Talk:William Chace

Disclosure

I, the creator of this article, am personally acquainted with the subject of the article, William Chace. Of the several articles I have created this is my third article on a subject whom I personally know (one being on a book by someone I know).

I believe that in best possible faith I have avoided WP:Conflict of interest and have appropriately sourced everything. I steered away from an area of controversy by omission. Others are welcome to add to the article in accordance with WP guidelines.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed Material

The recently deleted material might have a place in the article on Emory University, but not here.

Although the troubling and unethical behavior of Emory occurred in part during the tenure of William Chace as president, if the article cited makes no mention of Chace at all than including it here in an example of WP:Synthesis and as such constitutes in the eyes of Wikipedia WP:Original Research, because sources are being combined in a novel way.

The relevant section from WP guidelines reads (emphasis added)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

The cited source simply names Emory University without naming William Chace. Nothing is said one way or the other as to whether Chace was implicated. An earlier version of the edit overtly states was "Chace was not implicated". That's clearly OR as Chace isn't mentioned at all. The more subtle tactic of removing this sentence and simply adding in parentheses the relevant years that Chace was president so that the reader can conclude this happened during Chace's tenure does not solve the problem, because it implies indirectly questions should be raised about Chace. Unless a source discussing this issue mentions William Chace by name, it shouldn't go here.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No O.R. or violation of Synthesis rules is involved here. If U.S. News had published an article reporting that Emory had progressed from 2001 to 2011 to become today a world class research university held in the same regard as the upper reaches of the Ivy League, you would have had no problem citing the report in the Chace Wiki article and noting that the first three years of this period occurred during Chace's tenure. Your objection is that the news is negative.

The Wiki article itself states that Chace was the President of Emory from 1994 to 2003: "He left Stanford to be President of Wesleyan University from 1988-1994, and subsequently become president of Emory University from 1994 until 2003." Thus, no "subtle tactic" was employed or need be employed "so that the reader can conclude this happened during Chace's tenure." No material from multiple sources was used to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This simply is not a question of O.R. or Synthesis. Nor does the factual statement deleted by you "[imply] indirectly [that] questions should be raised about Chace." It is a fact that the intentional, continual misrepresentation of ranking data occurred, in part, during Chace's presidency.

During Chace's tenure, certain positive events occurred some of which are discussed in the Wiki article: "During his tenure at Emory, the University experienced a tremendous growth as a research institution. Emory also invested $1 billion dollars in campus renovation....Emory also worked towards making the campus environmentally sound and encouraging diversity in the student body." (The only cite for all of this is apparently Emory's recitation of Chace's tenure, not a third party cite; and in that cite most of these positive matters are referred to as, for example, matters that occurred "in the years of Bill Chace's tenure".)

Similarly, during Chace's tenure, certain negative events occurred. There was no valid basis, therefore, for deleting the following statement:

"Also, during the last three years of Chace's tenure at Emory (2000–2003) and for the eleven year period from 2000 through 2011, the University intentionally provided false admission data to U.S. News & World Report and the U.S. Department of Education. According to U.S. News, in a report dated August 17, 2012, ' Emory University acknowledged today that it had intentionally supplied incorrect ranking data, including average SAT scores, ACT scores, and high school class standing of incoming freshmen, to U.S. News from 2000 through 2011. ' ' The school also misreported the same data on other surveys, including to the U.S. Department of Education and many other publishers, such as College Board and Peterson's. We deplore the long-standing misreporting which Emory made public today, but we're encouraged that the university disclosed it....' "

The sole purpose of the parenthetical reference "(2000–2003)" is to re-emphasize from the foregoing Wiki description of Chace's entire tenure (1994–2003) that this conduct occurred when it did. However, the parenthetical was not and is not necessary to the statement (given the four corners of the Wiki article) and could be deleted.

I have no dog in this "hunt for so-called objectivity". If you persist, I will desist given that you want to keep out the bad news (not because there is any violation of O.R., Wiki Synthesis rules or any other Wiki rule or policy). 69.120.203.168 (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

New insert

You are correct as you state in your edit sum that I didn't catch the last sentence. As noted below, I reported to BLP rather than to conflict resolution board. Comments below otherwise stand.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not second-guess the motives of other editors!!! Argue the edit, not the editor!!! See WP:FOC. As a matter of fact, contrary to what you allege if as you hypothesize Emory had excelled in sports during Chace's tenure, and the sources had not mentioned Chace by name, then NO!!! I would not have mentioned that in the article!!!

First of all, I will freely admit there is negative material available in print and online about William Chace (including in at least one other Wikipedia article) which I did not include here. (There's an old 60 Minutes story in which Chace doesn't look good.) I felt that if other folks added it to the article and obeyed the proper WP rules about neutral point of view, reliable sourcing, etc. then that would be fine and I would let it go. I contemplated adding negative material in the interests of appearing more "objective", but felt it better to leave it alone (given that as declared above I do have conflict of interest on this article.) I frankly thought that a brief weaselly mention of said negative material would be worse than omitting it- just let others deal with it if they feel it is worth mentioning.

However,...both the material which I omitted and the positive material mentioned here are from sources that mention Chace by name directly attributing both negatives and positives about Emory to William Chace!!!! As no outside source has attributed the malfeasance of Emory to either the negligent oversight failure or to malicious behavior on the part of William Chace, one way or the other, to include the material here simply on the basis of the dates involved is quite certainly an example of WP:SYNTHESIS. The issue is not whether events occurred during Chace's presidency- the issue is whether the sources about the events mention William Chace!!!

See also Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons especially WP:BLPCRIME and WP:WELLKNOWN especially the clause, " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

As I do in fact have conflict of interest here (as declared above), if you insist on putting this in, it needs to be taken quickly to the WP conflict resolution board. If you restore it again, I will take this to dispute resolution. You are also free to report me to the conflict of interest noticeboard, but usually conflict of interest violations involve added material which is overtly a promotional puff piece (often about a minor figure) or propagandistic for a political position, or something that constitutes an advertisement for a product!--WickerGuy (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

THis has now been reported to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#William_Chace--WickerGuy (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I did argue the edit. Your focus on the hypothetical secondary (secondary given that the hypo is theoretical only and does not exist in fact) adds nothing to your argument in chief which boils down to: The source does not mention Chace by name and therefore cannot be used here. Who was President of Emory from 2000 to 2003? The quoted matter in my edit simply validates the indisputable fact that the conduct described by U.S. News occurred during part of the Chace tenure. The quoted clause referenced by you does not support your argument. 69.120.203.168 (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.203.168 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're talking about my citations from the BLP policy or from the synthesis policy. I think that latter (which I quoted earlier) carries far more weight here. You have "boiled down" as you put it my argument quite correctly. It is true that misconduct at Emory occurred during Chace's tenure. This is not mentioned by the source, though it is deducible by the numbers. No one has (yet) implicated Chace yet in any wrongdoing, though you are at least insinuating either negligence, nonfeasance or malfeasance on Chace's part by inserting the material here in a way that no outside source (yet) has done. Watergate belongs in an article on Richard Nixon because other reliable sources have insinuated a connection. The suicide of Vince Foster is not discussed in the article on Bill Clinton since only fringe conspiracy theorists think there is a connection between the two. The criterion on WP:SYNTHESIS clearly says you are to neither "reach or imply" a conclusion not stated by any of the sources. The added material patently violates that criterion. Finally, under BLP WP:GRAPEVINE says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)" In this case the conjecture is implied rather than spelled out, but remains present. The burden of proof is on the sources to show that this is relevant to a biography of William Chace not just an article on Emory.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William Chace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131225081153/http://www.cha.uga.edu/news/Spring2010.pdf to http://www.cha.uga.edu/news/Spring2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)