Talk:Oxford Round Table/Archive 2

Move Up Controversy Section
I think the Intellectual Controversy section should be moved up, to come right after the Conference section. OrionClemens (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the article is about the ORT, not about the controversy surrounding its operations, and so the main body content should reflect this: the section on controversy is a useful 'lead out'. ColdmachineTalk 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Coldmachine on this one; the article should deal with the subject first, controversies later. Of course, by that same rationale, the controversies section should deal with those controversies first, and ORT's response to them later. Pairadox (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coldmachine and Pairadox. With that rationale, and seeing no objections to the proposal I made on this issue above, I have now created a page on Kern Alexander and moved the paragraph (under company history and officers) to the new page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the initial proposal as well. Do people agree as Nomoskedasticity Pairadox [ Academic38 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ] does that we should move the ORT's response to the controversy to the bottom, as I argued a day or so ago?Academic38 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to start a war, but I don't think the Oxford RT information should be moved in the controversy section. It flows well and considering the page is about ORT information should begin with ORT and whatever follows is actually the response. The controversy was birthed by a few angry peoples' response to ORT; not the other way around. So the controversy is the response to ORT, therefore would come after. I will be inclined to restore the paragraph's position. Let me just say, we're getting along better, but I am not happy with the removal of the attendees, which will be restored according to the 'rules.' Obscuredata (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument doesn't hold up to even a cursory examination. ORT issued their statement in response to the controvery; by your own logic, that response should follow the text about the controversy itself. Leaving that aside, consider what that section is about - the controversy. It should therefore start out by describing the controversy. Even from a chronological perspective the ORT response should follow a description of the the controversy that sparked it. Pairadox (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the controversy started because of someone's disdain for what ORT is; that is a response to ORT. Obscuredata (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, please! Many people in the Chronicle thread have been critical of the ORT, including five alone before Sloan Mahone first posted. It is not a one-person thing; there is a genuine controversy. You are edit warring. Academic38 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but according to the Chronicle thread, a character called 'DrStones' effectively created this article in order to disseminate the 'controversy'. I've said this before in relation to this page, but the content of that Chronicle thread and the way it gave rise to this article suggests that the intention of the creator of this page was to attack ORT, not to give a balanced, encyclopedic account of the institution. If anything, the controversy section should be expunged from the article, since the controversy itself is the product of speculative innuendo from a cabal of posters on the CHE bulletin board who evidently object so strongly to ORT that they won't openly accuse it under their own names of all the innuendoes they're happy to throw at it under their online monikers. The controversy section looks to my - admittedly wiki-untutored mind - like an abuse of the intent of an encyclopedia article. Colingy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coligny (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia allows other editors to move a page beyond the intentions of the person who created it. I have to say, I didn't think all that much of Wikipedia before doing some work on this page, but I've been very impressed with the way this process works.  Even if I wanted this page to be unbalanced (and I don't), it's clear to me it wouldn't work.  No one gets the final word. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

CHE and problems here
A discussion forum on CHE is not a reliable source and should in no way be treated as one. Given that fact, for the purposes of writing this article consider that the entire discussion on CHE does not even exist. If you can establish that the controversy exists in reliable sources (not just people on CHE). I note that this page has a number of WP:Single-purpose accounts who care only about this articles. "Outside" editors such as myself and Tony Sidaway can see no way this material can be included under policy.

This edit gives the problematic portion of this article. I will now list some of the problems that none of the discussion above has addressed.
 * What is the dispute? As far as I can tell it consists of people complaining about ORT on the CHE forums, there has been no actual mention of any dispute in the media for example.
 * The "5 issues". These are not criticisms of ORT from reliable sources, but the opinions of its critics on CRT.
 * The issues themselves are not actually criticism of ORT. They invited a graduate student. They don't put disclaimers in their letters. These are facts, not criticism of ORT. The criticism is a synthesis of the original research that has been carried out.
 * The legal situation is verifiable yes. However, it can only be included if the dispute can be established reliably.

No solution that includes the criticism can be included unless the locus of the dispute can be demonstrated reliably. The legal situation between ORT and the contributors to CHE should be borne in mind.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm also an outside editor involved and have been trying to draw the article into some semblance of neutrality for some time. However, there's a few issues with the points you make above:
 * WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy.
 * You have made two direct reverts, and several others removing content, in a 24 hour period. I understand you're an admin, but as an editor involved in this now you are also bound by WP:3RR like the rest of us.
 * The WP:SPA editors working on this article are involved on both 'sides' on the issue. There are those critical of the ORT, and those who have direct affiliations with it. You'll see a number of comments on this from me on here and WP/ANI, however it should be noted that those individuals working on this article with criticisms of the ORT have been discussing changes, working with other editors, and adhering to consensus where it has been established. Editors affiliated with the ORT have not. So, a 'guns blazing' sweeping comment about everyone is particularly unhelpful in an already tense and heated edit dispute.
 * Of course the legal action taken by the ORT, and by others, can be mentioned in the article outside of the context of criticism: its a verifiable fact. The idea it requires context to be included is nonsense; I've never seen any precedent for that elsewhere on Wikipedia: if there are examples, then let me know and I can go check up on that, but as far as I understand it, if it's verifiable and fits other content policies then it can be included. And the legal issues relating to the ORT do just that.
 * I actually agree with the idea of trimming down the section on intellectual controversy. Personally I think the article would look just fine with a small section indicating that there have been criticisms levelled (ref to the CHE), and that legal action has been taken. I agree that listing "5 points of contention" is unnecessary.
 * Anyway, in the meantime it would be really helpful if everyone tried to keep cool; coming in guns blazing into the middle of a content dispute which is under way, and making reverts, is unhelpful, as is misdirecting editors on WP:RS. ColdmachineTalk 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As another "outside editor" who's been watching this, I have to agree that deleting an entire section is NOT the way to improve this article. Conflicts of interest are rampant here; short of barring all involved editors from the article, only incremental changes are going to work. Using the forum as a source is problematic, and will be addressed, but the concerns that have been expressed there are also noted a reliable source (which Nilfanion apparently missed). Pairadox (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - here we go - a sustained discussion of the controversy section was inevitable. FWIW, I also agree that certain WP policies and guidelines mean that some parts of the controvery section are unlikely to survive. In large part this has to do with WP:RS and related items. So: posts on the CHE forum are difficult to sell as reliable sources for WP articles - in part because they are made anonymously on a discussion forum, right? Well, what then do we do about the fact that the one person who posted a critique on CHE whose RL identity became known has gotten herself sued as a result? It is blindingly obvious from that thread that a significant number of academics would be very happy to make their views about ORT known in public (e.g. be quoted in newspaper articles) but are unwilling to risk a defamation lawsuit.

So, a dogmatic insistence on "reliable sources" simply results in turning over the podium to the people with money to spend on lawyers. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good reason why WP:RS is a guideline, to be used with common sense. Others will surely disagree, but it's hardly a point to be rejected out of hand. Yes, CHE posts are made anonymously. But if anything the discussions that have taken place on the CHE ORT thread are one of the best examples of peer review I have ever seen - certainly better than some of the journal manuscript vetting instances I have witnessed.

I'd like to emphasize that point: there is a firm consensus among the anonymous posters to CHE that the invitation letters, lacking a disclaimer, mislead a great number of people into believing that they have been invited by Oxford University. When it is possible to provide a reference to a copy of the actual letter and a great number of references to university press releases announcing that Dr Schmoe has presented a paper at the "Oxford University Round Table", does it really make sense to say that the point being made cannot be verified? Again, the word dogmatic comes to mind. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This last paragraph is precisely the problem with synthesis from original research that needs to go. We are not supposed to lead our readers in that manner. --Nilfanion (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that "we" are not supposed to do this (i.e., as editors here). But the question is, why is it a problem to use CHE as a source establishing that some academics have indeed done so? The synthesis exists elsewhere.  Is the CHE a reliable source for establishing the existence of that critique?  The point of my paragraphs above is that it is, as long as we use common sense in interpreting the policies/guidelines here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd note WP:RS has its foundations as a corollary of verifiabilty. The complete removal of the section in the longer term is not the best idea, but what currently exists is not good at all. A ground-up rewrite may make more sense than to try and salvage the current form. The point about the legal action not being able to stand up by itself: Businesses engage in civil lawsuits regularly, do we have anything really to say about it other than it exists? Also, using CHE in any way in the text is a bad idea: the TES article may be enough to establish the existence of a dispute, though we will have to be careful as it quotes the CHE discussions extensively, to determine what parts are from the forums.


 * I know my initial approach was wrong. I can only apologise for taking the wrong approach, but its done. Also bear in mind that this article itself is part of the legal situation between ORT and its critics. As some of the single purpose accounts here obviously are connected to ORT and the people on CHE forums, that section should be handled very carefully. --Nilfanion (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) One of the problems I see is that the sources being used do not directly support the claims being made. An example of this is found in the line, "The large number of invitations issued which are documented as having been sent to first-year graduate students," with the source All that reference shows is ONE doctoral candidate being invited, not enough to prove the claim. Do you see the problem? A single example is being elevated to stand in for a "large number of invitations." What is a large number? What is the percentage of invitations? We simply can't know from the available sources.


 * As for the "people have to remain anonymous or risk litigation" argument, well, quite frankly, that's not Wikipedia's problem nor should a solution be attempted using Wikipedia. Discussion forums are not reliable sources simply because there is no way of confirming that any given discussion thread actually is representative of a larger trend or presents factual information. In essence, Chronicle Forums are no different than forums on comic books. Pairadox (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pairadox, I agree with the point in your first paragraph here, and I have no objection to that item in the list being removed. As I said above, I agree that the section is unlikely to remain as it currently is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning “Talk” and the substitution of “Criticism and Litigation” for “Intellectual Controversy, in my view both are irrelevant to Wikipedia’s purpose of providing reliable information as an online encyclopedia. Ralph Waller, Principal of Harris Manchester College, Oxford, is misquoted by the Times and he has so indicated. Moreover, the Times in citing the Chronicle poster creates a circular citation system that emanated from the Chronicle posters, now the Wiki posters. Too, the Times cites only someone at “The University”, not the Legal Office nor the Vice chancellor or anyone by name. This is not credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billingsworth (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious problems with the "Intellectual controversy" section
The intellectual controversy section of this article at present reads at follows:


 * The Oxford Round Table has been subject to debate on the forums of the Chronicle of Higher Education.(ref1) Criticisms on the forum centre on five areas:


 * The large number of invitations issued which are documented as having been sent to first-year graduate students,(ref2) and to at least one convicted felon, (ref3) casting doubt on the selectivity of the conference;
 * The lack of a disclaimer in the invitation letter to prospective participants which would make it clear that they have been invited by a private corporation in the USA, not by Oxford University; (ref4) some participants have later claimed that they have attended an event at Oxford University, (ref5) (ref6) and, in numerous cases, the "Oxford University Round Table". (ref7) (ref8) (ref9) (ref10)
 * The high cost of the conference ($2940 in 2008 for a five-day conference, room and board, and tours). (ref11)
 * Despite its public portrayal of itself as a "not-for-profit corporation," ORT is a mixture of non-profit and for-profit corporations whose relations are unclear. (ref12)
 * Questions about the selectivity or prestige of the "Forum on Public Policy," emerging from the fact that few libraries carry it and few academic articles cite papers from the journal, as well as the lack of information about paper acceptance rates, citation rates, or inclusion in published journal rankings. (ref13)


 * Participants have offered accounts of their experience at the Oxford Round Table. (ref14)


 * According to an Oxford Round Table spokesperson, the controversy surrounding the ORT can be attributed to "a few nameless bloggers", and that within the 20 year span of the Oxford Round Table hundreds have found the event to be a "worthwhile academic experience." (ref15)


 * In June 2007, the Oxford Round Table, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against Dr. Sloan Mahone, an Oxford University researcher, in response to emails she had sent and posts she had made on the Chronicle of Higher Education forum. (ref16). On November 7, 2007, the US District Court in Kentucky dismissed the case, finding no basis to assert jurisdiction over the Oxford researcher. (ref17) According to the Times Higher Education Supplement, the Oxford Round Table has also recently initiated legal action against Dr. Mahone in England. (ref15)

The sources provided are as follows:


 * ref1: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,30869.0.html
 * ref2: http://www.nmsu.edu/~ucomm/Releases/2006/july/oxford_presentation.htm
 * ref3: http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2005/02/03/news/top_news/c04e3823b74c99e886256f9d00110e7d.txt
 * ref4: http://www.wisc-iboricenter.org/images/oxford/oxford_let.html
 * ref5: http://www.washburn.edu/faculty/jmcconnell/Oxround.htm
 * ref6: http://www.tnstate.edu/interior.asp?mid=3903
 * ref7: http://www.mills.edu/news/2006/newsarticle11282006oxford_round_table.php
 * ref8: http://www.k-state.edu/media/achievements/07salinaaccomplishments.html
 * ref9: http://www.hamptonu.edu/academics/schools/libarts/sociology/lab.htm
 * ref10: http://wc.pima.edu/~apitucco/
 * ref11: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,30869.240.html, reply 251
 * ref12: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,30869.345.html, reply 351
 * ref13: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,30869.885.html, reply 885
 * ref14: http://www.montessori.org/enews/imcenews_04_06/imcenews_04_06_oxford.html
 * ref15: 'Oxford' events firm under fire (THES)
 * ref16: Oxford Round Table, Inc. v. Mahone, Civ. No. 3:07CV-330-H Complaint filed (Kentucky Western District Court 25 June 2007) (docket)
 * ref17: Oxford Round Table, Inc. v. Mahone, Civ. No. 3:07CV-330-H Dismissal without prejudice ordered (Kentucky Western District Court 7 November 2007) (PDF file)

Now the first thing to say is that criticisms of an institution made by people on a blog or forum are not due so much attention. Here we have an itemized list of criticisms mostly supported by forum posts and by primary sources that are given the interpretation assigned to them by those forum posters, who obviously cannot be characterized in any way as reliable sources.

Secondly, the criticism has been covered by one reliable source, the Times Higher Education Supplement. The Supplement's journalist has summarised the criticism, sought and obtained a response to the criticism from the company that organises these events, and also obtained statements by a spokesman for the university and one from the principal of Harris Manchester college, where the company maintains an office. That is our reliable source. It is that attention to journalistic standards of balance that, in part, makes it much more reliable than a few people sitting at their computers typing words into a forum. I suggest that we rewrite the section to be much briefer and based on that single reliable source, and meanwhile seek out further reliable sources.

Here's my suggested rewrite:


 * ''Criticism and litigation


 * ''On 21 December 2007, the Times Higher Education Supplement reported that Oxford Round Table had been criticised on the forums of the Chronicle of Higher Education website by people who said it was trading on the name of Oxford University, and failed to properly inform people invited that it had no formal academic links to the university.  Other criticisms were that its selection criteria were poor and that it was a "vanity conference".


 * ''The University told the newspaper that such external events were "not, as such, authorised or endorsed by the university". The principal of Harris Manchester college said that although the college provided the company with an office, "we don't run the ORT in any sense", and that as far as he was aware, all ORT participants were satisfied. The company defended its selection criteria, reported that its disclaimer, which is on its website, uses "the exact wording that was provided to us by the legal office of the University of Oxford several years ago" and it dismissed the critics as "a few nameless bloggers".


 * ''One Oxford University research fellow, Sloane Mahone, had sent an email to a US academic criticising the company's practices. An attempt to sue Ms Mahone, who is based in England, for libel in the Kentucky courts had failed on jurisdiction grounds, and the company was now taking legal action in the UK. (ref1)


 * ref1: 'Oxford' events firm under fire (THES)

--Tony Sidaway 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, thank you, this seems a reasonable place to start. I have some questions. How much detail is appropriate for the point about the lack of disclaimer on the invitation letters? The THES article does not make this point, but a copy of a 2006 invitation is available at (http://www.wisc-iboricenter.org/images/oxford/oxford_let.html), and there is clearly no disclaimer. Turning to the disclaimer itself, it describes the ORT as a "not-for-profit" organization (http://www.oxfordroundtable.com/index.php/view/Content-Main/page/disclaimer.html), which is contradicted by its actual corporate history. The final part of this point is that your proposed edit simply conveys that "ORT" sued Mahone, but that is insufficient since there are three corporations (at least) currently active, and Ms. Mahone was sued, not by either not-for-profit, but by the for-profit Kentucky-based Oxford Round Table, Inc.


 * That leads to the second point which I don't believe should be omitted, the criticism of the mingling of not-for-profit and for-profit corporations. I can understand not wanting to use the Chronicle website, so I will give you a published source, though the point is not made as eloquently there. Here is the Chico News and Review of 8/24/06 (http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=1526780: "However, as Crews writes, "Oxford Round Table, Inc., officials are plain that they 'are in no way affiliated with Oxford University,' even though they conduct their event there." In fact, they're a for-profit outfit out of LeGrange, Ky., that calls itself a think tank and rents facilities at Oxford." Again, this contradicts the disclaimer on the ORT website. How do you think these points should be handled? Academic38 (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The newspaper does mention the complaint that the letters themselves lacked the disclaimer, in the following strong sentence:
 * An invitation from the ORT that was sent to academics in December 2007, which did not contain the disclaimer, includes pictures of Oxford University buildings and is signed by Andy Boyle, "Research Fellow, St John's College, University of Oxford".


 * We can say, perhaps, "THES reported that letters sent to academics in December did not carry the disclaimer, and were signed by "Andy Boyle, Research Fellow, St John's College, University of Oxford". --Tony Sidaway 05:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * On the Chico News & Review, I don't think the alternative press counts as a reliable source, although I could be convinced if, say, the writer on this story has won awards for journalism. --Tony Sidaway 06:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed rewrite and above comments. ColdmachineTalk 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, your proposed additional sentence is a good one. I still think we are sinning by omission if we don't say *which* ORT sued Mahone, however. And while the corporate history section documents the continued existence of a for-profit corporation, it is nowhere counterposed to the ORT's claim that it is a "not-for-profit" entity, which simply is not the whole truth, as the lawsuit also shows. Academic38 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have a reliable source remarking on the significance of the precise body that tried to sue Ms Mahone in Kentucky? --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a copy of the court's dismissal order: http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/3276.pdf. The original filing also make this clear; it is not available on-line through the reference given (Oxford Round Table, Inc. v. Mahone, Civ. No. 3:07CV-330-H (W.D. Ky., complaint filed June 25, 2007)) without a subscription to the PACER database, but it is a matter of public record and the file could be inspected at the offices of the court.


 * On the use of an "alternate" newspaper as a reliable source: could someone please direct me to a WP policy/guideline/essay where that issue is discussed? In response to the suggestion to consider whether the author of the story (Robert Speer) has won any journalism awards, here is what I have found so far: he was formerly the editor of the Boise Weekly, and according to an article in that paper, "we won a pile of Idaho Press Club awards" while he was editor (http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A41337).


 * As for the proposed revision, I can live with it. I will be carrying on in the search for additional reliable sources.  I will also have more to say about how to assess CHE posts in relation to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines on verifiability, but I don't expect to convince others in the very short term and I don't want to stand in the way of a reasonable revision. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On the dismissal order, that's fine and we know which of the three entities was involved. However what we would need is a reliable source stating the significance (or otherwise) of this fact. On that I'm still not convinced that the Chico newspaper counts--the guy is a journalist and not a corporate lawyer. We should of course reveal the corporate structure in an appropriate place in the article. And having done that it's okay to clarify in our wording that the Oxford Round Table Inc. was the plaintiff in that suit. However what we can't really say (in absence of a reliable judgment on such matters) is whether this was, for instance, because it was the only one of the three companies that had standing to sue, a quite innocent reason, or whether there was some other innocent reason, or whether these was something nefarious about it. --Tony Sidaway 12:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that bothered either way about specifying which incorporation of ORT sued Mahone (though I do midly prefer that it be specified). The more important issue for me is the one raised by Academic38 above: the unclear relations between these different corporations, especially in light of the web-site repeatedly proclaiming that it is a non-profit. Do we really need a corporate lawyer to tell us that something is amiss here?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some people may be willing to assume that something's amiss, but others will be willing to grant that there could be an innocent explanation (it isn't that unusual for reputable corporations to have non-profit and profit arms; the BBC is one that springs to mind). For our Neutral point of view policy, we seek to represent all significant opinions that have been expressed.  So far no adequately reliable source, in my opinion, has yet given reason to believe that there's something funny going on. --Tony Sidaway 13:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I can also live with this revision, especially with the extra sentence incorporating the THES point that the letter contains no disclosure and clarifying that Oxford Round Table, Inc., was the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Thanks again.Academic38 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Responses to my suggested rewrite, and the addendum about the absence of disclaimers in letters sent in December, seem to be positive. Unless there are objections or further suggestions between now and 6th February, I proposed to replace the "Intellectual controversy" section as suggested. --Tony Sidaway
 * I would not be opposed to the changes. Obscuredata (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose the changes. Concerning “Talk” and the substitution of “Criticism and Litigation” for “Intellectual Controversy, in my view both are irrelevant to Wikipedia’s purpose of providing reliable information as an online encyclopedia. Ralph Waller, Principal of Harris Manchester College, Oxford, is misquoted by the Times and he has so indicated. Moreover, the Times in citing the Chronicle poster creates a circular citation system that emanated from the Chronicle posters, now the Wiki posters. Too, the Times cites only someone at “The University”, not the Legal Office nor the Vice chancellor or anyone by name. This is not credible.


 * The last paragraph concerning Sloan Mahone implies that Sloan Mahone has prevailed. In fact, a letter from her lawyers, Nabarro of Theobalds Road in London (May 30, 2007), distributed to several external sources, quotes Ms. Mahone, to wit: “in respect to certain words used by our client in her email, our client accepts that her choice of words was unfortunate ... our client would be willing to make a suitably worded apology in terms to be agreed between the parties to resolve this matter.”


 * Thus, both the Intellectual Controversy and the proposed substitution, Criticism and Litigation, clearly project an image that the ORT is in the wrong when in actuality it has been falsely denigrated by Ms. Mahone and the Chronicle posters, and now, hopefully not, Wikipedia.


 * I have attended three Oxford Round Tables and have found it to be intellectually stimulating. I have, too, lately been informed about the Chronicle posters operating through Wikipedia. The proposed “Criticism and Litigation” section should be deleted. It falsely implies that the Times and the Chronicle criticized the ORT. Actually, the Times merely quotes “U.S. academics” on the Chronicle thread who created the “controversy” in the first place. No independent information or authority is cited by the Times other than the anonymous Chronicle posters (now doubling as anonymous Wikipedia editors). Incidentally, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the unnamed Chronicle posters are “academics” at all. They may be truck drivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apprec8coetzee (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, this is exactly what "Billingsworth" said above. There must be a Wikipedia term for this, but I don't know what it is. And did anyone notice that someone named "CommunityInfo" created or updated several WP articles just before Obscuredata posted his verions showing his group of attendees with many more blue links than it previously had? Academic38 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the term for this: "original research." It's not admissible on Wikipedia. Academic38 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am certain that a bunch of truck drivers went out of their way to hear of the Chronicle on Higher Education, sign up for its website, find a thread called "Oxford Round Table," claim they had received invitations and, in a few cases, even gone. And then went and did all the research on the Oxford Round Table's many corporate incarnations, price-shopped Oxford hotels and accommodations through Conference Oxford, and priced comparable conferences. Would it be too much for me to say I don't believe you? Nor, apparently, does the Times Higher Education Supplement reporter. Academic38 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and why did you change your name from "Aristotle13"? Academic38 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Academic38, I've refactored your interspersed comments to the end of Apprec8coetzee's post. It's usually frowned upon to insert comments into the post of another, as well as making it difficult to tell who wrote what. If you feel you really must interrupt, please follow the guidelines at WP:TALK. Pairadox (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing to the interruption/insertion guidelines. I will be sure to follow them in the future. Academic38 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The “posters” on the Chronicle of Higher Education thread who have spent untold hours during the past year defaming the Oxford Round Table have now obviously turned to Wikipedia as a vehicle to expand their assault. The Chronicle, of course, does not sanction the content of the thread, most of which is untrue and with malice.

The “posters” latest attempt to discredit the Oxford Round Table shifts to a red herring attack that ORT letters of invitation do not have a “disclaimer” asserting that the ORT is not associated with Oxford University. We request that none of this be permitted on Wikipedia for several reasons.

First. Several years ago the Oxford Round Table, in consultation with the head of the Legal Office of Oxford University, devised a “disclaimer” to be posted on the ORT website. The Legal Office provided the precise wording now used by the ORT on its website.

Second. The Legal Office of Oxford University did not require, nor feel it necessary to place a “disclaimer” on ORT letterhead. Only on the Website.

Third. All ORT letters of invitation refer to the Website and clearly invite all persons to refer to it for information.

Fourth. No ORT letter of invitation has ever implied or inferred that the ORT is a part, or attached to, Oxford University. Letters of invitation do, as the Legal Office approved, give the name of the college in the University of Oxford where the meeting is to be held (location).

Fifth. Locations for Oxford Round Tables are decided in cooperation with Conference Oxford, an arm of Oxford University, established 12 years ago to solicit conference business for the 39 Oxford colleges. None of the conferences themselves are a formal part of Oxford University.

Sixth. Finally, the issue of “disclaimer” has nothing to do with the history, nature, or definition of the Oxford Round Table. The argument about the disclaimer is irrelevant and should not be a part of any Wikipedia treatment of the Oxford Round Table. The entire discussion is a phony issue, the true purpose of which is to further the malicious intent of a very few “posters” on the Chronicle thread who have now engulfed Wikipedia in their designs. Tepid1 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "We request"? Who is this "we" that you represent, Tepid1? Nevermind. See the section below. Pairadox (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * →  [See also: Talk:Oxford Round Table/Archive 1.] 

I've gone ahead and performed change I discussed. In my opinion it goes some way towards restoring some balance and due weight, by relying on a published source (THES) and giving due prominence to the company's official responses to criticism. --Tony Sidaway 06:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking much improved now. ColdmachineTalk 08:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I incorrectly spoke above; I meant it to read I oppose the changes. I do not agree with the changes or the current title. This purge is a blantant attempt by biased Chronicle posters to further denigrate ORT. For example, it completely ignores that Mahone admitted fault as expressed through her lawyers and her proposal to apologize. There are other information sources that cite as such and will be updated in this new 'section.' Obscuredata (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this revised statement of your opinion. I would like to give an accurate picture of the Sloan Mahone affair, but the date of the admission of fault and offer to apologise described above by Apprec8coetzee, May 30, 2007, is nearly a full month prior to the filing date of the court docket in the Kentucky case, June 25, 2007.  Although I don't think the bare fact of the lawsuit as described at present in the article is prejudicial to ORT's legitimate interests or represents Dr Mahone as prevailing, I might be persuaded that there are better ways of writing about it from our available sources.


 * Incidentally I've no dog in this race. I'm not associated with any of the principals in this affair, I have no wish to slant the article in any way, by inclusion or by omission.  I operate here in my capacity as a regular Wikipedia editor with no special powers. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete for sure. Wiki has been duped by the contrivances of anonymous posters, Dr. Stones, LarryC, Untenured et al. and UKProf (Sloan Mahone) all of the Chronicle thread that is devoted to closing down the ORT. A review of the Chronicle thread clearly reveals the conspiracy of these bandits, with malice aforethought. End the thing. Billingsworth (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Very Strong Delete: It should be deleted because the entire site was created to cast calumny on the Oxford Round Table. The anonymous posters daily enter, directly and by implication, scurrilous biased information about the ORT. The incorporation argument pretends that there is something sinister about the ORT, when in fact it is almost a carbon copy of the Wikipedia incorporation in Florida. Drop the whole thing and do a service to everyone. Apprec8coetzee (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: As I review this Wiki it is entirely a paraphrased transfer of defamatory statements made the posters on the Chronicle thread. The Chronicle posters have for over a year sought to close down the ORT. The Wiki is the road to that Nirvana. Aristotle13 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, that's not suspicious at all; three spanking new editors, all SPAs, post their delete votes within within a five minute window on the wrong page. Pairadox (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, now "they" have figured out which page to spam. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * → See also: Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table (re-nomination)

Contributing Oxford Round Table Attendees
Please stop removing the changes that adhere to Wiki guidelines. Those who have attended the Round Table should be list under 'Contributing Oxford Round Table Attendees', which is central to the explain of the conference. They have been cited to Wikipedia pages and you have no right to change the structure, so it can then be erased. Thankx Obscuredata (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't adhere to Wiki guidelines. Please see Coldmachine's post of 25 January. The attendees mostly aren't notable, and it's just Listcruft. Listing half a dozen or so of the many hundreds who have attended is NOT "central to the explain [sic] of the conference." Academic38 (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Obscuredata, your versions don't adhere to Wiki Manual of Style guidelines. Per WP:HEAD, "Only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized" and "avoid restating or directly referring to the topic or to wording on a higher level in the hierarchy." So it's "Contributing attendees," not "Contributing Oxford Round Table Attendees." Pairadox (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be grateful for advice from editors who have a longer tenure here and whose neutrality is unlikely to be questioned, on how to deal with edits made by someone who clearly has a conflict of interest and which seem to go against consensus (or at least are made without gaining consensus). I gather that I am also perceived to have a conflict of interest (because I have previously participated on the CHE forum? I think I am nonetheless in a different sort of position), so I am reluctant simply to revert Obscuredata's edits. But it gets a bit hard simply to sit on my hands. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Pairadox (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the people who keep reverting my changes have posted to the 'Chronicles of High Education', defaming ORT; then they use Wikipedia to refer to their rants.

That's a conflict of interest. I will not answer these statements about my conflict of interest; I just want accurate statements. I adhere to rules that I have been accused of breaking; you should do the same. How about we discuss elaborating the information that actually pertains to ORT. The opening is a bit thin. Obscuredata (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This section's purpose, Criticism & litigation, is clearly a clever indictment of the ORT. Even to an objective bystander. Turion999 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Footnote 12, to a press release from University of Montana/Montana Tech, is not a reliable source. It is being used as a source that various people attended the ORT, but it only does so by repeating material verbatim from the ORT website. The university clearly did not independently verify it. Academic38 (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'd like to point out that in the "Listcruft" section above, the only neutral editor (Coldmachine) who commented there agreed that this entire section should be deleted. Coldmachine, is that still your view? It is obviously still mine. Academic38 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pity about the COI directive. I was all set to add another 20 names to the list (and another several dozen "policy papers").  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to list them on this talk page for consideration. If consensus can be reached, perhaps they can be included. Pairadox (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I still believe that this section could constitute WP:LISTCRUFT and my view is that the article would be improved if it were to be removed entirely. While listcruft is only a guideline, not a policy, it's still a pertinent one. ColdmachineTalk 08:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Erasing Added Information
Please stop erasing added information. I have cited the information and I will not allow you to keep removing it. It pertains to ORT and therefore it pertains to this page. I will be changing the items back. Also, please explain why you keep erasing the information. Thanks. Obscuredata (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Obscuredata, I have already templated you for assuming ownership of this article. Please re-read that template message; the position you are taking is unhelpful to the ongoing improvement of this article. ColdmachineTalk 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the owner of this Wikipedia article concerning ORT. You say that you have already templated me. I have not erased relevant information, or inserted untruths, regarding ORT. I have not assumed ownership of this article. In fact, I believe that all would be best served if the entire article was removed from Wikipedia. Obscuredata (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest
Okay, this has gone on long enough. I've just tagged the article as COI-laden and issued individual warnings to all concerned parties (everyone but Tony and Coldmachine). If you work for ORT, have posted to the CHE boards, have attended an ORT and came here to defend it, are here because of a request from a concerned party, or are in any way unable to contribute to this article from a Neutral Point of View, then you have a Conflict of interest and should refrain from editing the article. Period. Don't drag your off-wiki debate here. Pairadox (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will certainly comply with your request for as long as it remains in effect. However, while I have posted to the CHE, I believe my edits to the article have been made from an NPOV. I have discussed changes in advance, usually waiting at least 24 hours before implementing them. I did revert Nilfanion's edits as soon as I saw them, but he himself has apologized for coming in without discussion the way that he did.


 * Should further verifiable information relevant to the article become available, what should happen then?Academic38 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All involved parties are welcome to make use of the talk page to provide new information and sources, discuss wording of the article, etc., but should refrain from making changes to the article itself. The straw that broke this camel's back was reading the post from User:Tepid1 above in which they all but state they are part of ORT. The inside knowledge and use of the corporate "we" from yet another new editor who's only interest is this article shows that this use of a Wikipedia article as a continuation of the off-wiki disagreements needs to stop. Pairadox (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I agree, but I would also like to note that in this ongoing edit dispute between ORT affiliates and ORT critics it is the latter who have been willing to engage in dialogue via the talk page. I see no such willingness, on the whole, from ORT affiliates. However; COI is still COI. ColdmachineTalk 08:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Academic, the request remains in effect indefinitely even when the notice taken off the article again. It is a reminder of the rules that apply, not a special prohibition while it is present. The critics may be more willing to engage in discussion than affiliates, but that does not mean they are any less affected by the COI. "We" should be careful not give the critic's views undue weight in the article, just because they are more willing to engage in wiki-practice. That difference between the two sides is a reason for why the old version of the criticism lasted despite being POV-laden. The new version is greatly improved.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Additions
I propose that the page includes actually have something to do with ORT. I will post the information below and see what people think.. I will be cited.
 * "International Education Policy" - ORT is international in scope with concentration on formal education. Central to discussion was education in post-communist eastern Europe. (will list articles relevant to topic.)

Obscuredata (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed additions, but they will need to be cited correctly; independent of ORT website. Tepid1 (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Obscuredata, you seem not to notice that you are barred from editing the article (as am I, which is I won't be the one reverting it).


 * As for your proposed addition, it sounds like Listcruft, but there is no way of knowing until you show us what it is.Academic38 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says I'm barred? I still have access to editing and will continue to do so. Obscuredata (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Pairadox's notice barring all of us from editing the Oxford Round Table article, in the section directly above this one.Academic38 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading this message board from afar because I had been googling 'ORT' to find information about the ORT; it had been highly recommended by a professor. I would just like to state that the information about the ORT itself is indeed minimized and information pertinanting to ORT is drowned out by the 'Critisms and Litagation', formly 'Intellectual Conflict' section. I do see how everyone seems to have a stake in this page for some odd reason. It seems that ORT has sanctioned someone to defend the purpose and legitimacy of the conference, while others are here to possibly discredit ORT. (Possibly the sued party or friends of the sued party, not sure...) Because I think that as a person who already knew things from an objective prospective about ORT and then by looking up the ORT and finding such negative info presented in the ORT Wikipedia, I don't see how conflict of interest can be avoided and therefore I will also suggest the page be deleted. LAstride (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts
The following are all essentially single-purpose accounts whose actions here are disrupting Wikipedia in the apparent furtherance of an external agenda.

Any edits to the article itself by these individuals, or any other single-purpose account, may result in an immediate block from editing. Comments may be made on this talk page but should be restricted to specific, actionable suggestions for improvements to the article.

Note that this article has been the subject of a legal complaint to the Wikimedia foundation and is under active scrutiny from administrators and others. All edits and comments must strictly conform to policy, specifically WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a source for the fact that F. King Alexander is the son of Kern Alexander: http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fweekly%2Fv48%2Fi03%2F03a01201.htm
 * I have not yet found a source for the fact that Samuel Kern Alexander III is the son of Samuel Kern Alexander, Jr. (Kern Alexander), but will post it when I do. Academic38 (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Source added. Note that by doing so I am not endorsing the relevance of it to the article. Pairadox (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I should not be listed on this list. I have been updating the page with relevant, citable information. Those other individuals want 'the controversy' to be the ORT, and sadly for them, it is not. I was just trying to put up accurate information about the organization itself, not highlight matters posted on a blog created by a vindictive person with too much time on their hands. I was trying to add more information that actually pertains to the history and purpose of the ORT, not the information that expresses ones' personal opinion of the conference. Wikipedia should not be a forum where people can go to defame others or bring a spotlight to an issue that does not define an organization. When I first started to edit this page, yes, I deleted complete pages, but I didn't know the rules then. I left the controversy section and the (terribly written, information-less) opening alone after I was asked to. From then on, I created information from my personal knowledge (that I was able to safely cite, no doubt) and those biased to the facts about ORT quickly removed the information. What kind of a consensus is that? Most importantly, what does that say about Wikipedia when it becomes no more than a place to lie about things because you were able to create a blog and cite it as a credible source? I am voting for deletion; this makes no sense. Obscuredata (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion
So the article has been nominated for deletion. Too bad - I thought we were getting somewhere. There is of course more to do - some original research remains, for example (in the first paragraph, the claim about the different incorporations being run by members of the same family - it is obviously true but nonetheless a deduction, I suppose). But the notion that the page is hopeless is far from convincing.

The claim that notability has not been (cannot be) established is demonstrably untrue. A search for "Oxford Round Table" in Nexis produces 147 hits, i.e., newspaper articles (I am not including press releases in that count).

I gather that, having been identified as having a conflict of interest, I am not supposed to participate in the discussion of the deletion nomination. Fair enough - I am new here, I did get here via the Chronicle discussion, and I have made a number of mistakes in editing this page. (I do wonder who *doesn't* start out that way, making mistakes.) I greatly appreciate the attention given to this page by people with much greater experience - I have learned a great deal here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand it, the AfD discussion is open to anyone on the project. It would be unproductive to rehash old arguments/disputes in the AfD discussion, but everyone is still entitled to respond to the listed reasons for deletion and to !vote. ColdmachineTalk 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re edit
I'm new here to this topic (I thought it was an AfD about a group of authors that included Tolkein and CS Lewis; they called themselves something else, the Inklings or whatever) and have just been staring at this diff. The comment is "rv contribution from user with declared conflict of interest - discuss changes on the talk page first, as editors have requested several times" but the diff is to change the word "deceased" (refering to a participant in Round Table) to "decreased", that is, it's the addtion of a typo, and not reverting vandalism or COI, right? The diff is this. Am I misinterpreting this? Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Answering self. My mistake, the editor corrected himself in the subsequent edit. The impression given is that the situation here is so hostile, that one editor reverts another merely because of the COI issue, without so much as glancing at the edit itself. Does not bode well for happiness of contributors here, but that is separate from the issue of keeping the article itself. Pete St.John (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Several admins requested that all editors with a declared COI hold off editing the article while discussion was underway on the talk page. The edit was not labelled as a 'minor' edit, as it ought to have been for a typo fix, and therefore I reverted it. As you see, I undid my own change when I realised. Really, no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill: you are failing to assume good faith here. ColdmachineTalk 09:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Recusing self from continued work on this article
Despite going it alone from the outset to work with the SPA accounts editing this article, in the hopes of getting them to reach consensus (which was working, at one point as everyone got used to the approaches used here on Wikipedia), I am finding it increasingly demoralising when the issue was ignored by the community at the outset and hard work is now being rubbished so readily; my editing integrity is being called into question by editors failing to assume good faith; and the progress which was being made has now been undone by forcing editors with a COI into partisan lines once more by the nomination of this article for deletion. I am recusing myself from the article, will amend my !vote to delete, and will remove this from my watchlist. Please do not contact me regarding this entry on Wikipedia. Cheers. ColdmachineTalk 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the page, for deletion decision
With the impending decision concerning deletion, it seems only fair to address a few outstanding issues so that the page can "look its best" (in relation to wikipedia policies/guidelines, of course), for the "benefit" of the admin who will assess it. As I noted above, there is some "original research" in the first paragraph that should go (the phrase about "run by the same family"). And of course the "listcruft" (together with the "cleanup" tag) is a blight. I would ask for other suggestions along these lines, comments in response - and then for an editor whose neutrality is not in doubt to make them on the article page.

Now, it might be tempting for those who favor deletion to argue against such changes, in the hope that the "worse" the page looks the more likely deletion becomes. That of course would hardly be a good faith approach to editing. If an article conforms to wikipedia guidelines, then it belongs here - and so comments on editing are supposed to contribute to an effort to improve a page (again, in accordance with the relevant guidelines and policies). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)