Talk:Roger Kaufman/Archives/2016

Complaint
This page is a blatant, uncritical praise of one person. Needs clean-up from an objective point of view. While there might not be any dispute about the merits of Dr. Kaufman, this article does not read like an objective, encyclopedic text. Especially notable is the liberal use of superlatives. A more objective tone of voice and wording would also better bring up the person's influence and merits, too.

For instance, in "Brief Bio", everyone can see that Dr. Kaufman's career is distinguished; it does not need to be bloated ("...have defined his distinguished career...").

"Used with permission from Kaufman, 2000, p. 95."... Where does this permission come from and where is it documented? This leads one to believe that the author of this wiki page was either Dr. Kaufman's student or Dr. Kaufman himself.

Needs assessment and Mega planning should be wiki pages on their own. That would further structure this text.

I believe the protocol on NPOV is that you actually make edits, not just attack the article and call it unbiased. This entry is based on a number of features on Kaufman from different journals and other members in the field, as evidenced by the citations for the entry. I am not a student of Kaufman (perhaps you missed that he is retired) nor did I complete my doctorate at his institution.

I call into question the veracity of this NPOV tag, wondering whether perhaps this was posted by a former disgruntled student who is unable to accept any depiction of Kaufman as biased if it is not a negative depiction. If this is an unbiased observer, then your actual edits to the article that would make it more balanced are welcome. Otherwise, if all you plan to do is tag it and complain, you are not making a worthwhile contribution to this entry and your tag should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephMoore (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain why the system added a signature for me but not for the original post? I find it troublesome that the many hours of hard work I put into compiling a review of a history maker for our field, as part of a project I am working for a professional association, gets called into question and tagged as unbiased and yet that person does not have to (a) make any edits him/herself or (b) identify him/herself. In my opinion, this seems to be a major flaw in the Wikipedia system. StephMoore (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)



I have been reading through Wikipedia's NPOV policy trying to determine the exact process for getting this removed. First, they note that "This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile." The original comments only indicate concern with some sections, not with the overall content of the article nor that there is any "volatile" disagreement. Seeing as how the article is a factual report on Kaufman's bio and the major components of his work, any reference that might be deemed as "bloated" no longer exists, and several people have made edits to the page that have been largely maintained, including one of Kaufman's main detractors, it appears that this dispute has been resolved by way of edits to the entry (many of which I should note occurred before this article was tagged).

Wikipedia does not provide an exactly clear process for how to determine that a dispute is finally resolved and the tag can finally be removed. So, in the interest of trying to move that process forward - as best as I understand to do so per my reading of Wikipedia - I am moving here and now that the tag be removed. Any editors should voice agreement or disagreement with that and are reminded you should be clear on the necessary improvements AND be an active member in editing (not just a critical voice in the dark). If there are not responses to that motion within the next week, then I will interpret silence as agreement and the motion as carrying and will remove the tag. StephMoore (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that there has been no response to the above in three weeks, I'm going to interpret that as the dispute being resolved and remove the tag. StephMoore (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

= Neutrality and points of view =

" I am not a student of Kaufman...nor did I complete my doctorate at his institution." I accept your statement, but I believe you are likely the S. Moore who's been an associate of Kaufman and Associates for eight years(four at the time you wrote that). Nothing wrong with being his associate, but it does cast a shadow over statements that some might see as fulsome praise, and on the (technically accurate) "not a student / no doctorate" disclaimer. --- OtherDave (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)