Talk:Daniel Mark Fogel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 

Fogel's accomplishments[edit]

This edit relies entirely on WP:OR, the university's own claims about itself, and editorial pieces. The editor added it has so far not taken up the invitation to discuss his/her desired contributions here. Rather than revert immediately again myself, I'd like to gauge the views of others. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of criticism of Fogel's compensation package. There has, similarly, been a significant amount of criticism of the critics and support for Fogel. Including references to both viewpoints advances Wikipedia's policy of balance and neutrality. Because Nomoskedasticity disapproved of the contextualization of Shumlin's quote by including responses to it, I have removed reference to Shumlin entirely. Whatever solution we arrive at should include respect for Wikipedia's core tenets. This is an encyclopedia article, not an opinion piece, and it should not advance a particular perspective to the exclusion of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstanton009 (talkcontribs) 15:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Nomo, you would do well to read this article a bit more carefully. You'll notice that your original criticisms are largely inapplicable to the current draft. And if you believe a university's claims about itself are an invalid source, then you'll have your work cut out for you revising virtually every single Wikipedia article on a university. Almost all of them rely on the universities themselves as sole sources for many of the facts in the articles. It is okay to cite a public university document for a statement about that university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstanton009 (talkcontribs) 05:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You found it -- welcome! If you had signed your post properly, I would have seen it (my watchlist is set up to ignore bot edits to talk pages). Now, as for substance -- it's not true that most universities' pages are written solely or even mainly on the basis of what the universities say about themselves. It is particularly inappropriate to use sources that way when the information in question is self-serving (as with claims about faculty pay, etc.) -- see WP:SELFPUB. In any event -- please do propose changes here, and we can work towards consensus as to whether they should be adopted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
What you're saying is based on some long outdated version of this article, with the exception that some facts asserted are supported only by UVM documents. Again, this is clearly an acceptable way to support facts in a Wikipedia article. Virtually every single Wikipedia article about a university includes numerous factual assertions supported only by university docs. The Wikipedia community clearly is okay with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstanton009 (talkcontribs)
No, most university pages are not written solely on the basis of what those universities say about themselves. But that's not what I said. Every university page includes some statements of fact supported only by university documents. And there is nothing self-serving about a university's statement about the number of people it employs. We're also talking about verifiable facts about employment and salary data, not amorphous, superlative claims like, "We're the best!" Tstanton009 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Tstanton009 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

On Eanalgo's question/concern about the Washington Monthly piece being an editorial -- it's just not -- it appears to be (in their terms) a "feature" (look at the url). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)