Talk:Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The entire Hampshire College network seems to be off-line right now. JWSchmidt 03:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is okay now. JWSchmidt 18:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Self-published sources can be used as a primary source about the subject itself. However, they can not be used to demonstrate the subject's own notability. Has this summer studies program been the subject of an independent article? If so, this source (these sources) should be listed as a reference for this article. Without such independent references, this sounds a lot like a math program blowing its own horn. Rklawton 04:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote in your edit summary, "tagged as self-published because it relies substantially on self-published sources". What does "it" refer to? The whole article? Or just the section on yellow pigs day (that you've had prior disputes with)?

If it's the whole article, what statements in the article do you find controversial or needing proof? The statement about funding by the AMS and the NSF? I'm also a bit confused by the tag you added. You say the article relies on self-published sources, but there aren't any sources cited by the article. There are a handful of external links, but these are not claimed as sources. Is this what you're referring to? Lunch 02:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence that this program exists is through these external links. Otherwise, the article is entirely unsourced. I suppose I could swap the current tag for the "unsourced" tag iv you prefer, but I was trying to give this article some credit for sources. As with any academic journal, this encyclopedia has its standards, and this article needs to live up to those standards or face possible deletion. As you and I both know, this program has existed for some time, and it's probably worthy of an article. However, it needs work, and tagging it as such will hopefully motivate one or more editors to make the necessary improvements. Rklawton 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the links do not provide the only evidence that the program exists, and you should know better. You participated in the AfD for yellow pigs day; you should know about the references provided there. I added one that was provided; there are more. I think you would better serve the article (and "this encyclopedia") by putting in the effort to find sources for this article rather than pretending that there are none.

You seem to be aiming all over the place with terms like "self-published", "cannot demonstrate notability", "blowing its own horn", "only evidence for existence", "unsourced", and "live up to those standards". You say "it's probably worthy of an article" and "this program has existed for some time" but then threaten that the article "face[s] possible deletion". Go pick on the list of porn stars. Lunch 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT can explain this better than I can. Wikipedia has standards, and this article falls short in the area of sources. I've got a pretty good track record spotting articles that fall short of standards. Politely pointing them out rather than simply nominating this article for deletion outright is a courtesy. Your question about why I don't fix it myself could be more aptly applied to you since you have edited this article previously. I trust you weren't trying to be rude with your last comment. I've noticed a record of rudeness directed toward me in the past from people associated with this academic program, and that sort of history will do little to convince administrators of this program's notability or of its editors' sincerity in creating an article worthy of publication here. As a mathematician, surely you are familiar with the editorial standards of various journals. Wikipedia is no different. Rklawton 05:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)