Talk:John Mason (schoolmaster)

Comments
No idea why this article was deleted according to CSD A7. The Doon School is one of the premier educational institutions of India ,much like Eton in UK, so its headmaster deserves a mention. Ranban282 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Ranban282.


 * I've added a notability tag here. I just don't see the importance of this person. Is he famous apart from being associated with a famous school? If not, I can't see how an article on this person, no doubt an intelligent individual, can be justified. Wikipedia brown 22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag. An very prominent individual in educational circles in India and the Gulf. Hornplease 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Doon School clutter
I did remove all the Doon school boxes, but my edits have been reverted. It seems to me that this content is not suitable for an article on a headmaster who has served at a number of schools. I'm not sure that we really need the headmaster's navbox anyway. If you have boxes like this for one school then logically you would have to add boxes for all the other schools that he worked at, and the whole scenario would get completely out of hand. What do others think? Dahliarose (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I reverted your edits but your argument is sound. Perhaps, we can remove the Doon School template and keep the small 'Academic Offices' one. Because if a reader is looking at the headmasters in succession she/he will encounter a bump here. And to avoid that there should be a mention of who succeeded him in his office?

-- Merlaysamuel : Speechify  07:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said somewhere else, is a single purpose account who/which seems to have done nothing on Wikipedia except promote Doon school fluff.  What Dahliarose has observed is but the tip of the iceberg.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I've been after Doon School is that it was my first project here and after putting so much effort I'd like to see some results (read:getting a GA status) Dahlia, before believing anything Fowler says please consult other editors as well. And Fowler I have maintained my ground of Neutrality throughout the editing. You show me one instance where I've fluffed things up and I'll move miles away from this article. And Dahlia, you are also free to judge for yourself where I've promoted Doon School fluff. Talking about neutrality Fowler, you'd wish I don't venture into that ground...! -- Merlaysamuel : Speechify  08:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, stop removing Oxford University Press's citations. If that is not to be relied upon, I don't know what is! -- Merlaysamuel : Speechify  08:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "... and after putting in so much effort I'd like to see some results" Wikipedia doesn't promise results for effort, only for content that is reliably sourced.  This your content is not; at least, not yet.  You have been busy reverting my edits.  I know a thing or two about what is reliable on Wikipedia and what is not.  Promotional material from a publisher's web site (even if it is OUP) is not a WP reliable secondary source.  Consider for example the article on Michael Atiyah (one of the better-known mathematicians of the twentieth century) that I helped with a year or two ago.  The decision was taken at that time to not make an FA run because there was no published biography of Atiyah, although there were hundreds of anecdotal references.  I believe they made an unsuccessful GA run after that.  I'm guessing it failed because the Biography section was inadequately sourced; the other sections, such as Mathematical Work are already at FA level.  I understand that you might be impatient, but by pushing unreliable material and being then combative about it you will harm no one but yourself.  I read the little quote from Mason in the Outlook article.  From what he said there, he seems like a wise man, one who I wouldn't mind getting to know better myself.  But that doesn't make him notable.  There are thousands of academics who don't have Wikipedia pages, mainly because there isn't enough reliable secondary material.  You will be better off learning how to source reliably, even on random small articles that have nothing to do with Doon School.  That, I believe, would be a much bigger accomplishment for any Wikipedian than getting something to a GA level.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't make out the edit history, but Oxford University Press, although not a secondary source, is at least a reliable source for the list of publications and for basic factual information about the author to satisfy WP:V. It is a respected academic publisher and there is no reason to suppose that it would publish incorrect details about its books on its website. No one is looking at getting this article to GA or FA status. With regards to the boxes, can I suggest that the Doon School editors take a look at some of the other school articles on Wikipedia. It is not normal practice to have succession boxes of headmasters and academics, because few will merit an article in their own right. You cannot model your Doon School article on Eton College, as that school is an exception and not the norm. Dahliarose (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about taking Doon School article to the GA status not this one. About the boxes, I believe the template should be removed but the small yellow one "Academic offices" should be kept. -- Merlaysamuel : Speechify  10:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My comments about GA status were really in response to Fowler's reply above. I've removed the big Doon School box. I still feel that the Acadamic Status box is redundant. Mason was headmaster of three different schools. I see no reason why we should single out just one of these schools for a special mention I really don't think we want to start having boxes like this for all schools. Similarly I don't see why we have an External Links section with a single link to the Doon School website. I can't even find John Mason mentioned on their website anywhere. The link seems unnecessary. If we we link to one school we'd have link to every school and institution he's been involved in for the sake of balance. There is a guideline External links which gives advice on this subject. Dahliarose (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Dahliarose) Regardless of the prestige of the publisher, the biographical information on that website is the equivalent of blurbs on the back of a book; they constitute promotional material put out by the publisher written with a view to maximize sales. A lot of effort is made by publishers in deciding what to mention and what to exclude.  (You won't find too many details about academic qualifications on the back page of a novel.)  Over the years, I've seen many factual errors in the books of well-known academics, all published by prestigious publishers. I could go with it as a cite for list of Mason's publications, but not for basic 'factual' details.  In any case, if it is not reliable for a FA or GA, it is not reliable for a stub, and let's not put it in there.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All articles have to start somewhere. It's easier from the point of view of searching for references to have the material in the article so that you can search on keywords. I've found an article in the newspaper Gulf News which supports the biographical details. I haven't got time to do much for now and the refs still need a bit of fixing. The OUP is the only source for the information on Mason's retirement and the local project he's involved in but it's not promotional material and not likely to be challenged. Secondary sources can often be wrong too! There must be an Indian equivalent of Who's Who that would provide further details, but I don't have access. We need local editors for this type of article. Dahliarose (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (To:Dahliarose) I just realized that this article has been around at least since 2006. That means people have thought for some time now that Mason is notable.  It has also come up for deletion since 2007.  That means people have thought for some time now that Mason is not notable enough.  In my book, he's not, and I don't consider the Gulf News story&mdash;likely copied from the OUP site in rough and ready journalistic fashion&mdash;to be any more reliable.  But this is as far as I go.  I hardly ever work on these kinds of articles (either Mason or Doon School), and I'm finding my eye glazing over more and more with each successive argument.  Good luck with saving it.  I will, however, be bringing up the larger, more troubling, trend I see playing out in the Doon School article (and its satellite articles) on WT:INDIA.  I see troubling parallels with articles on the various Indian castes, which too, until recently, were being sourced poorly (and largely to Indian newspapers) and being crammed with inflated claims.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

PS I will note that the pages of all individuals who have served as Doon headmasters have the same Doon clutter at the end. Arthur Foot was at Eton for 9 years, Doon for 13, and Ottershaw School for 16. Eric Simeon, for example, was headmaster of two schools after he left Doon. These pages are quite different from, say, that of a Dr. Arnold, who has little Rugby clutter trailing his page.

This, as I said earlier, is the tip of the iceberg. Many Doon spin-outs have been created in the last couple of months. All have the same poor sourcing. Here are a few examples: Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  06:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Trilochan Singh Brar
 * 2) CG Devashar
 * 3) Brijesh Dhar Jayal
 * 4) Lakshman Katre
 * 5) Uma Shankar Bajpai
 * 6) Vinod Kumar Grover
 * 7) Maheshwar Dayal
 * 8) Arvind Virmani
 * 9) Dalip Mehta
 * 10) Inder Pal Khosla
 * 11) Mahmood Farooqui
 * 12) Latika Katt
 * 13) Akbar Ahmad
 * I think this is a discussion that really should take place at WP:India. As far as John Mason is concerned the fact that he's attracting so much national press coverage in both India and the Gulf is indicative of his "notability" in Wikipedia terms. I would hope that editors in India might eventually be found who can help improve the sourcing. There have been numerous books published on all these Indian public schools. I don't have time to look at all the above articles in detail but I do know that Indian subjects and prominent Indian people are very under-represented on Wikipedia, whereas we have mountains of articles on people in the Western world with trivial accomplishments. There is for example a massive category for the X Factor Category:The X Factor (TV series). Dahliarose (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right Dahliarose, India is under-represented and articles of notable people, hitherto neglected, have to start somewhere. -- Merlaysamuel : Speechify  12:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)