Jump to content

Talk:Chris Bart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Hi,

I'm learning how to write a "statement of Leadership philosophy". Can you provide any guidelines or examples. Thanks,

File:ChrisBart-s.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:ChrisBart-s.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Bart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chris Bart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: anonymous suppression of disciplinary information

[edit]

Anonymous user(s) using Bell Internet accounts are suppressing edits referring to Prof. Bart's 2013 disciplinary decision. In the deletion discussion, the general agreement of other Wikipedia editors is that the disciplinary decision should be referenced, and a reliable source has been cited. Rather than provoke an edit war against anonymous sympathisers (or Prof. Bart himself), I'd like direction on:

  1. whether the reference should be included; and
  2. how to prevent anonymous users from repeatedly deleting the reference.

I do not know whether suppression constitutes WP:Vandalism, and it doesn't fall into the libel category that would qualify for assistance on the WP:BLPN. On the contrary, it's trying to suppress unflattering information about Prof. Bart.

AgarWhisper (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it impacted his career significantly. He apparently didn't retire voluntarily. Ask for semi-protection if it becomes disruptive. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obliged. Assuming there are no dissenting opinions, am I correct to request help from WP:RFP when the anonymous user(s) next remove my restoration? AgarWhisper (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if it's multiple users or dynamic ip then page protection. If it's static, then progressive warnings for removal of content until WP:AIV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP we should not write an article that consists mainly of this episode in his career. The article should also discuss the rest of his career (if it can be sourced properly). --hroest 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. The only things that can be reliably verified are this incident, his three awards (without elaboration), and his publications. Earlier drafts of his biography were largely copy-and-pasted from his personal PR pieces, none of which could be independently verified. Most of his 'accomplishments' in earlier drafts were also heavily embellished. These sole, verifiable facts were decided sufficient for inclusion into Wikipedia. Anyone who wants to do verifiable research is welcome to add to the article. AgarWhisper (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be his most well known study.[1][2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war: disciplinary suspension

[edit]

There is a lot of back and forth edits over Bart's compelled retirement, with people paid by Prof. Bart to spin present a fair and balanced view of his dismissal. I ask all revisionists to refer to the original Ontario Superior Court decision in their reply.

That decision upheld McMaster's disciplinary finding that Prof. Bart, amongst others, bullied and cultivated a toxic environment at McMaster University. The court only considered whether McMaster's disciplinary response, to suspend the professors for 3 years without pay, was reasonable and proportional. The Superior Court found that the penalty was excessive given precedent and ordered that it be set aside and returned to McMaster for arbitration.

I originally flagged this article for deletion because I do not think (as an Ontario business school graduate myself) that Dr. Bart meets the minimum threshold for notability as a business academic. My request was turned down on, what I think was, a flawed argument relying solely on his academic citations. Bart's ghostwriters seem to corroborate my argument by focusing on his dismissal rather than contributing substantive material about his life's work to support his noteworthiness as a business academic (I'm guessing because they cannot).

Specifically:

  • Unless a trial or tribunal is notable in and of itself, delving into the arguments and appeals adds no value to Wikipedia and inflates WP:UNDUE problems. For example, the article about the Shedden Massacre does not go into whether certain evidence should or should not have been admissible, because it doesn't change the ultimate verdict. Accordingly, I see minimal relevance to highlighting that Superior Court found McMaster's penalties against Prof. Bart excessive when it upheld the initial findings that he bullied colleagues, refused to accept responsibility for his actions and was ultimately expunged from McMaster's website.
  • Similarly, even though a local Hamilton newspaper wrote supportive articles about Prof. Bart, these are not, in and of itself, worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Unless there is significant controversy, Wikipedia tends not to delve into opinions and what organisation supported/funded whom. Unless there is something notable or interesting about the Canadian Association of University Teachers supporting Prof. Bart, I fail to see the relevance of mentioning their support of him.

Accordingly, it has been previously agreed (see previous topic) that Prof. Bart's dismissal warrants inclusion in this minimalist article. The settled facts are that he's a bully and cultivated a toxic work environment at McMaster. Litigation over whether McMaster's punishment fit the crime, without challenging the facts of his dismissal, adds no value. Therefore, I ask that we leave it out.

Prof. Bart's ghostwriters argue that simply mentioning his dismissal creates an unflattering portrait of him. Wikipedia, however, is not for flattery. Prof. Bart has plenty of websites where he can inflate (and has inflated) his credentials and accomplishments. If his ghostwriters prefer that his article be removed entirely as not to embarrass, I'm all in support of it. AgarWhisper (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about the Superior Court's decision is certainly relevant to the article, if you are going to bring up his dismissal at all. It's not a "spin", it's the actual legal disposition. ... discospinster talk 23:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on how it's "certainly relevant"? The court ruled that a 3-year suspension was excessive and recommended a 1-year suspension with an arbitration for compensation. What does that add to the relevant facts about Prof. Bart? What of the participation of the CAUT? What value does that add? AgarWhisper (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are facts about the outcome of the appeal. This appears to be personal to you, I would recommend that you stop editing the article. ... discospinster talk 02:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to reach a consensus and understand the other side. I've stated my argument and linked to the court's decision. Ad hominem assumptions (especially incorrect ones) add no value.
The result of the appeal only changed the punishment, not the verdict. I'm agreeable to rewording something to the effect of "Prof. Bart sued McMaster in Ontario Superior Court to have the original 3-year suspension reduced." I don't see the need for an entire paragraph that could mislead readers that the Superior Court overruled McMaster's tribunal. They did only in the punishment, not the findings.
This article is about Prof. Bart, not the mechanics of McMaster's disciplinary process. AgarWhisper (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph does not discuss the mechanics of the disciplinary process, it only states that there was an appeal of his suspension, initiated by a union organization, and what the outcome of the appeal was. It is two sentences long. ... discospinster talk 02:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you said is corroborated in the Superior Court decision. It was a judicial review, not an appeal. In fact, the court decision states that one of the reasons why they ordered the suspension reduced is because there is no appeal process in suspensions. Prof. Bart et al. brought a total of 12 complaints before Superior Court attempting to overrule McMaster's decision. The Court dismissed 11 of these and agreed only that McMaster's punishments were overly punitive. CAUT initiated nothing and, in fact, receives no mention whatsoever in the decision (not even as an intervenor).
If the article is materially deficient without mentioning that Prof. Bart litigated McMaster's disciplinary decision at Superior Court, it needs to get the facts right and present the reality of what the court considered and decided. Earlier revisions put a very different spin on it. AgarWhisper (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about the relevance of a legal appeal relating to the subject of the article):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Chris Bart and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Per Discospinster's version of the article, it appears that SIRS have treated the court case as notable in the subject's career. Although I agree with AgarWhisper that Discospinster's latest draft doesn't accurately capture what the court's decision was, AgarWhisper has only cited the court decision itself, which is OR. My proposal is to try to find compromise: can you two come to a consensus on what the language for a sentence or two on the court case should look like, supported by SIRS' that are mutually agreeable to the both of you? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The Hamilton Spectator is a reliable source which reports on the outcome of the judicial review. We can change the description to judicial review instead of appeal, and remove the reference to CAUT (or change it to say that the CAUT payed the expenses relating to the judicial review, per this Spec article). ... discospinster talk 14:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading WP:OR, someone will have to explain to me how a court decision is "original research." Although I agree with User:Discospinster that the Hamilton Spec is reliable, I think the official decision should prevail. Aside from technical language like 'prejudice', 'equity', etc., the decision is pretty human-readable. AgarWhisper (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Bart&oldid=1199563723"