release from University of Montana/Montana Tech, is not a reliable source. It is being used as a source that various people attended the ORT, but it only does so by repeating material verbatim from the ORT website. The university clearly did not independently verify it.Academic38 (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to point out that in the "Listcruft" section above, the only neutral editor (Coldmachine) who commented there agreed that this entire section should be deleted. Coldmachine, is that still your view? It is obviously still mine.Academic38 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pity about the COI directive. I was all set to add another 20 names to the list (and another several dozen "policy papers"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to list them on this talk page for consideration. If consensus can be reached, perhaps they can be included. Pairadox (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that this section could constitute WP:LISTCRUFT and my view is that the article would be improved if it were to be removed entirely. While listcruft is only a guideline, not a policy, it's still a pertinent one. Coldmachine^Talk 08:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Erasing Added Information

Please stop erasing added information. I have cited the information and I will not allow you to keep removing it. It pertains to ORT and therefore it pertains to this page. I will be changing the items back. Also, please explain why you keep erasing the information. Thanks.Obscuredata (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obscuredata, I have already templated you for assuming ownership of this article. Please re-read that template message; the position you are taking is unhelpful to the ongoing improvement of this article. Coldmachine^Talk 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not the owner of this Wikipedia article concerning ORT. You say that you have already templated me. I have not erased relevant information, or inserted untruths, regarding ORT. I have not assumed ownership of this article. In fact, I believe that all would be best served if the entire article was removed from Wikipedia. Obscuredata (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Okay, this has gone on long enough. I've just tagged the article as COI-laden and issued individual warnings to all concerned parties (everyone but Tony and Coldmachine). If you work for ORT, have posted to the CHE boards, have attended an ORT and came here to defend it, are here because of a request from a concerned party, or are in any way unable to contribute to this article from a Neutral Point of View, then you have a Conflict of interest and should refrain from editing the article. Period. Don't drag your off-wiki debate here. Pairadox (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly comply with your request for as long as it remains in effect. However, while I have posted to the CHE, I believe my edits to the article have been made from an NPOV. I have discussed changes in advance, usually waiting at least 24 hours before implementing them. I did revert Nilfanion's edits as soon as I saw them, but he himself has apologized for coming in without discussion the way that he did.

Should further verifiable information relevant to the article become available, what should happen then?Academic38 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All involved parties are welcome to make use of the talk page to provide new information and sources, discuss wording of the article, etc., but should refrain from making changes to the article itself. The straw that broke this camel's back was reading the post from User:Tepid1 above in which they all but state they are part of ORT. The inside knowledge and use of the corporate "we" from yet another new editor who's only interest is this article shows that this use of a Wikipedia article as a continuation of the off-wiki disagreements needs to stop. Pairadox (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree, but I would also like to note that in this ongoing edit dispute between ORT affiliates and ORT critics it is the latter who have been willing to engage in dialogue via the talk page. I see no such willingness, on the whole, from ORT affiliates. However; COI is still COI. Coldmachine^Talk 08:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Academic, the request remains in effect indefintely even when the notice taken off the article again. It is a reminder of the rules that apply, not a special prohibition while it is present. The critics may be more willing to engage in discussion than affiliates, but that does not mean they are any less affected by the COI. "We" should be careful not give the critic's views undue weight in the article, just because they are more willing to engage in wiki-practice. That difference between the two sides is a reason for why the old version of the criticism lasted despite being POV-laden. The new version is greatly improved.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I propose that the page includes actually have something to do with ORT. I will post the information below and see what people think.. I will be cited.

"International Education Policy" - ORT is international in scope with concentration on formal education. Central to discussion was education in post-communist eastern Europe. (will list articles relevant to topic.) Obscuredata (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed additions, but they will need to be cited correctly; independent of ORT website. Tepid1 (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Obscuredata, you seem not to notice that you are barred from editing the article (as am I, which is I won't be the one reverting it).

As for your proposed addition, it sounds like Listcruft, but there is no way of knowing until you show us what it is.Academic38 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Who says I'm barred? I still have access to editing and will continue to do so. Obscuredata (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Read Pairadox's notice barring all of us from editing the Oxford Round Table article, in the section directly above this one.Academic38 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading this message board from afar because I had been googling 'ORT' to find information about the ORT; it had been highly recommended by a professor. I would just like to state that the information about the ORT itself is indeed minimized and information pertinanting to ORT is drowned out by the 'Critisms and Litagation', formly 'Intellectual Conflict' section. I do see how everyone seems to have a stake in this page for some odd reason. It seems that ORT has sanctioned someone to defend the purpose and legitimacy of the conference, while others are here to possibly discredit ORT. (Possibly the sued party or friends of the sued party, not sure...) Because I think that as a person who already knew things from an objective prospective about ORT and then by looking up the ORT and finding such negative info presented in the ORT Wikipedia, I don't see how conflict of interest can be avoided and therefore I will also suggest the page be deleted. LAstride (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

Here is a source for the fact that F. King Alexander is the son of Kern Alexander.http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fweekly%2Fv48%2Fi03%2F03a01201.htm

I have not yet found a source for the fact that Samuel Kern Alexander III is the son of Samuel Kern Alexander, Jr. (Kern Alexander), but will post it when I do.Academic38 (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Source added. Note that by doing so I am not endorsing the relevance of it to the article. Pairadox (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I should not be listed on this list. I have been updating the page with relevant, citable information. Those other individuals want 'the controversy' to be the ORT, and sadly for them, it is not. I was just trying to put up accurate information about the organization itself, not highlight matters posted on a blog created by a vindictive person with too much time on their hands. I was trying to add more information that actually pertains to the history and purpose of the ORT, not the information that expresses ones' personal opinion of the conference. Wikipedia should not be a forum where people can go to defame others or bring a spotlight to an issue that does not define an organization. When I first started to edit this page, yes, I deleted complete pages, but I didn't know the rules then. I left the controversy section and the (terribly written, information-less) opening alone after I was asked to. From then on, I created information from my personal knowledge (that I was able to safely cite, no doubt) and those biased to the facts about ORT quickly removed the information. What kind of a consensus is that? Most importantly, what does that say about Wikipedia when it becomes no more than a place to lie about things because you were able to create a blog and cite it as a credible source? I am voting for deletion; this makes no sense. Obscuredata (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

So the article has been nominated for deletion. Too bad - I thought we were getting somewhere. There is of course more to do - some original research remains, for example (in the first paragraph, the claim about the different incorporations being run by members of the same family - it is obviously true but nonetheless a deduction, I suppose). But the notion that the page is hopeless is far from convincing.

The claim that notability has not been (cannot be) established is demonstrably untrue. A search for "Oxford Round Table" in Nexis produces 147 hits, i.e., newspaper articles (I am not including press releases in that count).

I gather that, having been identified as having a conflict of interest, I am not supposed to participate in the discussion of the deletion nomination. Fair enough - I am new here, I did get here via the Chronicle discussion, and I have made a number of mistakes in editing this page. (I do wonder who *doesn't* start out that way, making mistakes.) I greatly appreciate the attention given to this page by people with much greater experience - I have learned a great deal here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the AfD discussion is open to anyone on the project. It would be unproductive to rehash old arguments/disputes in the AfD discussion, but everyone is still entitled to respond to the listed reasons for deletion and to !vote. Coldmachine^Talk 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re edit

I'm new here to this topic (I thought it was an AfD about a group of authors that included Tolkein and CS Lewis; they called themselves something else, the Inklings or whatever) and have just been staring at this diff. The comment is "rv contribution from user with declared conflict of interest - discuss changes on the talk page first, as editors have requested several times" but the diff is to change the word "deceased" (refering to a participant in Round Table) to "decreased", that is, it's the addtion of a typo, and not reverting vandalism or COI, right? The diff is this. Am I misinterpreting this? Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Answering self. My mistake, the editor corrected himself in the subsequent edit. The impression given is that the situation here is so hostile, that one editor reverts another merely because of the COI issue, without so much as glancing at the edit itself. Does not bode well for happiness of contributors here, but that is separate from the issue of keeping the article itself. Pete St.John (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Several admins requested that all editors with a declared COI hold off editing the article while discussion was underway on the talk page. The edit was not labelled as a 'minor' edit, as it ought to have been for a typo fix, and therefore I reverted it. As you see, I undid my own change when I realised. Really, no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill: you are failing to assume good faith here. Coldmachine^Talk 09:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Recusing self from continued work on this article

Despite going it alone from the outset to work with the SPA accounts editing this article, in the hopes of getting them to reach consensus (which was working, at one point as everyone got used to the approaches used here on Wikipedia), I am finding it increasingly demoralising when the issue was ignored by the community at the outset and hard work is now being rubbished so readily; my editing integrity is being called into question by editors failing to assume good faith; and the progress which was being made has now been undone by forcing editors with a COI into partisan lines once more by the nomination of this article for deletion. I am recusing myself from the article, will amend my !vote to delete, and will remove this from my watchlist. Please do not contact me regarding this entry on Wikipedia. Cheers. Coldmachine^Talk 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the page, for deletion decision

With the impending decision concerning deletion, it seems only fair to address a few outstanding issues so that the page can "look its best" (in relation to wikipedia policies/guidelines, of course), for the "benefit" of the admin who will assess it. As I noted above, there is some "original research" in the first paragraph that should go (the phrase about "run by the same family"). And of course the "listcruft" (together with the "cleanup" tag) is a blight. I would ask for other suggestions along these lines, comments in response - and then for an editor whose neutrality is not in doubt to make them on the article page.

Now, it might be tempting for those who favor deletion to argue against such changes, in the hope that the "worse" the page looks the more likely deletion becomes. That of course would hardly be a good faith approach to editing. If an article conforms to wikipedia guidelines, then it belongs here - and so comments on editing are supposed to contribute to an effort to improve a page (again, in accordance with the relevant guidelines and policies). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Listcruft redux?

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

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

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)

back to the reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)