Talk:List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Archive 1 | Archive 2 →
We make engineers, right?
It seems to me that this page is a little heavy on the athletic side. Not that GT doesn't put out a lot of good athletes, but I'm sure we put out at least that many important people in other categories. --Disavian 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- True, if my professors were any indication there should be a list of scientific contributors than athletic. 220.127.116.11 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've been going through pages that link to Georgia Tech, and have found some more notable people. Feel free to browse Category:Georgia Institute of Technology alumni for some people to balance out this list. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I happened across List of Cornell University people and it is the perfect image of what I want to make this article into. Once I get around to it, I'll start doing that... I've made sure to populate the categories Category:Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, Category:Georgia Institute of Technology presidents and Category:Georgia Institute of Technology people in order to rework this article at some later date. By the way, Kary Mullis and Jimmy Carter are Nobel Laureates. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I saw an even better example lately: List of Duke University people. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've turned it into a well-referenced list similar to List of Dartmouth College alumni. It is still necessary to use citation templates on the links, and to fill in the sports alumni with years and references. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate Characters Babs Coleman and Kevin Lomax
I put down Kevin Lomax as being from Georgia Tech, but the script says "Babs is from Georgia Tech, your (Kevin's) neck of the woods." Can we infer that Kevin went to Tech or is just from the area? Arnabdas 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- When Milton says this he just means the southern US generally, everything else in the movie points to Kevin as a lifelong Floridian e.g. practicing in Tallahassee, being a prosecutor in Duval County (Jacksonville). I am taking it out unless/until a more definitive cite can be supplied. Ellsworth (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
|Kevin Lomax||NA||Protagonist in the film The Devil's Advocate (played by Keanu Reeves)|||
- "Devil's Advocate Script - Dialogue Transcript". Drew's Script-O-Rama. Retrieved 2007-06-10.
referenceforbusiness.com reference revert
I deleted a cite to referenceforbusiness.com, and noticed that this edit was undone shortly thereafter. I wanted to explain my edit, and start a discussion about the merits of referenceforbusiness.com as a reliable source.
My rationale for deleting the link is not that the claim in this article is controversial or incorrect, but rather that the cited source does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability and verifiability. Specifically, Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I do not know of any information that supports referenceforbusiness.com meeting this standard.
- Just so you know, I saw your message and I'm not ignoring you, but I've been swamped with real-world obligations. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, Disavian. Sometimes the real world takes precedence over Wikipedia ;) --Zippy (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, my general thoughts on referencing for this article: it's sometimes difficult to find a source that specified that person X went to school Y and graduated in year Z. However, if you find a source that states that fact, they're rarely ever wrong. Even nndb, was useful at times, although I tried to avoid it if other sources were available. So, the references for each person were generally where I got the information from, which I think is the definition of a reference. Also, I erred on including more references than were absolutely necessary.
- Now down to the specifics. So we're talking about the following entry:
|David Dorman||1975||Chairman and CEO Emeritus of AT&T Corporation|||
- The second reference is from the Georgia Institute of Technology and is fairly legit. It states that he's a 1975 grad, okay. That's pretty legit. The first reference is from this "Reference for Business" site you seem to have a problem with. Looking at the article, it seems like a well-written, fairly comprehensive biography of this person. The facts in the second reference (1975 GT grad) agree with this article. Also note it's the first result of the Google query David W. Dorman georgia tech. After poking through their site, I can't really find anything about the site. I do see that it's produced by a company called Advameg whose article has apparently been deleted a few times; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advameg suggests that they've been involved in spamming. A Google search of Advameg doesn't turn up any truly significant results about it.
- There's a copyright notice at the bottom of the referenceforbusiness page that states the text is copyright of The Thomson Corporation (that company has since purchased Reuters to become Thomson Reuters). That company is/was well-known and doubtless checks their facts, as they are responsible for many textbooks, etc. Upon light of that information, I think we've satisfied our WP:V doubts in this particular case. My guess is that the referenceforbusiness article is licensed from The Thomson Corporation; and while we may not want to drive traffic to a site that has spammed in the past, I'd say that including a reference to this comprehensive biography might be beneficial to some reader at some later date, especially given its detail and listed sources. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful response, Disavian. I agree that the data on referenceforbusiness.com appears reasonable. The copyright does suggest a credible source (Thomson). If we could establish that referenceforbusiness.com is reliably republishing Thomson, then I think it would be easier to establish the site as verifiable and reliable. I'd like to take a moment to outline what I believe is the main problem.
- Let's say that we agree that Thomson is a reliable source. If we were find a personal weblog that had content with a "Copyright Thomson" notice, would we treat that weblog as a verifiable source? I think the answer is no, because we would not know whether the weblog is consistent or accurate in republishing content.
- Let's take another example, Reuters content. If we see a Reuters article in, say, the San Francisco Chronicle, I'd say it's different than seeing it on a third party site with no established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if the third-party site is simply republishing Reuters word for word, it lacks one thing we expect from trustworthy papers - that if the Reuters article is retracted or updated (fairly common), the paper will put the latest version up on their site. A third party site, without a reputation to consider, may simply follow the path of least effort, publish the first version, and not track any later updates. The problem is that we cannot tell because we do not know that the site itself is reliable - that its owners and staff care about correcting errors.
- These two examples illustrate my difficulty in reconciling referenceforbusiness.com with Wikipedia:Verifiability. referenceforbusiness.com has not, as far as I can tell, established its own reputation for reliability and accuracy - even if they are republishing Thomson, I would want to know that they have a process for making sure that their copies are both accurate and also that they reflect any corrections that Thomson makes.
- That referenceforbusiness.com's sister site has been blacklisted (Stateunivesity.com blacklist notice) for spamming the Wikipedia heightens the difficulty in judging referenceforbusiness.com as a company that cares about the quality of its content.
- Because I have not yet seen anything to indicate that referenceforbusiness.com is reliable and accurate publisher of information, I feel that Wikipedia would be better suited going with a citation source that itself has a positive reputation - even if that source is republishing Thomson. --Zippy (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the criteria for the pictures shown on this page? Clearly there is not enough space to show everyone's picture who is listed. I am beginning to notice photos of (Sorry, I'm going to be hurtfully blunt here) "lesser" alumni cropping up. In some cases you have ex-presidents, heads of state, and Nobel Prize laureates. You have many listed who are internationally renown... Then I see alumni who happened to start a company or who spent their time mostly NOT at Georgia Tech or who did a cartoon. These fellows have their pictures shown when other (sorry again) "more notable" alumni go unpictured like John Portman or Randolph Scott who are both widely known. I was just wondering if you are allocating picture space on a first-come-first-served basis, or perhaps the individuals themselves are posting their own pictures. Is there some criteria? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- There isn't a criteria; most of the time, though, the amount of space available greatly exceeds the number of pictures available due to licensing restrictions. Take your examples; there's not a picture of John Portman, even on his article. This picture of Randolph Scott: Image:Randolph Scott in Follow the Fleet trailer.jpg was uploaded long after I assembled most of this list. If you want to update the pictures, feel free to be bold and do so. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, you may want to take a look at the sister article, List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes, and check if those images are satisfactory. We could probably use more football images, if only because of the sheer number of people in that section. Also, Firewall, nice pics. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)