Talk:Oxford Round Table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxford Round Table article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archive
Archives
Archive 1: Dec 2007 - Jan 2008
Archive 2: February 2008
Archive 3: Feb - March 2008


Contents

[edit] Citations and External Link

I checked all the links and they work; which is good. Conversely, the 'Chronicles' definitely should not be listed as an external link. There are many other relevant links regarding the Round Table. A forum posting should not be used as something reliable. Also we should continue to discuss the state of the 'Contributing Attendees.' I checked some of the names and they had third party sources. Should they be added again since all Wikipedia needs is third party sources. PigeonPiece (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. I disagree about deleting the Chronicle website link. The 2007 THE article establishes that that discussion is notable. Yes, it is anonymous, but it is a discussion board for active academics. A truck driver would not be able to construct a useful post for that thread. And anonymity has virtues as well as vices: anonymity makes it possible to say what you really think without fear of reprisal, though at the risk that people will spread misinformation without fear of getting caught. Many of the posters in that Chronicle thread have track records in other threads that make what they say more reliable than it would otherwise be--kind of like Wikipedia.
As for the "Contributing Attendees," I am skeptical that we can create something that isn't Listcruft, but it would be a lot easier to evaluate if you proposed a specific edit with genuine third-party sources.Academic38 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The CHE is not being used as a source. External links are different from sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my problem with the Chronicle for Higher Learning is that it seems to be very odd to me for some reason. I just have read the 'External Link' requirement page and the Chronicle for Higher Learning breaks several of the rules. Please read WP:EL under 'Link to Be Avoided' and the Chronicle forum/discussion/blog breaks all of a good amount of rules. I was drawn to the External Links because when I was attempting to fine info regarding the Table, many other links that could not be cited in the article because of Wiki guidelines, seem like they are much more revelant than the Chronicle blog for External Links. I propose adding another link and removing the Chronicle link because it does not adhere to Wiki guidelines. Academic38, your statement regarding who posts to the board can neither be confirmed or denyed because the postings are anonymous and nothing can be proven. It could be truck drivers with no idea about what they are talking about or otherwise; that is why Wiki discourages forums as reliable External Links. More discussion needed, but I am going to suggest the Chronicle be removed. It is already referred to under the THE explanation and does not need to be listed as an 'External Link.' PigeonPiece (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read WP:EL and I don't see that it breaks any rules. What rules are you claiming it breaks? You really need a stronger argument than "it seems to be very odd to me for some reason." The December 2007 THE story has already validated the Chronicle link.Academic38 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
PigeonPiece, It's a bit rich to start invoking "rules" here, when you have conspicuously failed to do so in response to repeated requests above. In any event, as you yourself have pointed out here, there is a distinction to make between policies and guidelines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the Times article justifies the link to a "blog." It can be argued that it justifies a link to the 'Chronicles for Higher Education" website but not to a blog that God knows who started. Academic38, you claim that my only argument is "it seems odd...", however this is not true. If you read carefully the WP:EL under the section "Links To Be Avoided", you would have your answer as to why the link to the 'Chronicle' blog is not up to the guidelines at all. Nomoskedasticity, I am not attempting to use rules only when it seems fit. You and Academic38 are asking me to point out regulations in the posts above and yet now you are stating that even though the "Chronicle" blog link breaks Wiki guidelines, I should be okay with it because I was having a discussion about other rules above. No, that will not work for this page. I will discuss things with the other editors on this page, but I will not be bullied into not asking questions about additions I think are irrelevant. I will not be bullied by semantics because you have some affinity for the 'Chronicle' blog. We can discuss this more, but I will request mediation because that blog is just that, a blog and gives no relevant information about the conference of the Round Table at all. I mean, I tried to read through it and it serves as nothing more than gibberish and opinions; and for right this article, we can not rely on a forum posting or blog that anyone can post to.PigeonPiece (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As anyone can see, you were not discussing your views in relation to policies and guidelines above (in previous sections), and so it is perfectly clear that you are doing so here because it appears to suit your purposes. You have also failed to respond to the point relating to the distinction between policies and guidelines, a distinction you yourself noted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly capable of reading carefully: what rules are you claiming it breaks? There is a list under "Links to be avoided," and I don't see how it fits in any of those categories.Academic38 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The following "links to be avoided" explanations below are the ones that I believe a forum started by a blogger is not worthy to be placed on the 'External Links' list. You say these are academics, but who are you? I have no idea who started that blog and linking it to Wikipedia is not good for this page. There are other more worthy external links that we could use.

"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." You may argue that the people that post on the Chronicle are 'recognized authority' but this cannot be proven. PigeonPiece (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but use common sense overrides the rules you cite. The Chronicle website is not a social networking site and it is not a blog. It is a discussion forum but most discussion forum threads do not get written up in Times Higher Education. There are literally millions of discussion forum threads on the web, and it is just this one that a THE reporter saw as worth reporting on. I think if a reporter at a prestigious newspaper believes that the posters to a thread are academics, and the entire Chronicle website is set up for academics, your pretending not to believe that they are academics violates common sense. And remember, it is a guideline of "links normally to be avoided," in any event.Academic38 (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Academic38's points are good. In addition, a specific reason to provide an external link in this case is that the article itself discusses the forum in question.
Funny, this notion that discussion forums can be problematic because "anyone can post": sounds like the talk pages of a certain on-line encyclopaedia I can think of. Perhaps that is why this particular issue is treated as a guideline subject to the occasional common sense exception. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree that just because a source covers something, it automatically gives credibility to what is covered. I am not necessarily advocating the removal of the reference to the 'Times' or the 'Chronicle' website in general, I just don't think that particular 'External Link' provides any substance to the readers of this article. That discussion forum is anonymous and at some instances non-sensical. I guess don't see why you are so adamant about keeping it. I made a simple suggestion because it seemed to overtly violate the fact that a discussion forum should not be used as an External Link. I read a bit of the forum and I thought it strange that someone was seeking the same information we were discussing over here (you may remember our discussion regarding the use of a link with some woman's name.) A lot of the information over there seems to want to discuss the Round Table in a slightly senseless light and I don't think people that use this forum should have discussions over there and then insert there discussion into the Wiki forum. I guess we will need to ask someone else to join the discussion. And not the person that posted things about my (of all people's) cred. ThanxPigeonPiece (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not listening, so I will not waste my breathe repeating what has been already said. Let me just point out that Pairadox is the person who issued my WP:COI warning, so is hardly biased in my favor. You ludicrously accused Pairadox of being an SPA, yet your refuse to admit your own obvious WP:COI. You try to defend the undefensible. That is why you have no credibility.Academic38 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Will ignore the above statement about my credibility. I do not believe a forum should be used as an External Link. I will be asking for mediation.PigeonPiece (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How would you know about a 15-year old non-searchable article about the Oxford Round Table and the location of its former webpage if you didn't have an intimate knowledge of the ORT? You aren't fooling anyone by pretending not to have a WP:COI.Academic38 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop; WP:NPA. I used Yahoo! search engine containing both Lammert's name and Oxford Round Table. That's how I found the third party website that you all will not allow me to use. I know about the article because there is a place on-line that an ORT publication was scanned to. In some of the earlier versions of this article that page is referred to. That article is re-printed in the back of one of the ORT's publications. Why are you so suspicious? You know, not everybody uses 'google' to search; there are many other search engines that yield more credible information. So do your research before making accusations. PigeonPiece (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I said the Times Higher Education Supplement article was non-searchable, not the archived ORT website at UIUC. And I agree with you that Yahoo is a better search engine than Google; I like Alta Vista best, however. I am still not clear how you got to Huw Richards' article; could you be more specific? Are you saying the Richards article is reprinted online? Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
"I know about the article because there is a place on-line that an ORT publication was scanned to." PigeonPiece, are you going to tell us the location/url of this on-line "place" you are referring to? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The information can be searched. I found this information a bit ago. If you need further information, please use your search engine of choice. Thanks PigeonPiece (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Although no one responded to this strand, (I guess they believed the issue to be dead) we still need to discuss the removal of the 'Chronicles for Higher Learning' link. It does not add any significant information about the Oxford Round Table. It is nothing but peoples' opinions. I could sign up and I am not necessary a part of the academic community, and I have certainly never been to the Round Table. The argument that ‘the blog/forum is for academics’ is ludicrous considering the forum is open to the public. Not to mention the fact that it seems like anyone can start a forum without presenting academic credentials. PigeonPiece (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose removing this 'Chronicles' link by the end of the week. If someone does not agree, I have requested help to discuss this matter. PigeonPiece (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally oppose this. The reasons you have given are not valid.Academic38 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic38 or anyone else that opposes the removal of this link, please explain what is untrue about my former statement. I will copy it again here so you can answer. I have highlighted information that should be addressed, as those are the things that constitute it as unworthy of an 'External Link'. Please read the following and answer accordingly so we can get this resolved: 'It is nothing but peoples' opinions. I could sign up and I am not necessary a part of the academic community, and I have certainly never been to the Round Table. The argument that ‘the blog/forum is for academics’ is ludicrous considering the forum is open to the public. Not to mention the fact that it seems like anyone can start a forum without presenting academic credentials.'

Thank you for your responses. PigeonPiece (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, look at it this way: the final section ("Criticism and litigation") refers to the CHE forum, presenting it as a sensible discussion. You, on the other hand, say that you think it is nonsense. Let's assume that you're right - let's say it's nonsense. Wouldn't you want people who read this Wikipedia article to go to that external link and discover for themselves that it's nonsense? Do you actually want them to read the final section of this article and go away only with the impression they have gained?
I would suggest that you create a RfC and try to get other editors to weigh in here. I continue to think that this is the kind of situation where it is acceptable to make a common-sense exception to a guideline (not a policy). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, simply repeating your argument does not make it any stronger. I concur with Nomoskedasticity's suggestion that you create an RfC. And while we are on the subject of answering questions, when are you going to say where on the web the Huw Richards article is? You keep saying that it is...Academic38 (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep offering the same defense as well and it makes no sense. You are not answering the things I asked that, if answered, would be in direct violation of WP:EL. That link adds nothing to what the Oxford Round Table seems to be. I should create a RFC when I get the chance; I actually have a life. The Higher Learning blog spot is nothing but losers blogging idiotic, speculative remarks. Defend them if you want, but it makes no sense. I believe you (Academic38) may be blogging over there; that is the only thing I can think of. It was quite suspicious how we were debating Shenet Alexander's relationship to whoever and that same day someone requested that same information over on that blog page. Was not it decided that those who were blogging over there should not be posting on this entry? If that link is kept, I will be adding another link as well. I can find many more relevant links to the Oxford Round Table. Academic38 and Nomoskedasticity, you should have no problem with other links I include since the link you are fighting to keep is blatantly breaking WP:ELPigeonPiece (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Forum on Public Policy, just like the CHE thread, is specifically mentioned in the article, I have no objection to adding it as an external link. Please note, however, that Wikipedia is not a link collection, so if you think you are going to add a bunch of "third-party" links that actually just repeat copy from the ORT website, I will object. An example of that, which should be removed as a source in the article, is the press release from the University of Montana.Academic38 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the U of M link that you are referring to? Also, I will add a RFC but the Chronicles link obviously breaks the External Link rule and I will be removing it if you can not give me a better reason. You keep saying 'common sense', but common sense would prove that the 'Chronicles' is breaking the External Link rule. PigeonPiece (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The U of M press release is footnote 12 in the article. If you remove the link without consensus or an RfC, it will be reverted. I'm not going to waste my breath restating my points until we have an RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic38 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Last Section

I proposed the following addition to the last section. That section needs more balanced and since everyone here is okay with the 'Times', I have used their words.

'Despite the alleged criticism, an article in "The Times Higher Education Supplement" has noted that 'the Oxford conferences are going very well' and has gained 'international interest.' PigeonPiece (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And what would be the source of these claims? Certainly there is nothing in the 21 December 2007 THE article that would support it. And it hardly makes sense to respond to a 2008 controversy with a 1993 article, if those words are in the Richards article, which you have still not told me where it is reprinted online.Academic38 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as where I located the item, please see above statement in the 'proposed additions...' section above. You do not dispute the article exists, so I do not feel the need to respond to any more questions about it. We have decided to use the article. Information about 'Amoco, BP, Boeing' was included from that article, and another reference to the article is being debated above. The article is valid and it can all be cited. The sentence shows that there is a balance and the current version does not. The editors on this page seem to be concerned with citations and the proposed addition has one that reflects the text accurately. PigeonPiece (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the article on the web or not? You say it can be searched, but it doesn't come up on any search engine with the search terms I listed, not with Yahoo, Google, or Alta Vista. Why don't you just say where it is? Why are you trying to hide information that would allow me to make an educated response? "Apple [not Amoco], BP, Boeing" comes from the article I found by Margrave; is it the Richards article, too? In any case, a 1993 article cannot answer a contemporary dispute, unless you believe in time travel.Academic38 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The article can be found because I did it a bit ago. Ask Nomoskedasticity because that person agrees it is searchable and found the article, even proposed to use the "outdated" article to help this entry; and at that time, Academic38 had no problem using the article. The sentence I proposed refers to the conference and the other information in that section refers to the problem an individual has with the Round Table. The information I propose deals with the Round Table and can be cited. There are many other sources on the internet that praise the Round Table, but since everyone agreed we could use this article, I decided to be a good, neutral editor and follow through with that agreement. I propose adding the sentence sooner rather than later.PigeonPiece (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not searchable - I found it on microfiche in my university library after you provided the citation. You must have found it through some other mechanism, not a search engine.
The use of the 2007 THES article on the ORT page here is dated - it refers explicitly to an article published in 2007. Your proposed sentence should do the same. Likewise with the way this one is used in the "Conferences" section. So, perhaps: "A 1993 article in the Times Higher Education Supplement noted that 'the Oxford conferences are going very well' and had gained 'international interest'." I would not be opposed to this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
One additional thought - perhaps this sentence should go in the "Conferences" section; after all, it doesn't really fit the category of "Criticism and Litigation". cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

PigeonPiece, why don't you admit where you actually found it? It obviously is not on the Internet.Academic38 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support Nomoskedasticity's suggestion. It should go in one of the first two paragraphs in the "Conferences" section. I am not opposed to using material from that article, but it is not a response to the controversy. And I would like to see the article.Academic38 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me currently. I will place the material in the article. PigeonPiece (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the information that was in discussion about the organization raising money itself. That information is not clarified correctly and should reflect the text better. More discussion is needed and a consensus should be reached. I am not in agreement.PigeonPiece (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your objection is no clearer now than it was before. In what respect does it not "reflect the text"? How is it "not clarified correctly"? What are the "implications" that you were concerned about? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, but we already had an WP:RFC on adding Nomoskedasticity's sentence, and the outside editor agreed that it could be added.Academic38 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the outside comment? I do not think it reflects the text accurately; that is my only complaint. I will review what the other editor wrote, but I am still not in agreement. PigeonPiece (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment is a little bit below the light bulb two sections up.Academic38 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ORT contributor

Pigeonpiece - I can't figure out which you are - must be either Karen Price or Shenette Campbell Alexander. Which is it? 143.167.40.86 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic38, are you perhaps a clone of Pairdox, Academic2007, Nomoskedasticity, Drstones ? Do you happen to go by the street name Sloane Mahone ?130.126.128.166 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well well: a nice ip address. One that makes it clear that pigeonpiece is Kate Kemball. Thanks for that. Very usefull! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.198.107.109 (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I have no idea who Kate Kemball is.. For that matter, I have no idea who those other people are either. I ignored the first comment because it seemed ridiculous, but now it shows me that people are really, truly out to get ORT and they post on this forum as well as the 'Chronicle' forum, which is one of the reasons I believe it holds no merit. My IP address would never match a Kate Kemball and that can be researched, since you have so much time and speculation. I'm sorry this page wasn't deleted before; it's obviously a playground for the petty. Geez.. comment on ways to make the page better, no WP:NPA. PigeonPiece (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea who any of the individuals are, yet you have a burning interest to edit this article in ways to make the ORT look better, you are an SPA, you know about an unsearchable 1993 Times article about the ORT, and now you know what has been filed with Illinois Secretary of State even before it's published. 130.126.128.166 is the IP address of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (uiuc.edu): no wonder you knew about the old ORT webpage at faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/falexndr/privatecolleges/1991.html. It is pretty obvious you have inside information about the ORT, whether you want to declare your COI or not.Academic38 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: "Citations and External Links Policy"

Request for comment regarding the WP:EL and the 'Chronicles for Higher Education' external link. 'Chronicles for Higher Education' violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Comments? PigeonPiece (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle Forums thread on the Oxford Round Table is explicitly cited in this article, so it certainly makes sense to have it available as an external link for the reader. Furthermore, the CHE thread was the subject of an article in Times Higher Education on 21 December 2007, stating that the Oxford Round Table had come under fire from academics. Thus, a reliable source that is an authority on higher education takes the thread seriously, despite the fact that it is obviously anonymous. PigeonPiece suggests above that there is no way of knowing that the posters to the CHE thread are academics. It strains credibility to think that a thread in a forum set up by an academic publication, for academics, specifically addressing an academic issue is drawing a bunch of comments from non-academics. It defies common sense. A truck driver would have no interest in the Oxford Round Table nor the background to make a meaningful comment about it. The vast majority of posters in the thread have track records comparable to a WP list of an editor's contributions, making it easy to see that they are indeed academics. By contrast, the posters in that thread who are essentially SPAs at the Chronicle Forums are people defending the ORT. In fact, PigeonPiece is essentially an SPA trying to make the Oxford Round Table look better, something we can see beginning with PigeonPiece's very first edit and continuing to the present.Academic38 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see below. I cannot agree that unknown individuals can be cited as authority figures on the Oxford Round Table and that these unknown individuals' forum page should be linked to this Wikipedia page. PigeonPiece (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, no forum page is being cited as an authority (reference) on this article. As for external links, let's recall a distinction between policies and guidelines, a distinction PigeonPiece made here when it seemed to suit his/her purposes and now would apparently like to overlook. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dont know exactly what you are referring to citing that strand. PigeonPiece (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: "External Link Inquiry"

I believe that the 'Chronicles' link violates WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Another editor does not believe so. Your input is greatly appreciated. PigeonPiece (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


The CHE discussion linked to is their blog. Normally we would not include it, but I think this is an exception. It contains over a hundred well-informed comments by the sort of people who would know about it and are accustomed to responsibility in their writing. DGG (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to give the reason that you think this link should be avoided? There doesn't appear to be one. Dlabtot (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DGG says, "The CHE discussion linked to is their blog." That's exactly the reason it should be removed. People also keep stating the 'Chronice' blog is frequented by people who 'know what they are talking about.' There is no way to prove that. I was able to sign up to use that page and I have never been to an ORT event or been invited to one. This Wikipedia page is redirecting people to a page that can be posted on by anyone and that is probably the reason that Wikipedia cites those links as unreliable.

In answer to Dlabtot's question regarding 'why': It is a blog, started by a person who may or may not have authority on the subject. It is also a discussion forum, which is stated as a 'link to be avoided.' Please read the rules before asking these questions; I do not feel I need to do so much outlining when the reasons are laid out perfectly by Wikipedia;) Please see the External Links page and look under 'Links to be Avoided.' Please read number 10 and 11; they characterize the nature of the 'Chronicle' blog. PigeonPiece (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If PigeonPiece considers that the forum participants on the CHE site have *thousands* of other posts throughout other discussion threads on that site, on areas relevant to professors, I think you can hardly dispute that those discussions are populated by academics. It's called circumstantial evidence. True, you might question how professionals have the time to spend on that board, what with the demands of teaching and research, but really, you have to be ignoring every bit of evidence to claim that the CHE forum participants are truck drivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athoughtforyou (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy seems clearly against the inclusion of this link. Since the discussion at the link is referenced in the citation in the 'Criticism and litigation' section, it seems redundant as well. Dlabtot (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The "policy" WP:LINKSTOAVOID starts out as follows: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" and then it lists examples which include discussion forums. The link to the CHE discussion forum about the Oxford Round Table clearly falls within the exception (i.e, it is a link to the Chronicle of Higher Education forum page that is the subject of the ORT wikipedia article?) Athoughtforyou —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot, I'm afraid you are mistaken in referring to this as a policy. As PigeonPiece noted here, there is a difference between policies and guidelines. This one is a guideline, not a policy. This is no doubt why DGG felt it possible to contemplate an exception in this case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot, if redundancy were a criterion, we would not have links to the subject of articles! External links are there for the convenience of the reader, and as I stated in my detailed comments in the previous section, it makes sense for the reader to be able to go directly to a discussion forum that is explicitly referred to in the article. Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's actually not true that there is a link in the text. The CHE itself is wikified - there is a link to the Wikipedia page on the Chronicle itself - but there is no link in the text to the discussion forum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I meant to say that it was a convenience for the reader to have an external link to the thread that is explicitly discussed in the article.Academic38 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
everyone knows what a blog is, and what it is not. Linking to it doesnt mean we endorse every varying opinion there. It's the most accessible general public informed discussion on the subject I know, & therefore constitutes a unique resource on the subject. DGG (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether the link is there for convenience or not, that has no relevance. The link violates Wikipedia and unless someone can argue how it does not violate the policy, I will need to remove it. The subject does not need to be linked to a mentioned thread, especially when the website 'CHE' is already linked and the 'discussion forum'/'blogged started by whomever' violates 'External Link' rules. I will remove it soon and if someone wishes to place it back on there, they are not following Wikipedia rules. Please do not mention again that you can verify that authorities are blogging on that page; you have no proof, just speculation!!!!!!PigeonPiece (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I said above about why this doesn't violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID guideline? It falls within the exception that the guideline starts out with? Do you disagree with that, and how? Athoughtforyou (talk —Preceding comment was added at 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
PP, you created this RfC, and now you propose to ignore the view expressed by a long-standing and well-respected editor. Hardly a wise approach for an SPA, wouldn't you agree? And darling, please stop ignoring the distinction between a policy and a guideline, a distinction you well understood as evident here when it appeared to suit your purposes. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Athoughtforyou, please explain what exception this falls under? PigeonPiece (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

maintaining the spirit of proving a link to a unique outside resource that provides the best available source of information on the subject. I know its unfortunate for those who are trying to defend the importance of this organisation to find that such a link provides information that they are not quite all they have proposed themselves to be, but that's the way it is with information DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC) it shows what it shows, not what one may want it to show. DGG (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding New Officers Link

Everything is on file with the State of Illinois. Please feel free to locate. PigeonPiece (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say since you're in Illinois. However, it is not in the link you give. I'm looking at the Corporation File Detail Report at the source you give (Illinois Sec. of State) and no officers are listed. If you don't put up something verifiable I'm afraid it will have to be deleted.Academic38 (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can pay $6.00 to have a certificate of good standing sent to you with the information on it. You can also use that page to search 'Oxford Round Table.'PigeonPiece (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And when you search for 'Oxford Round Table' and then click on 'Oxford Round Table, Inc. NFP', the result is a page that gives empty fields for President and Secretary (and no field at all for Treasurer). Very straightforward. This information is not in the source provided; it is therefore unsourced. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why the Oxford Round Table does not have that info up there, but you can purchase a certificate of good standing and the information will be present on there. PigeonPiece (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where do these interesting sources keep coming from?

The new reference for the addition today by PigeonPiece, here, raises yet again the question of PigeonPiece's association with the Oxford Round Table. The reference is to the introduction of Vol15/#4 of the Journal of Education Finance: www.journalofeducationfinance.com/toc/tocintrovol15no4.html (web link). Now, with a reference of that form, one might expect to find that similar references would work for introductions to other issues of that journal. But: at this moment, www.journalofeducationfinance.com/toc/tocintrovol15no3.html (web link) doesn't work, nor does www.journalofeducationfinance.com/toc/tocintrovol15no2.html (web link) or www.journalofeducationfinance.com/toc/tocintrovol16no4.html (web link).

The question is, how does User:PigeonPiece know about this web page? The Journal of Education Finance is edited by Kern Alexander, the founder of the Oxford Round Table. I think that someone who works for that journal has created a web version of the intro to 15:4 for the express purpose of acting as a source for this Wikipedia page and has fed that information to PigeonPiece. The reference for the source works fine for the information PigeonPiece has added - but this nonsense of PigeonPiece pretending not to be associated with ORT should really come to an end here. Notice now posted at Conflict of interest noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One more point: this web page (added as a source today by PigeonPiece) is so new that it hasn't even been picked up by Google yet. Do a search on any significant text string in Google - you won't find the new web page in the results (in fact, you won't get any results at all). (Soon, of course, it will be picked up by Google - but as of today it isn't.) Question: how does PigeonPiece know about this web site? Answer: not by virtue of having performed a normal internet search. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)