Talk:John Hood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

[edit] NPOV Concerns

RuthOxford: Could you clarify your concerns on NPOV please? As far as I can see all the statements which might be considered contentious have clear references. The article also had an NPOV edit at the end of November 2006, and nothing much has been added since then, other than the improved references. Jonathan A Jones 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested too. I think Ruth has a point. Take, for example, the sentence: "More recently there have been accusations of cronyism in appointments to senior management positions such as the Registrar, Julie Maxton [5]." First of all, the word "cronyism" does not appear in the source. Second, the source goes on to state that "The university said the selection committee that made the recommendation to Oxford's ruling council was advised by personnel search consultants and included an external member of the council, Alison Richard, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge, and senior Oxford academics." Now why is this not included in the Wikipedia article, if not to present a one-sided view of Dr. Hood's alleged actions? My point is that the wikipedia article could be much more neutral if some pro-Hood views were expressed somewhere in the article. In its current form the article ignores the existence such views almost entirely. BFD1 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The cronyism section is probably the most questionable bit, and adding something along the lines of your quote would certainly help balance things. The rest is, I think, largely factual, though obviously the selection of facts might be considered biased. Would indeed be nice to have some pro-Hood views, but so far his supporters seem to have confined themselves to deleting large chunks rather than adding anything. Jonathan A Jones 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar: The NPOV edit I made in November was clearly superficial; I removed some biased adjectives and that's all. I've been meaning to get around to correcting the underlying bias for some time but have not had much chance lately. BFD1 15:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Would be nice if you had a go; the current contributors mostly seem too close to the situation. Jonathan A Jones 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if the points below were viewable (I'm new to Wikipedia), but the 'controversy' section of the article on John Hood may not conform to NPOV (neutral point of view) standards for the following reasons:

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. RuthOxford 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your points are well made and I personally welcome your contributions. Please be bold and remove any unreferenced material you find in this or any other article, as per wikipedia's no original research and verifiability policies. Don't be afraid to step in there and make some heavy edits, and don't be afraid to make mistakes - there are lots of editors around to help out. BFD1 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ruth, I agree with some of your points, but think you go too far with others. Will try and comment later when I have more time. But first, can I ask if you are Ruth Collier form the Oxford University Public Affairs Directorate? If so you might want to mention this on your user page, as it might be thought relevant to your expertise and POV. Jonathan A Jones 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Ruth's points (match the numbers!):

(1) More to the point, his appointment was not in fact controversial; it would be better to say that his appointment has led to controversy.

(2) Would be closer to the truth to say that the rest of the section documents them.

Actually, I don't think the article does a very good job of explaining (a) the corporate model of governance or (b) why such a model is inapplicable for educational institutions. BFD1 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be trying to explain those general points; that really would be stretching the article too far. But I can see a reference would be handy. The problem is that the corporate stuff is the underlying background of the dispute, ans as such it rarely gets directly mentioned! But one possibility might be No-confidence vote looms for Oxford vice-chancellor, which would also do nicely as a reference for critical individuals? Jonathan A Jones 11:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

With much respect, I disagree. These "general points" (if you can call them that, since they are inextricably related and specific to the cause and nature of the controversy surrounding Dr. Hood) provide necessary context for a reasonably complete picture of how and why Hood has become a controversial figure. As an aside, I completely agree with you that the underlying background rarely gets mentioned. But it needs to get mentioned, otherwise the debate loses meaning and degenerates into something less rational or informed. Anyway, I've made some changes in keeping with my belief that the issues need better representation in this article. Have at them! :) BFD1 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to come down to a disagreement as to what we mean by "explain these general points"; I'm certainly very happy with the approach you have adopted! The reordering (away from largely historic and towards broadly thematic) helps clarify things nicely. May have another fiddle at some point but I want to mull for a while now. Thanks. Jonathan A Jones 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually this one Oxford reform plans face opposition would be better for the general controversy though No-confidence vote looms for Oxford vice-chancellor remains good for critical individuals? Jonathan A Jones 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(3) As far as I recall the controversy was over the meteoric rise in the rankings rather than the actual sum, but your point is taken.

(4) I agree that the word cronyism is overstrong in this context, but I don't see your problems with the rest of this.

(5) They're in the Guardian article.

(6) Any article by or mentioning Alan Ryan or David Palfreyman would seem to fit the bill; I agree that this is only implied rather than clearly stated in the current references.

(7) The use of the word informal seems to answer that point.

(8) Oh really, that's spin and you know it as well as I do. It's a bit like suggesting that the Iraq War shouldn't be mentioned in the article on Tony Blair. Jonathan A Jones 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing NPOV Tag

To my eye the controversy section is looking much more balanced, and I think that the above concerns have been addressed in large part or whole. I'm removing the NPOV warning tag; please feel free to resume discussion as necessary. BFD1 18:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been waiting to hear back from Ruth before doing anything, but for what it's worth I think it is reasonable to take silence as consent at this stage.Jonathan A Jones 21:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)