Talk:B. Joseph White
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Image
I added the B. Joseph White image. I found it on the Argonne National Laboratory website. I belive this is in the public domain. Also, feel free to edit the text in the image box. I'm not sure if the text I added is appropriate.H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Comment
Members of the University of Illinois Office for University Relations have made edits that would benefit from outside review. -- Upholder (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree with your edits. Perhaps White has too much unflattering press on this page, but it deserves to be on the page regardless of personal views. I am open to seeing more information on his tenure at Illinois and Michigan (both as President and as Dean) that may provide a more holistic view. If the other editor would like to do this, we can monitor his or her edits for NPOV.H.al-shawaf (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I concur as well. I do not believe the Relations Office has authority to supress sourced information. If it has a complaint or wishes to engage in dialogue, it should post it here. As for the unflattering press, I can only suggest to White that he come clean on these issues. But sending goons to make edits not in good faith is not the answer, and does nothing to enhance his reputation. HoundofBaskersville (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] U of I OUR
I think there's a role for the OUR on wikipedia as long as your conflicts are appropriately disclosed. Your edits on Illinois articles would require 3rd party review. Also, I wouldn't mind help finding U of I related sources and media.H.al-shawaf (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Letter and spirit of Wiki
Upholder's version of the B. Joseph White article violates the letter and spirit of Wiki rules of bios of living persons. Three proofs:
1. Factual inaccuracy: Upholder states that the U of I Board of Trustees and White received a "Worsty Award" from the Illinois Press Association. Check the news release from the article hyperlink. You won't find White mentioned.
2. Neutral point of view, the overriding "do no harm" policy in dealing with bios of living people. Can anyone read Upholder's article and think he maintains a neutral point of view? Here's what I wrote about White and the Chief controversy:
"In February 2007, University of Illinois Board of Trustees Chairman Lawrence Eppley announced an end to the Urbana-Champaign campus tradition of Chief Illiniwek.[1]| The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had sanctioned the Urbana campus’ intercollegiate athletics program under a 2005 NCAA policy regarding use of Native American imagery by member institutions. The U of I board and White weathered criticism from both pro- and anti-Chief factions on the decision and the manner in which it was made. Trustees formally voted to end the Chief Illiniwek tradition at their March 2007 meeting."
Compare to Upholder's version, and see which comes off as neutral.
3. Poor sourcing (at best): Does anyone think that linking the infamous "get over it" to a first-person Daily Illini (student newspaper) column by a long-time public Chief supporter is "verification"? The point of (good) sourcing is to corroborate the article's claim(s). The views of a partisan don't meet that standard. Right?
Full disclosure. I work for U of I public affairs (Office for University Relations). My job is seeing the university represented well and fairly. I strive to write "down the middle." All I'm asking here is to play by the rules of the Wiki game for the good of a great university. Uoiour 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have not stated anything. I've done my level best to clean up the article. If you check the history, I think you'll be able to tell quite easily that the information was in the article before any of my edits or otherwise added by other people. All I have done is copy edit and provide citations where possible. With regards to your specific concerns above: 1) that does appear to be the case upon further review of the citation and I will not dispute the removal further. 3) While I believe that the quote is accurate considering the coverage on WDWS radio, I have also removed it and added a quote provided to CBS news. -- Upholder (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Much better re. Chief decision. I took the U of M interim president out of lede as President White's current position is more germane, and the interim prez position is covered again in the third graf anyway. Look at it this way: Do you want U of M mentioned before U of I? Uoiour Uoiour (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have stated on my user page that I am an Illini. That's my disclosure to everyone who edits this page. However, I think what White did as Dean of Ross (I hear great things) and as interim-President of Michigan is very important to this article. It probably doesn't deserve as much attention as his Illinois tenure, but it's important nonetheless.
- Also, when you justified your edits, it was hard to contest. As a general rule, when you make significant edits, the edits should be discussed first.H.al-shawaf (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
THere are some serious concerns I have with Uoiour's interpretation of the living bio's policy.
1. "Do no harm" does not completely recuse criticism of a living person so long as it is sourced. Also, the policy is to prevent personal attacks against said person. It is not to be used to as an excuse to wipe criticism of the person's official position. It is one thing, quite obviously, to remove (i.e.) a claim that a person kicks their dog. However, the material in this article is controversy concerning White's official policy as President of the University. The destinction, as I'm sure you can see, is quite important.
2. If poor sourcing is the problem of a certain section, then let us examine that section. Rather than do that, uoiour, you used it as an excuse to remove all objectional material, including the criticism of the Global Campus project, which if you will examine more closely, is well sourced. In which case, it ends up coming off as a attempt to whitewash White by the propaganda arm of the University. HoundofBaskersville (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
I was trying to correct some things in the image box and somehow made the mug shot disappear. How do I put mug back in? Uoiour Uoiour (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The image is the full name, changing it to B. pointed it at a non-existent image. I reverted that part of the change. -- Upholder (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Initial question
What's the "B" stand for? Usually an article will tell us the full name in the first sentence, even if the article title does not.
-
- Bernard, however, he goes by "Joe".H.al-shawaf (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thinking that through, there are probably a few ways we can improve the article by finding a source that cites his first name, creating redirects, and editing disambiguation pages.H.al-shawaf (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
