Talk:Michael S. Roth

New Edits

Hi guys. I'm not sure how to post on this page, but I just edited Michael Roth's wikipedia page and added subsections. If someone could go through them and make sure they're titled correctly, that would be super. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.128.133 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Zonker Harris Day

It's pretty simple, folks: what I have added is supported directly by the source provided, and I have tried to respond to concerns by revising the parenthetical passage to stick more closely to the source. It is "verifiable", per WP:V and WP:RS. I'm happy to discuss, but the bottom line is that the page will be edited according to the usual Wikipedia policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The source to which you refer is a "partial" college newspaper at the University (which is independent of and not affiliated with the college), which has a biased point of view and has positioned itself in its opening paragraph demonstrably on one side of the issue. In short, the source in this instance is neither a reliable secondary source nor a neutral (nor clear) one on a controversial issue. As such, it also does not satisfy the burden of evidence required by Wikipedia. In addition, logically--from any point of view--the biased referenced matter for which you contend asserts without any proof that the day in question is "inspiring University participants to emulate Zonker Harris's drug habits." What habits are those and if this conduct can be defined, which (and how many) students are being inspired by Zonker or are engaging in what he engages in? Your edit directly asserts and implies that all student participants are "perpetually-stoned" (the obvious operative phrase from the college newspaper: "The annual celebration references a perpetually-stoned character in Gary Trudeau's 'Doonesbury' comic strip, inspiring University participants to emulate Zonker Harris's drug habits.") or that they are "perpetually stoned" on the day in question or usually or always. Your attempt to shield your edit by noting that "what I have added is supported directly by the source provided" and that in general "the page will be edited according to the usual Wikipedia policies" does not remove the specific fatal flaws of relying entirely upon: 1) an openly biased and (poorly written) unreliable source on a controversial issue, 2) which reaches an illogical conclusion, and 3) flatly states--without any referenced proof whatsoever--that all participants or students are inspired to "emulate Zonker Harris's drug habits" generally or on the day in question. Finally, I think it prudent to suggest that all Wikipedia editors be wary of libeling the object of any article, in this case the University, its student body, and its president. Reliance upon a biased, unreliable, unreferenced, poorly written, and illogical source does not eliminate this responsibility. As I stated in my last edit, this section of the article should be written carefully from an encyclopedic point of view and not a polemical one. If there is any editor who can not appreciate the difference, at least I have disassociated myself from the edit which is the subject of the lead paragraph on this page (and which I have reverted). There was no prior ongoing discussion on this page, just an attempt to shield superficial and sloppy work by referring generally to discussions, sources, and Wikipedia policies. Also, the president's decision did not "earn" an appearance in Doonesbury.74.88.196.81 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have a difficulty with the source, perhaps raise it at WP:RSN; I rather think that the college newspaper is likely to be highly reliable as to the habits of the students. As for poor logic: nothing suggests that Roth himself has toked up, and I don't see the "libel" point at all -- and anyway, doesn't it make Roth look good to cancel the holiday if this is in fact how many people see it (as the articles suggest)? Now: did you read WP:V? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You might think the statement is not true, but that's not what matters here as long as the source "verifies" it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC

This is absurd. Truth is not the issue here and I never stated that it was. You are responding to a non-existing argument, which--it appears--is convenient for you given that you have responded to none of the specific flaws that I raised. You read WP:V and review "reliable secondary source" (in all its iterations), "neutrality," and "burden of proof." If the source is not a secondary source (a condition precedent), and/or not neutral, and/or also not on point specifically, it is not reliable and there can be no question of verifiability. The article, therefore, cannot be used by you to verify unstated inferences you wish to make, such as: "I rather think that the college newspaper is likely to be highly reliable as to the habits of the students." The article verifies nothing about the "habits of students" in general or particular (again truth is not the issue). The relevant question is not what you think, what you think the article has stated, or what you think you can infer from the article. The only salient question--after meeting the standards of secondary sourcing, neutrality, and burden of proof--is what in fact the article states and verifies. First, the article does not satisfy all conditions precedent. Second, it does not address the habits of students in general or the habits of any student in particular. It does not specify or describe: 1) which students as a group, as subsets of different groups, or as individuals, 2) what these unspecified students do or think or aspire to, 3) where they do whatever they do or think or aspire to, and 4) when they do it, etc. That is one reason why the source to which you look (written by one editor) offers no verification for the general or specific "habits of students" or the matters sought to be verified by your edit. I suggest you avoid the inescapable flaws of reliance on this college newspaper article for verification by examining the manner in which the NYT addressed this matter. How Roth looks personally? This concern is far afield of the mark. Your edit directly portrays all students at this university as "perpetually-stoned"--whatever that means--always, usually, or sometimes. Roth is a representative of the university. If as you claim (wittingly or unwittingly) all students at the university are "perpetually-stoned," Roth has problems more serious than a cartoon: He has been derelict in his obligations as a college president. A comic strip is a comic strip, but you have moved beyond the strip to real world inferences now asserted by you as fact (and supposedly verified by a college newspaper) which are not verified by the source, which place Wikipedia on dangerous ground, and which have no place in an encyclopedia. I also understand after reading your post that you do not understand this generally or "don't see the libel point at all" in particular. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you think the source is not reliable, you can raise it at WP:RSN. I gather, despite the extensive verbiage, that you think the characterization in the source is not true. This misses the point. Anyway, surely there is a need to convey what "Zonker Harris Day" is -- that's all I'm trying to do with that passage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[Do not indent as was done above; my comments will be clear as mine to any reader here.] You have ignored again each issue I have raised and now refer only to "extensive verbiage" and your hobby horse "truth." Without addressing my 1st or 2nd posts here, the sentence to which you refer for verification (not truth) from a primary source, not a proper secondary or even a tertiary source, states: "The annual celebration references a perpetually-stoned character in Gary Trudeau's 'Doonesbury' comic strip, inspiring University participants to emulate Zonker Harris's drug habits." The sentence may verify inspiring University "participants" (discussed, partially defined, and amplified in the article) to emulate Zonker Harris's drug habits at the annual celebration. Your most recent edit (which has found its way again into the article) states: "In Winter 2008, he approved a decision to remove 'Zonker Harris Day' (which had inspired students to emulate Zonker's drug habits) from the university's calendar of events, saying 'The institution should make it clear that it's not supporting things that are stupid.'" I The quoted matter from the article does not verify the past causal statement "which had inspired...." II More importantly, the quoted matter from the article does not verify your extension of "participants" too "all students" or even to "some students." III How does the article define "participants"?[1] A The article is poorly written, but at best it discusses and refers to "participants" as certain residents in "WestCo" who take part in the festival and/or to a subset of students who are certain residents of WestCo who take part in the festival and certain other students who take part in the festival. B At worst, the article is not clear as to who is a participant. B (i) But even in the worst case, "participants" are not all students all of the time, usually, or some of the time. B (ii) Indeed, the article notes that "there is an unfortunate stigma when it comes to relations between WestCo and the outside student body." I have reproduced pertinent sections of the article seriatim below using only the quotes contained in the article. IV The article simply does not verify your characterizing "participants" as "all or even some University students" generally. Nor does it verify those persons as having been "inspired" always, usually, or some of the time. Your reconstruction of the article requires that one ignore the totality of the article and it various direct and indirect references to "participants" which contradict your limited description of the article and your attempt to characterize, in your edit, one sentence from the article. If the article is unclear on who is a "participant", then the article can not be used to verify your edit. Nor could the article be used to verify your edit (whether the article is clear or unclear) if the word "students" in your edit were to be replaced with the word "participants," if in so doing you were to fail to or be unable to explain or define the word "participants" as used and referred to in the article:

Koerting says that the effort to change the image of Zonker Harris Day is part of a larger emphasis on renovating the image of WestCo itself, an issue that ResLife has been discussing with WestCo residents for the last few semesters. There has been discussion of downsizing the dorm in order to free up space for sophomores looking for non-WestCo housing on Foss Hill.

"There's a problem with the stereotype of WestCo “the hippie-druggie stereotype that goes back for years,” Koerting said. “The number of continuing students that have applied to live in WestCo has been declining over the last couple of years. Last year we didn't have enough to fill the spots for continuing students. What is it that WestCo could do to maximize their potential?”

Ben Seretan ’10, a former WestCo president, agrees that there is an unfortunate stigma when it comes to relations between WestCo and the outside student body. He stressed, however, that the declining resident numbers may have to do with last year's closure of the WestCo Café, an important communal gathering area. Overall, however, Seretan thinks that ResLife has mixed two separate issues.

“It's two different problems,” he said. “The number of applicants has to do with WestCo as a desirable living space while Zonker Harris Day has to do with people wanting to go to Wesleyan because of a festival.”

The administration, however, including Roth, who has made a point of criticizing the “Keep Wes Weird” culture-for-culture's sake ethic, does not seem to be budging.

“Zonker Harris day should not be on the calendar next year, and it won't be,” Roth said. “The institution should make it clear that it's not supporting things that are stupid.”

In the face of the administrative coalition against the festival's title, the Wesleyan Student Assembly has taken up the issue. Mike Pernick ’10, chair of the WSA Student Affairs Committee, thinks that the fundamental point of WestCo as a student community has been undermined.

“I think, in this situation, ResLife handled it very inappropriately,” he said. “The problem with this is that for years WestCo has had a self-governing system. As long as they don't violate the University's policies or the law, WestCo can self-govern. That has been brought into question this year and that is troubling.”[2]

I am sure you will characterize this sentence by sentence explanation of the irreparable flaws in verifiability, secondary sourcing, burden of proof, and logic as so much more verbiage. If the verbiage in the article on which you rely had been critically read as opposed to your lifting (and incorrectly characterizing) phrases out of context, this exercise in logic would not have been necessary. I suggest you take careful guidance from the NYT on this question and that you stop trying to use a convoluted article as verification which requires you to a) ignore the entirety of the article, b) substitute words found in the article for words of your preference, and c) substitute your reading of the article for what in fact the article says or doesn't say. Amongst other infirmities outlined in my 1st and 2nd posts, the section of the Wikipedia article in question as it now appears reflects poorly on the editorial competence of wiki contributors in carefully selecting, reading, and analyzing sources. Your edit and that now adopted by your cohort reflects what you want to say, not what the reference in fact asserts. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have revised the last paragraph in the article by replacing the unverified and disputed interpretive phrase in parentheses with a direct quote from the primary source in question (which the parenthetical phrase had sought to interpret). A direct quote from the primary source is indisputable in terms of verifiability. Reliance on what "Zonker Harris Day" is or is not is better left to the exact words of the reference as opposed to the expansive and interpretative phrase of an editor here. Other infirmities remain but the questions of verifiability and potential libel have been removed. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Zonker Harris describes the series of events touched upon in the Roth article (Zonker Harris Day, also in the last paragraph here) and, unlike the last paragraph of the Roth article, does so clearly, cogently, and in an encyclopedic manner. Without revisiting the posts above, the last paragraph here is still a mess. This paragraph should be rewritten in encyclopedic form. I will leave the rewrite to the paragraph's proponent (Nomoskedasticity (talk)) given that his intentions with respect to the paragraph are unclear. 74.88.196.81 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have specific improvements you would like to make, you are welcome to propose them. It will help if you can do so concisely, as in the post immediately above. Whether the text is "encyclopedic" is a matter of opinion; I saw nothing unencyclopedic in my original formulation (nor did it misrepresent the source in the slightest). I was nonetheless willing to compromise. It is difficult to do work at Wikipedia without willingness to compromise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Jewish American"

Curious why the subject is identified as Jewish in the first sentence of the article? Wikipedia policy on bios of living persons says the following about religious categorization: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." I don't see how Roth's religion is relevant to his "notable activities" as Wesleyan president. I will wait a day or two to see if anyone wants to discuss, and if there is no opposition will delete the reference. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You're quoting from WP:BLPCAT. If you want to remove the category, then go ahead. But BLPCAT doesn't apply to article text. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathanwallace (talk). 74.88.196.81 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael S. Roth, among other activities, writes about Jewish subject matter sometimes in Jewish publications such as Tikkun (magazine). I think that is reason to mention right away that he is a "Jewish American". Here are 2 examples:

Example 1. ) Past "Imperfect", by Michael S. Roth

Example 2. ) "Shoah as Shivah", by Michael S. Roth. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not his major focus. Speaking as an American who is also Jewish, a retired businessman, registered independent, political essayist, fan of science fiction, runner, etc. I would be very puzzled and concerned if my Wikipedia bio (if I had one) led with the info "a Jewish American"--even though out of some hundreds of essays, I have written several about Auschwitz, Israel, etc. Therefore, I would really like to delete this reference. Please let me know if you agree, as I do not wish to start an edit war. Thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jonathanwallace—the Jewish attribute of his identity is hardly insignificant. He says:

"I belong to Congregation Beth Shalom Rodfe Zedek in Chester. There’s a new rabbi in the shul in Chester who seems very dynamic. They have a nice Torah study group on Shabbat morning. I was a pretty active member of my shul in Berkeley. I began going to minyan there after my father died a few years ago and just became a more active member of that weekly Shabbat minyan, and then Torah study and other things. So, Jewish practice has become an important part of my life in the past few years." Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop--I have now read your user talk page and various relevant noticeboard discussions, so I have a better understanding of the ongoing controversy I stepped into with my post. Nonetheless,please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_universities_and_colleges_in_the_United_States and click on a few of the links. Wallace Loh was born in Singapore, but the article does not begin "Wallace Loh, a Chinese American...." In bios of various presidents of Brigham Young, their church affiliation and activities are mentioned within the bio, but none of these begins "a Mormon American..." The problem I have with "Jewish American" here is that it suggests that this is the most important thing you can say about him, and creates a kind of lens through which some readers will view all other statements in the article. I would have no objection to a section further down in the bio with a header along the lines of "Jewish identity" and referencing the Tikkun articles. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jonathanwallace—what you are saying could have applicability if we were characterizing this aspect the individual in some way. But that is not the case. His being Jewish American is succinctly noted and without any embellishing commentary. There is no additional commentary that might suggest that this is "the most important thing you can say about him". Similarly, noting that he is a Jewish American can't be construed as a "lens through which some readers will view all other statements in the article", because we have not characterized his attribute of being Jewish American in any way. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This could be easily resolved by moving it to the third paragraph: "Roth, who is Jewish, graduated from Wesleyan..." It should have a reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am amenable to that. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the change based on Bus stop's amenability. Still not thrilled, but like solutions based on consent rather than edit wars. "A good compromise is one which leaves everyone unhappy." Thanks Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have altered your change. I was amenable to the suggestion above by Nomoskedasticity. Bus stop (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to edit it again, but what exactly is the rationale for calling him "Jewish American" in the first para but substituting "Jewish" when we move it to the third? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Jonathanwallace—by the third paragraph it is reasonably well established that he is American. His places of employment are in America and his publishers are American. In the first sentence of the article one is rattling off one-word terms listing attributes: Jewish, American, academic. That, in my opinion, is good writing. The reader is not surprised to find a string of informative one-word terms at the outset. That sets the stage for the article, and gives the reader a lot of easily-grasped information right away. It is not a "lens" through which to see the article nor is it that which is "most important", as you have implied. The first sentence is simply that which can be most easily delivered in rapid-fire fashion along with being that which is relevant. That is why it could have remained in its original form. But you took exception to "Jewish" being in the first sentence. To comply with the issue you raised, I think, we moved "Jewish" down to paragraph three. I say "I think" because I don't know what Nomoskedasticity had in mind. But I found Nomoskedasticity's suggestion acceptable in part because the writing was acceptable. By the third paragraph there is little need to say that he is American. He seems thoroughly American by the time we get to paragraph three. What has not been introduced up until that point is that he is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the idea -- by the 3rd paragraph "American" is redundant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael S. Roth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090330145539/http://www.wesleyan.edu/about/uhistory.html to http://www.wesleyan.edu/about/uhistory.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)