Talk:John Hood/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 'controversy' section of the article on John Hood may not conform to NPOV (neutral point of view) standards:

1) "Dr Hood's appointment to Oxford was controversial". This is an opinion, not a statement of fact; no references are given.

2) "...concerns about the applicability of corporate models of governance in educational institutions". No reference is given; the 'concerns' are unattributed.

3) "At the start of the 2006 academic year, there was controversy concerning his £197,000 salary and 31% pay increase." The reference given is to a student paper. One person is quoted as objecting to the pay rise. The pay rise brought Oxford's vice-chancellor to number 19 in the Times Higher Education Supplement's ranking of UK vice-chancellors' pay.

4) "...there have been accusations of cronyism in appointments to senior management positions such as the Registrar, Julie Maxton." The 'accusations' have not been attributed to anyone, either in the article or the reference (an article in The Guardian).

5) "Comparisons have been drawn with Lawrence Summers". No reference is given, the 'comparisons' are unattributed.

6) "Although individual academic staff have been critical of John Hood..." No reference, the 'criticism' is unattributed.

7) "...there has been no formal motion calling for his resignation. However, an informal letter of confidence organised by his supporters in February 2006 attracted around 50 signatories from Members of Congregation, a group numbering more than 3,000." Without making clear whether or not every member of Congregation was asked to sign the letter, this comparison is irrelevant.

8) Final paragraph of the section: this conflates proposals on the governance of Oxford University (put forward by a working group chaired by John Hood) with John Hood himself. Discussion of governance proposals should form a separate entry.