Talk:James F. Jones (educator)/Archive 1

Untitled
This article is being discussed for deletion, but somehow the notice that the article is being discussed for deletion was removed from the article itself. Could someone more knowledgable than I restore that notice to the James F. Jones page? K95 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as promotion
I went to and love trinity, but this was clearly written by someone from the university as a promotional piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.89.116 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --75.140.89.50 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This article should NOT be "speedy deleted." The citations used and the information conveyed is well-cited: Over 50% of the citation for Jones come from Trinity College's own website or newspaper, 10% come from YouTube video's of Jones speaking, and two articles are sourced from Forbes and the WSJ. While the article does show his time at Trinity as contentious, this is because it was a contentious time in reality. This is supported by the copious use of college-based citations.

This article has likely been requested to be deleted due to Jones' current place in the spotlight, not due to the lack of truthfulness or sourcing of the Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.106.131 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... this person deleted their profile because he is now in the news. No other reason. --2607:F470:22:13:2168:9F5A:4E13:6234 (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It is clear the only reason this article has been nominated for a 'speedy deletion' is that Jones is, once again, in the news for funding/endowment concerns that have caused the imminent closure of his current place of employment (Sweet Briar College). All of the information on this page has been well-cited and should stand as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.139.81 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... this article is well referenced and neutral on the controversial aspects. Simply because this person is falling under current scrutiny because of news events does not warrant any further suppression of their documented and referenced job history. Doug (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism/Direct Copying
In looking over the article, I've noticed that quite a bit of it is directly copied/plagiarized from the Trinity College and other websites. Any idea as to the procedure here? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if I can just remove it for future re-writes or leave it as it is for the time being? Winner 42 - I see that you also have been concerned with original + non-biased content here, thoughts?Ladysif (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits, I just ran a copyvio detector and it looks like there are are even more instances of copy+pasting going on here from here and here. I have since removed the blatant instances of violations. For better or worse the content was poorly sourced and very positively written. This means that we might be running into issues with WP:UNDUE weight given to the criticism of him. Perhaps moving the criticism into the general biographical section might help with this. Not entirely sure though, what are your thoughts? Winner 42  Talk to me!  13:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * i think it would make sense to maybe move the Trinity information into the biographical section and maybe keep the SBC separate since it's now an ongoing legal battle. I've been working on the Sweet Briar page, but unfortunately don't have much time to give this one the attention it needs right now as I'm currently in exams and all that. I'm happy to help with re-structure and re-writes in the next couple of days, and given that this is a person who's currently in the limelight, it's probably best to get these issues fixed sooner than later.Ladysif (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the Latest Amendments
Somebody has put a bunch of largely positive stuff on the page, all of which lacks any citations, and removed much of the material which was previously there and which was very well documented. Gee, I wonder who that could be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.197.54.209 (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, if it remains uncited, it can be deleted in a month or so. Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place for conspiracy theories - it was found that this page was predominantly plagiarized some time ago and I posted it on the 'articles for improvement' page a few weeks ago for that reason. If anything was removed it probably wasn't relevant, was poorly written, or plagiarized. Ladysif (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP isn't talking about removal of plagiarism. They are talking about the edits made by, an WP:SPA: Special:Contributions/Bimdieke. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Proper footnote format -- Minimal upgrades
I appreciate there's been lots of work -- and lots of contests -- on this article. I'm here in the role of passer-by/momentarily interested/minor cleaner-upper. I do what I call Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs/Archive 1. This was one of the worst I've encountered. One can see what I did here, mostly 'minimal upgrades'. It looks a little better, gives a little more info. I hope someone(s) who care(s) more about this article will work harder to get full footnotes into it; including retroactively. I view my fix as 'hopefully interim'. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My upgrades effort has evolved and the 'minimal upgrades' effort has been reversed. I've now worked my way back through to this article and now removed the MinUpg's here; along with some other work on citations and such. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on James F. Jones. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131111220038/http://www.trincoll.edu/givingtotrinity/trinityfund/Pages/Fiscal2013.aspx to http://www.trincoll.edu/givingtotrinity/trinityfund/Pages/Fiscal2013.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150909101643/http://www.trincoll.edu/givingtotrinity/trinityfund/Pages/Progress.aspx to http://www.trincoll.edu/givingtotrinity/trinityfund/Pages/Progress.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James F. Jones (educator). 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/20141006073710/http://www.trincoll.edu/givingtotrinity/AROP11/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.trincoll.edu/givingtotrinity/AROP11/Pages/default.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Problematic claims
I have just removed the claims that Jones aimed to effectively shut down the Greek system, and that his stay there was untenable. Neither is supported by the sources given. The claim about the Greek system, the closest thing was that some members of houses said that they would be forced to shut down, but the article is only citing them as saying it rather than saying it was true; even if it was true, the closure of certain houses is not the same as ending the whole system; and even were that not the case, we cannot assume that was the effect that Jones intended.

The statement that his stay in the position was "untenable" was not a claim that the source made... and even if it had been, it's a point-of-view, not a fact.

The material underneath that about Sweet Briar is also problematic, in that the listed source is this document, which has the usual problems of WP:BLPPRIMARY and more, as there is no verification that the unsigned document is what it is assumed to be. It's just a file on a government server, no verification that this is a final draft that was signed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this article, the more of a mess it is. It really looks like someone was trying to build an attack page on the subject. Unsourced and undersourced claims, original research, items picked and chosen to give a negative spin... this article is in sad shape. I've scraped off a little, but it needs a lot more. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have just removed some sub-sections of synthesis that created contriversies out of nowhere, or attributed them to Jones when the sources did not. On the other hand, User:Unbiased Editting, despite the username, is showing clear bias and is trying to whitewash Jones by adding asides and explanations that are not given in the sources. Neither is appropriate. Huon (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried to fix some of the most egregious problems. Wording implying that he committed criminal acts, or that a judge ordered him to resign, implying criminal acts, requires strong sourcing, indeed. Someone should fix the Greek part as well. Collect (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)