Talk:R. Duane Ireland

Infobox
, please read the documentation of Template:Infobox officeholder. That infobox is for politicians, not for academics having an academic position. The correct infobox here is the academic infobox. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , for the record, you first said the correct one here is the scientist infobox, then you said it’s the “avademic” infobox. The officeholder infobox is not for only politicians, it is for anyone that is an officeholder. The dean of the Business School would generally be considered an officeholder and therefore, the correct infobox here is the officeholder infobox. Please see articles with subjects who have a similar position. I also added an academic infobox module. Aquabluetesla (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, read again. It's not, for example, for academics who are secretary-general or president of a learned society. If other articles do differently, then they are wrong, too (cf. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) It's a reason to correct those articles, not imitate them. (And two can play the game of OTHERCRAPEXISTS: see Barry Everitt (scientist) who has been president of at least 5 different societies -2 of them with tens of thousands of members- but still we use only the scientist infobox-as it should be). --Randykitty (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article has no correlation with this British scientist you have referenced, as the subject is neither British nor a “scientist.” Aquabluetesla (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what you mean by that. Nationality is completely irrelevant and scientists are just a specialized class of academics. I'm just showing you that where you can show me articles on academics that have an officeholder infobox, I can show you academics where this is not done. But OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to both examples. What also applies to both examples is the documentation for the officeholder infobox, which is applied to ministers, ambassadors, heads of state, etc, but not to deans or other academics (unless those academics serve as ambassador, etc.) I'll post a note on the Biography/Science and academia project linking to this discussion and asking for input. I'll ping you so you can easily find my note. --Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My message in the talk page of WP:WPBIO →‎ officeholder: The officeholder infobox is the only way to list the position of dean in the infobox and this is how it is done on most American university dean articles. I have added an academic infobox module to list what is unable to be listed with the officeholder infobox. I don’t think there is any real issue here. Aquabluetesla (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One more thing: All the offices mentioned in the documentation of Template:Infobox officeholder make a person notable. Being a dean is not enough to meet WP:PROF. And where does this end? After the deans, are you going to add this infobox to department heads? Heads of academic institutes? Group leaders? High school directors? What little info of interest that the infobox officeholder contains in the present case (basically only the term, nobody really cares who preceded/succeeded someone as dean) can very easily be included in the text "from xx to xx John Doe served as dean of xx". --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The officeholder infobox was used on this article, about the subject who is a dean of an American university's business school, because it was an attempt to mirror how it is reflected on the article of the - also American - Harvard Business School. If you - a person whom may or may not be British - really think this is an issue, then why don't you try to bring this up on other American university academic administrator articles (e.g. Chancellors, Deans, Presidents, and Provosts) that typically use this format? Aquabluetesla (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss where you get the impression that I am British, as I always carefully avoid giving any personal information to anybody here on WP (and I neither deny nor confirm that I am British). As I said above, nationality has no bearing on this. As for "typically use this format", no that's not what I see when I go through articles on deans etc.: I typically don't see this infobox. It's irrelevant anyway, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If other articles use this inappropriate infobox, then it should be removed there, too. --Randykitty (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: Let's please restrict discussion to the article/edits and not discuss editors. I checked 10 random articles in Category:American university and college faculty deans and found: 5 had a small, succinct infobox; 3 had no infobox; 1 had a custom infobox (Kim B. Clark uses the Mormon-specific ); and 1 uses (IFOH) (Jens David Ohlin, created less than a year ago) with a much more succinct format (9 lines altogether). It's a small sample, but let's not say that most use it. Looking specifically at quality articles, I used PetScan (query link) and found 1 American dean FA (Wiley Rutledge) and 14 GAs. Several of them held political office and used IFOH for that but not for their terms as dean. Others did put their term as dean in IFOH: Elena Kagan, Nancy Marcus, J. Hunter Guthrie, Lawrence C. Gorman, John B. Creeden, Arthur A. O'Leary, Thomas I. Gasson and John Hart Ely (the last of these called IFOH as a module from within infobox academic). That's $7 1/2$ out of 15 = 50% of them. So there is no general consensus among GA/FA reviewers: while some editors have felt that it is acceptable in some cases, other editors have found it unnecessary in other cases. Although the dictionary definition of office is fairly broad, it's pretty clear from the template documentation examples and talk page discussions that the intention is to use IFOH for high government officeholders. Template documentation does not constitute an editing guideline, but it does generally indicate editing consensus, particularly with a template like this which has a relatively large number of editors and watchers (pagestats). Setting that aside, the primary guideline which I would apply is MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which reminds us that infoboxes should summarize key facts of the article and The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose. Use of IFOH makes the infobox unnecessarily bloated – on my monitor, it extends into the third section of the body! – and buries the key facts about the subject under trivial facts about the office the subject once held. All of that upper section should be condensed to one or two lines of pertinence in a more appropriate infobox template. As a footnote, I would suggest that the use of IFOH for holders of high government offices may be justified when the office is more notable than the person, and the transitions will inform the reader of the political context which is likely to be of interest. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you obviously put some serious time and effort into this 3O. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , I assume that you have seen this by now. Any comments? --Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry to bother you again about this, but here interprets your opinion as applying only to deans, whereas I interpret it as applying to all academic positions with IFOH only to be used "for high government officeholders". Could you perhaps clarify which interpretation is correct? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Replying here for centralized discussion and so it won't be blanked. As I mentioned at the end of my 3O, it is non-binding. However, I will mention that another 3O provider left a note on my talk page because they were impressed with how thorough it was. Take that as you will. Now, a few points of clarification on my 3O as per the talk page discussion linked above in user talk page history.
 * Perhaps I should have had more than one line in my opener about not discussing editors. I strongly hold to WP:PRIVACY concerns which are policy (policies must be adhered to, guidelines should be observed) and something the Wikimedia Foundation itself has been known to intercede in, so I would urge all editors to heed it. Furthermore, when building an international encyclopedia, I find it quite useful to have input from editors with all sorts of backgrounds. All editors are equal. Even if one editor has specialist knowledge, that does not place them above other editors.
 * The examples I used drew from a category of American deans. Editors are pretty free about adding and removing categories, so it's not like that's necessarily going to be all-inclusive, it was just a general sounding of what's out there. It's still OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and kind of irrelevant though, the guts of my 3O comes after Setting that aside when I bring up the editing guideline about infoboxes.  (I generally try to address concerns brought up in discussion between the two parties before before proposing a third option or presenting a third rationale.) That guideline about infoboxes applies to all articles across all topics. Like all editing guidelines, it should generally be adhered to unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
 * To briefly summarize, infoboxes should only list key facts and be kept minimal. is intended for high government officials. If it is used in articles on other subjects, this should be by talk page consensus to justify why these are key facts for the article and why they should be presented so prominently.
 * If there is consensus, application should be minimal (the fewest parameters used) and preferably called as a module from within another infobox (as in the John Hart Ely example) so that it appears last in the infobox rather than first. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your input Aquabluetesla (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , your edit summary with your latest revert cites the above comments of very selectively. For one, it stipulates talkpage consensus, which clearly does not exist. Please self-revert. ("...intended for high government officials. If it is used in articles on other subjects, this should be by talk page consensus to justify why these are key facts for the article and why they should be presented so prominently.") Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Spouse
I'm genuinely curious: why is the information that in 1972 he married a woman named Mary Ann "very important"? To find a source for that one actually has to dig deep into a podcast (sorry, but I'm not going to listen to a 19 min podcast to see why Mary Ann is so important; BTW, given that the source is audio, are you sure it's "Mary Ann" and not "Mary Anne" or "Marianne"?) While spouses of heads of states and such are usually notable by themselves, that is rarely the case with academics, unless the spouses themselves have a notable career. Anyway, I'll be curious to hear your explanation. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * More sources note this than just the podcast. See the source "Meet the New Interim Dean…". First and middle names are Mary Ann, unknown maiden name. Then don’t listen to it. Aquabluetesla (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You still didn't answer my question: why is the information that in 1972 he married a woman named Mary Ann "very important"? --Randykitty (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, nor will I. It’s an extremely frivolous question. Aquabluetesla (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it is frivolous to ask you to explain an assertion that something is "very important". Mary Ann does not belong in this article. --Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:Let it go. Saying that the information was "unsourced" was an absolute lie. I will be creating a discussion about the problematic editing behavior as it goes against that of the WP:DE guidelines and is a frequent and persistent problem on several pages now. The user rights of this editor need to be formally reviewed. Aquabluetesla (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The appropriate noticeboard is here, but beware the WP:BOOMERANG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You have restored the spouse and children again, syaing "This is noted in several sources and has been on the article for quite some time." However, that something can be sourced does not mean that it needs to be in an article: suppose we had a reliable source that Ireland takes his coffee with milk and three lumps of sugar (without any other info), would we put that in the article, too? And that something has been in an article for a long time does not mean that it needs to stay in eternam. You still have not answered my polite question why the name of his wife is so important that it needs to go in the infobox. --Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already answered this question. There will be a post on WP:ANI soon if you do not cease this behavior that is spreading to other articles because you cannot stop monitoring every edit I make. Your reasoning for removal is invalid, please read WP:BLPPRIVACY. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. You've said that my question is "extremely frivolous" and that you won't provide an answer. I fail to see the relevance of BLPCOI, but I guess all will become clear at ANI. ---Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)-Randykitty (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, you meant BLPPRIVACY instead of BLPCOI. It would be clearer for others to follow this discussion if you wouldn't just change your previous comments: another editor would now be rather puzzled about why I was asking about the relevance of BLPCOI. The usual procedure is to strike through incorrect text and have it followed by the new text. Anyway, what I still have not heard is why it is essential to include this (in my eyes trivial) info. As I said above, being sourced is not yet a reason to include. BLPPRIVACY is not really relevant either, as it deals with the subjects of articles, not persons connected with them. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I still am waiting for an answer to my question. When you have a moment... --Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

corrections
This is R. Duane Ireland. There are two factual errors in the entry about me that are embarrassing. I would like them to be deleted please. The errors are: (1) I did not receive an offer from the University of Kansas and (2) I did not receive an offer from Ohio State University. While I cannot provide "evidence" that these are factual statements, I am pleading that these statements be deleted because they are incorrect and because having these statements in the commentary is embarrassing to be given there lack of veracity.

Duane Ireland Miss Boo cat (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed that unverified content, . Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! There are other errors but I cannot provide direct evidence at the moment. For example, when Ricky Griffin replaced me, he was appointed as interim dean not as dean. I really, really appreciate your help in correcting these mistakes! If this is to remain as an entry I would like to add materials. But doing that seems to require a substantial effort in terms of providing evidence.
 * Duane Ireland Miss Boo cat (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , I added "interim" because that is the wording used in the cited source. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Miss Boo cat (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Podcast source
Due to the possible attention(of editors) brought by recent edits, I'm just going to leave this note here for future editors:

Maybe it's just me - but I could not find the podcast being referenced in the link cited [6](https://mays.tamu.edu/mastercast/), it appears to be this one: https://maysmastercast.podbean.com/e/dr-ireland/ - Minutes 2 to 3 of said podcast is where the talk about offers to universities and that section happened, and where the "Michael A. Hitt" as advisor confusion appears to have come from (undergraduate advisor, not doctorate).

I am not confident in my understanding of the workings of citations, podcasts as a source or even academia topics in general to even attempt to replace the citation though. – 2804:F14:80D6:E401:68E7:F648:F6A7:167E (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)