Talk:Robert Zimmer

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.
 
WikiProject Chicago (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Updates to professional leadership roles[edit]


I would like to request a small set of updates regarding President Zimmer's leadership roles, which I outline below but will not implement due to a conflict of interest. The updates are factual and represented without bias.

The second sentence of the introductory paragraph:

He is the 13th president of the University of Chicago[1] and serves as Chair of the Board for Argonne National Lab[2], Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory[3], and the Marine Biological Laboratory.[4]
  • Updated broken link to Fermi Research Alliance Organization Chart
  • Added affiliation to the Marine Biological Laboratory

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the section titled University of Chicago President:

During Zimmer's presidency, the University of Chicago expanded its presence locally with the launch of the Urban Education Institute[5] and globally with the launch of the Center in Beijing[6] and the Center in Delhi.[7]
  • Added affiliation to the Center in Delhi

--ncasslem (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In reviewing the Conflict of Interest guidelines, I do not believe the above changes constitute a conflict of interest and have implemented them.
--ncasslem (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is it relevant or notable to state whom a college president is dating?[edit]

There is a statement in a student newspaper account, which is based on "campus sources" cited in a blog ([1]) that Robert Zimmer is dating a particular University of Chicago professor. Is this statement relevant to a biography article? Evidently Zimmer is separated from his wife but whom he is dating doesn't appear relevant to me except possibly to disparage Zimmer and the professor, contrary to WP:BLP. A particular IP editor, apparently using several different IP addresses, insists on keeping this statement in this article, despite the objections of two other editors. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Obviously not notable The subject themselves is hardly worthy of an article and to include who they are currently dating is absurd. I have deleted it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • However true, it is assumed private, it is not encyclopedic, and because of this merits removal. - Even if this information is true:(1) it is Wikipedia policy to assume this information be kept private until noted otherwise (i.e. personal statement by Zimmer, Zimmer and Ms.? attend a public gathering of some sort as a pair, etc...), and its the conservative assumption required by editors that the unnamed sources are unnamed for the reason that this information was to be kept private (see:WP:BOLP); (2) Its inclusion contributes nothing of encyclopedic value; (3) Its inclusion causes Wikipedia to be less encyclopedic and more like a tabloid. It clear that whom the president is dating does not merit inclusion. I also believe that though the university has publicly stated that he is dating, including in the article something to the effect of: "He is currently dating", still violates Wikipedia policy and, if nothing else, its philosophy. Because Zimmer is known for being college president, administrator, professor, and distinguished mathematician, anyone searching for information on Zimmer is searching for information in those capacities. It is this information that Wikipedia catalogs as an encyclopedia. Those searching for information on his marital relationship, dating life, preferences in music, food, and film, and all things personal/private should consult extraneous publications that profile Zimmer. Wikipedia does not serve as an aggregate for these sources, and these sources are easily found by searching for Zimmer on the internet. I think it is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or tabloid, each of which has different criteria for the material it publishes and a specific function. I fully support the removal of Zimmer's private dating life from the article. Kapooz (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Not notable Neither are his hobbies nor his taste in music. Is this going to be updated constantly, with a table of former girlfriends? I think not. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a place for student gossip and Kapooz has clearly and convincingly explained why its inclusion is not appropriate. I think this RFC can be closed now Ajbpearce (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny. Kapooz: should we also delete the extramarital affairs listed on Heidegger's page? Or what about Jessica Simpson's page -- there are whole categories concerning her relationships... You "editors" have a lot of "work" to do. ;-)

Outdated Photo[edit]

Why the ancient photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.102 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have located an updated photo of him and added it to Wikimedia Commons here. I'd appreciate if someone updated the article with this photo in the infobox as I have a conflict of interest. Fallentomato (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanding the article from a stub[edit]

In collaboration with a few colleagues at the University of Chicago, I have produced a draft of an expanded article on Robert Zimmer. We have made a good-faith effort to ensure that the article is written in a neutral tone of voice and supported by reliable secondary sources. As I have a conflict of interest, I will not implement any changes directly, but would greatly appreciate the assistance of other editors in reviewing the draft and implementing as much of it as possible. Please don't hesitate to contact me through my user page with questions or concerns. Fallentomato (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have revised the draft based on helpful feedback from EPadmirateur. Fallentomato (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work. It was a pleasure to read through the expanded article, especially the mathematics section. With the additional WP links, I think most mathematically inclined readers can follow Zimmer's work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Update to University gift information[edit]


I would like to request an update regarding University's gift information under the University of Chicago Presidency section. The suggested edit is outlined below but will not implement due to a conflict of interest. The updates are factual and represented without bias.

The third paragraph under University of Chicago Presidency:

During Zimmer’s tenure the University of Chicago received three of the largest gifts in its history: a $100 million donation to fund undergraduate scholarships,[8] a $300 million donation to endow the University of Chicago Booth School of Business,[9] and a $100 million donation to establish The Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflicts and The Pearson Global Forum at the Harris School of Public Policy Studies.[10]
  • Changed the word second to third in the first sentence
  • Added gift information from the Pearson Family
That sounds more like PR than useful encyclopedic information. John Nagle (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Nagle one of the biggest jobs of a university president is fundraising and i think it is OK to attribute them to him. would be better if we had a more independent source for the 1st but the WSJ and the tribune are great sources for those two.... Does that make sense to use the 1st? Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog Thank you for your suggestion, and I agree. Please see above, I've updated the source with Tribune article. Michikog (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have implemented the requested edit. Since the article already included two gifts of the same size, I don't see a reason not to include the third, unless there are length concerns. Fallentomato (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


Michikog (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)michikog

User: Nagle Thank you for the feedback. Following your guidance, I have taken another stab at the sentence with an attempt to keep it factual. Please review this again and let me know your thoughts. Your time and attention on this is highly appreciated.
Over the last decade, the University of Chicago received three of the largest gifts in its history: a $100 million donation to fund undergraduate scholarships,[11] a $300 million donation to endow the University of Chicago Booth School of Business,[12] and a $100 million donation to establish The Pearson Institute for the Study and Resolution of Global Conflicts and The Pearson Global Forum at the Harris School of Public Policy Studies.[13]

Michikog (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Fallentomato perhaps forgot to add "answered" to the "request edit" tag after the edit was completed.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ali, Hassan (2006-03-11). "Board elects Brown provost as 13th U of C president". Chicago Maroon. Retrieved 2013-01-23. 
  2. ^ "Argonne National Laboratory Organization Chart". Argonne National Laboratory. 2013-01-09. Retrieved 2013-01-23. 
  3. ^ "Fermi Research Alliance Board of Directors". Fermi Research Alliance, LLC. 2014. Retrieved 2014-05-28. 
  4. ^ "MBL Officers and Trustees". Marine Biological Laboratory. 2014-04-12. Retrieved 2014-05-28. 
  5. ^ Haederle, Michael. "Chicago Charter Schools Aim to Lift Urban Education". 2011-08-23: Pacific Standard. Retrieved 2013-01-24. 
  6. ^ Mack, Kristen (2010-04-28). "U. of C. will open Beijing center". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2013-01-24. 
  7. ^ "University of Chicago opens centre in Delhi". The Economic Times. 2014-03-30. Retrieved 2014-05-28. 
  8. ^ Cohen, Jodi S. (2007-05-31). "A $100 million mystery". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2016-02-04. 
  9. ^ Guth, Robert (2008-11-07). "Chicago Business School Gets Huge Gift". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2013-01-24. 
  10. ^ Glanton, Dahleen (2015-09-30). "U. of C. gets $100 million donation to study global conflict". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2015-12-02. 
  11. ^ Cohen, Jodi S. (2007-05-31). "A $100 million mystery". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2015-02-04. 
  12. ^ Guth, Robert (2008-11-07). "Chicago Business School Gets Huge Gift". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2013-01-24. 
  13. ^ Glanton, Dahleen (2015-09-30). "U. of C. gets $100 million donation to study global conflict". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2015-12-02. 

Trivia[edit]

Being co-author of co-author of co-author of someone is not notable whoever the person is. More so because in this case the person is the academic head of a well respected university and hence automatically passes criteria 6 of WP:PROF. There is no need to puff up this already well sourced bio with a completely off topic sentence which simply adds nothing of value. Solomon7968 12:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, this is in response to Solomon removing a sentence about Zimmer's Erdős number (3) from the article, and then reverting first myself and then EPadmirateur when we added it back. Solomon, your rationale has changed over time. First it was since you felt the claim needed more independent sourcing and "shouldn't be sourced to a database". I reverted since it was sourced to the AMS/MathSciNet's website calculator of collaboration distance between mathematicians, which feels independent enough. I think now you are removing it since you feel the the Erdős number is just not important enough (encyclopedic) to include. I'm happy to go either way on that - I don't feel that in Zimmer's subfield the Erdős number is particularly meaningful, but I also respect the argument (by the way articulated in WP's Erdős number article) that it is an interesting enough proxy (I would say heuristic) for overall connectedness and collaboration in mathematics more broadly. Maybe the best on that is to get the perspective of a wider range of editors? (Solomon also mentions above and in the revert edit summaries that an Erdős number of 3 is not needed in terms of establishing notability for the purposes of whether to keep this article, which I would agree with but I don't think is a relevant argument insofar as deciding whether it is an interesting fact to include in WP's article.) Since I am over a decade out of academic mathematics, I now retire from the field on this. Martinp (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There should be an indication that Prof. Zimmer himself highly regards this connection, which gets reflected in independent sources (like say a newspaper interview) only then this material gets into. How can we say that Prof. Zimmer doesn't get offended (or at least insulted) by this addition? Solomon7968 16:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Solomon, thanks for your reply. I think you misunderstand the interplay between WP's inclusion criteria (for content within articles, not of articles themselves) and sourcing policy. Material should be included if it is "encyclopedic", i.e. relevant, important, interesting. And it needs to be verifiable, which is where sourcing comes in. But the first criterion is dependent on the collective (i.e. consensus) editorial decision of WP editors. There is no need for the subject of an article to feel a fact is important, and for that to be verifiable, to merit inclusion. So: I'm on the fence whether Z's Erdos number is encyclopedic enough (which is why I'm hoping for input from more editors!). But I think your sourcing concerns are misplaced. Martinp (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)